I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, considering that it is many years since the Channel Fleet visited the Tyne, he will endeavour to arrange for it to visit that river during the coming autumn.

The autumn programme of movements for His Majesty's ships in home waters has not yet been arranged, but the feasibility of acting on the hon. Member's proposal for a visit to be paid to the Tyne will be duly considered when making out the programme.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the regiments, batteries, and battalions proceeding to India during the next trooping season, also those regiments, batteries, and battalions which will be called upon to furnish drafts.

The following regiments, batteries, and battalions will proceed to India during the next trooping season:—

• 13th Hussars.
• 19th, 20th, and 28th batteries of Field Artillery.
• 62nd, 64th, 77th, and 81st Companies of Garrison Artillery.
• 2nd battalion Royal Fusiliers.
• 2nd battalion Cheshire Regiment.
• 1st battalion Royal Irish Regiment.
• 1st battalion Highland Light Infantry.
• 1st battalion Manchester Regiment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has had any report furnished to him as to the circumstances under which William Hill, of Fenton, a private in the 4th battalion North Staffordshire Militia, was shot at Lichfield last week; and what step he proposes to take to prevent similar accidents occurring in the future, by keeping ball cartridges separate from the dummies supplied for musketry drills.

No report of this matter has reached the War Office. I am inquiring into the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a sum of £3, with an additional charge of £1, is imposed on every candidate for Sandhurst previous to the examination; what is the object of this impost; and who receives the money.

The fee for such examination in London is £2 and at any other centre £3. This fee is fixed by the Civil Service Commissioners under Order in Council. The object of an examination fee is to meet examination expenses. The money is paid to the Inland Revenue through the medium of stamps and is paid subsequently into the Exchequer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of new guns will be completed for India in the present financial year, and whether that will represent the entire number required; what number it is proposed to complete for the British Army in the next financial year, and at what cost; and what number will remain to be completed, and at what cost, in the financial year ending 31st March, 1907, when nearly the whole re armament, together with a large number of reserve batteries, are to be finished.

Twenty-one batteries will be completed for India in the present year, this being the number demanded by the Indian Government. It is not possible to state at present what their future demands will be. It is at present contemplated that fifty-four batteries will be completed for the British Army in the next financial year at a cost of £1,300,000. Seventy-six batteries will then remain to be completed for the British Army in the financial year ending 31st March, 1907, at a cost of £1,850,000, of which sum £550,000 would not be paid until 1907–8.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to inform the House as to whether three men have been arrested in the Transvaal on a charge of conspiracy to murder Lord Milner, or any such charge, and whether one of them has been already deported by the police; and, if so, can he state whether the one so deported is a British subject, and, if so, upon what grounds and by what law he was deported; and whether it is intended to bring the others to trial.

I have not yet received any information from Lord Milner on the subject. I will inquire by despatch.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the beri-beri outbreak was first reported in this country more than a week ago, he can explain the causes of delay in receiving news from South Africa, and now give the House full information on the subject.

I gave the House yesterday all the information which I have so far received on the subject. The contents of the telegram from Lord Milner which I read yesterday appear to me to show that Lord Milner and his medical advisers do not regard the occurrence of this not uncommon disease as involving any very special difficulty. This accounts for his not having treated the matter as one demanding urgent communication home.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received from Lord Milner any explanation of his failure to answer the cable?

I have answered that Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has received to the explanation called for from Sir Arthur Lawley regarding the statement made by him, on the 18th May last, that the decision of the Supreme Court of the Transvaal, confirming the trading rights of British-Indian subjects there, will not be tolerated; whether the reply explains why Sir Arthur Lawley made such a statement without the knowledge or sanction of the Secretary of State or Lord Milner; and will he place the Papers relating to this subject on the Table of the House.

I have now before me a verbatim report of Sir A. Lawley's speech on this occasion, which I will send to my hon. friend. He will find that he has been misinformed as to its contents, and that the statement attributed to Sir A. Lawley was never made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Annual Report for 1903 of the Protector of Indian Immigrants in Natal that there had occurred in that year no fewer than thirty-one cases of suicide, being at the rate of 741 per 1,000,000; if he is aware that eight of these cases occurred among the free Indian community numbering 51,259, whereas twenty-three were those of the indentured class numbering 30,131, showing that the indentured labourers committed suicide in an overwhelmingly large proportion; and, if so, can he say whether the local authorities have been able to trace the causes to which this voluntary destruction of life is due; and, if not, will he at once order an inquiry to be made by an independent Commission into the matter.

I have seen the Report referred to. The rate per 1,000,000 among Indians generally appears to be, from the figures given, 382 per 1,000,000 and not 741 as stated in the Question, the rate among free Indians and indentured Indians being 157 and 766 respectively. The Report states: A magisterial inquiry is made into the circumstances attending each case of suicide, and whenever the evidence tends to show that the fatality in any way resulted from ill-treatment received from an employer or employé, I make a personal visit to the estate and inquire myself into the circumstances. In one instance, and one only, did the evidence tend in this direction, but my own inquiry did not confirm this suspicion. Generally speaking witnesses state that they can give no reason for the suicide, and, if those who are supposed to know decline to give any information, it is impossible in many cases to arrive at even a probable cause. I may say that the general rate among Natal Indians in 1902 appears to have been 333, and in 1901 383, so that the rate for the year 1903 is not altogether exceptional. This rate has been exceeded in Paris. I am not at present able to compare the rate with that which obtains among Asiatic races generally, and I understand that there are no returns of suicide in India. In any case I do not see that on the facts there is any ground for taking the unusual course suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the total annual expenditure by the Maltese Government Department of Charitable Institutions, including hospitals; how much of this is contributed by the War Office and by the Admiralty respectively; are the military and naval hospitals open to civilians; has he considered the advisability of placing all the hospitals under one central authority; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of placing the civil charitable institutions under the control of a Maltese local government board elected by the taxpayers who support these institutions.

The total expenditure of the Maltese Government Department of Charitable Institutions, including hospitals, is estimated in the Colonial Estimates for 1904–5 at £56,337,14,10. None of this expenditure is contributed by the War Office or the Admiralty. The military and naval hospitals are not under ordinary circumstances open to civilians. I have not had under my consideration the questions referred to in the last part of the hon. Member's Question, and I am not aware of any sufficient reasons for modifying existing arrangements.

As neither the War Office nor the Admiralty make any contributions to this expenditure, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of allowing the people of Malta to look after their own hospitals for which they pay?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the explanation of the increase in the ordinary expenditure of Northern Nigeria from £62,579 in 1900–1901 to £482,889 in 1903–4; what proportion of this expenditure is for armed forces and what is the nature and object of any military expeditions that are now going on; and whether, in view of the amount of the local revenue and of the commerce of the country, and of the fact that the expenditure of last year has been met by a contribution of £50,000 from Southern Nigeria and a Parliamentary grant of £405,000, he can see his way to undertake that immediate efforts will be made to reduce this outlay.

The ordinary expenditure of Northern Nigeria in 1903–4 is estimated at £382,889, not £482,889. As shown in the statement presented to Parliament (Cd. 2101) the expenditure of £62,579 in 1900–1 does not include expenditure amounting to £145,400 on the West African Frontier Force in that year. The expenditure on the Force in 1903–4 is estimated at £167,591 out of the total of £382,889, leaving £215,398 as the estimated ordinary civil expenditure. The reasons for the increase of expenditure are explained in Sir Frederick Lugard's Annual Reports which have been presented to Parliament. No military expeditions are now going on. The local revenue, though expanding, is still very small. No unnecessary expenditure is incurred. It is hoped that the increase of local revenue may admit of a reduction in the grant-in-aid from Imperial funds in future; but no undertaking in the sense suggested by the hon. Member can be given.

; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any objection to let the House know the date and purport of the original and specific Report or communication which induced His Excellency the Governor-General of India in Council, after obtaining the concurrence of the Secretary of State for India, to assume the administration of the Principality of Panna, in Central India, in September, 1901, and to suspend the then Ruling Chief of that State; and, if he has any reasons for refusing to publish such Report or communication, will he state what they are.

The circumstances of the death of the uncle of the late Maharaja of Panna, on the 25th June, 1901, were such that the Agent to the Governor-General ordered the Political Agent to hold a local inquiry without delay. The result of the inquiry was to establish that the deceased had died by poison, and to implicate the then Maharaja in the crime. The report was submitted to the Government of India on the 19th August, 1901, who, on the 1st September, issued the orders referred to by the hon. Member. The views of the Government of India, and the action taken by them on the findings of the Special Commission which was subsequently appointed to investigate the charges judicially, were published in the Gazette of India, in a Resolution dated the 21st April, 1902. As to presenting Papers, I agree with the late Secretary of State in declining to do so. It would not be in the interest of the State itself to publish the details. The facts are sufficiently stated in the Resolution published in the Gazette of India.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if there is a separate department or any special provision for the compilation of statistics in India; and, if so, what is the annual amount expended on the work.

For the compilation of Indian statistics the Government of India maintains a special department; that of the Director-General of Statistics, and the amount expended on this department in the year 1902–3, the last year for which the returns have been made up, is £6,040. These charges are in addition to those incurred on various establishments for gazetteer and statistical memoirs, railway and river traffic statistics, and provincial statistics; the charges for these in the year 1902–3 amounted to £23,629.

Then may I ask my right hon. friend if it is beyond the capacity of a department maintained at so much expense to give the Return regarding labourers in plantations and mines which I asked for on the 14th June?

I stated at the time the reasons which in my opinion made it undesirable to do so.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before granting a charter to any syndicate to control territory in British East Africa, he will lay upon the Table of the House the terms of the proposed grant; and if, before the grant is confirmed by the Foreign Office, an opportunity will be given for the opinion of the House to be taken on the matter; and whether the Government can transfer British territory to a syndicate without the consent of Parliament.

It is not proposed to grant to any syndicate a charter enabling them to control territory in British East Africa.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Messrs. Houlder Brothers, shipowners, and owners of the ss. "Southern Cross," have employed a man named Bethel at Antwerp to engage and supply 35 sailors and firemen for the steamer "Southern Cross," which is at present lying in the port of the Tyne; and, if so, whether he can state the nationality of those seamen, if they, are able to speak the English language, and the wages these men are to receive per month; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act with regard to the engagement and supply of crews to British ships by persons not licensed by the Board of Trade, he intends to take any action in the matter; and whether he is aware that there is a large number of sailors and firemen unemployed at the Tyne ports.

From the inquiries which I have caused to be made it appears that twenty-eight seamen were engaged at the Consulate General at Antwerp to serve on the "Southern Cross," but it is not clear that Bethel was concerned in the supply of the men. Of the twenty-eight men engaged I understand that six were Germans, one an Austrian, one belonged to the United States, three were Dutch, one Danish, two Swedish, two French, three Greek, seven Belgian, one Italian, and one Spanish. It is reported that they had a fair knowledge of English, and all but three produced certificates of discharge showing service in British vessels. The wages of the eight A.B's were £3 5s., a month, of the eighteen firemen £3 15s. and of the two deck boys £1 a month. Upon the information before me I doubt whether the engagement of the men at Antwerp constitutes an infringement of the provisions of Section 111 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, but the Board of Trade are being legally advised upon the point.

And could not sailors have been obtained at the port from whence the vessel sailed?

I have no reason to think they could not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state approximately the value of the licensed premises to which the Bill before the House applies; the maximum capitalised amount that could be raised by quarter sessions for the purpose of closing specified licensed premises; the approximate extra value that would be given to the licensed premises remaining by the decreased contribution and by the absolute fixity of tenure secured for a long period.

I find it extremely difficult to understand the precise meaning of the various parts of the Question: but, so far as I can see, it is impossible to produce any useful figures such as the hon. Member appears to desire.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that while there is no swine fever in the North of Scotland, the Board of Agriculture has brought pressure to bear on the local authorities of the city and county of Aberdeen and counties of Banff and Kincardine to pass a swine fever order, forbidding the movement of swine into or out of their districts except under restrictions, and that these local authorities have, under pressure from the Board, passed such orders; and, if so, will he state the necessity for such orders; and whether, in view of their effect upon the swine trade in these districts, steps will be taken for their reconsideration.

The regulations referred to by the hon. Member were adopted by the local authority on the suggestion of the Board, and they have for their object the protection of the county against the introduction of infection from outside. They do not impose restrictions upon the movement of swine out of the district, and are on the lines of those which in many parts of Great Britain have been found by experience to combine a minimum of restraint upon trade with a maximum of effectiveness against disease. Indeed, it is to their general adoption that the present improved position with regard to swine fever must be largely attributed. The necessity for some such local protective measures, especially in counties themselves free from infection, is well shown by the case of another Scotch county—Ayrshire—where in the absence of efficient regulations no fewer than forty-nine outbreaks of swine fever have recently occurred owing to the introduction of a consignment of swine from England. There is no objection on our part to counties with a clean bill of health combining together to adopt the same regulations and so widening the area in which free movement is allowed. An arrangement of this character will, we understand, be adopted by Aberdeenshire and the adjoining counties.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the amount received annually by the clerk of the peace for the city of Belfast for the registration of the 649 licences to sell beer and spirits in that city amounts to £81 2s. 6d., or since 1874 £2,433 15s., which first-named sum is made up by his charging a fee of 2s. 6d. for each licence; and whether he will state the purpose to which these fees are devoted. I beg also to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the clerks of the peace for the county of Antrim and the city of Belfast are in receipt of a fee on the annual renewal of a publican's licence; and, if so, under what statute are such fees authorised; and whether, under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act of 1874 the payment of any fees whatever in respect to renewal of a licence to sell spirits or beer is prohibited.

I believe the average annual sum received in respect of fees on licences by the clerk of the peace for Belfast in recent years amounts to about £81. I am unable to ascertain what the fees amounted to so far back as 1874. These fees are, under the provisions of the 10th Section of the Licensing Act of 1833, as amended by the 15th Section of the Licensing Act of 1874, received and retained by him as part of the emoluments of his office and especially in respect of his labour in keeping a register of licensed traders. Section 17 of the Act of 1874 deals with an entirely different matter, namely, the fee paid to the petty sessions clerk on the granting by the justices of their certificates. When the offices of Clerk of Peace and Crown are amalgamated the former fees are retained by the revenue officer and paid into the Treasury under the 16th Section of the Revenue Act of 1898.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why twenty-seven constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police have been promoted to the rank of sergeant over the head of Constable T. Whyte, who was their senior and qualified for promotion.

I am informed that this constable was not promoted because he was not considered to be properly qualified for the rank of sergeant. Seniority is an element, but not the determining element, in considering a man's fitness for promotion.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of promoting Constable Whyte to the Custom House Steps staff.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of Amos Palmer Doolan, who was evicted from his farm at Derry MacEdmund, near Shinrone, King's county, his yearly rent being £142; whether he is aware that the agent became tenant of the evicted holding on the 25th September, 1903, at the yearly rent of £72; and, if so, can he state when Doolan made application to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement, and with what result; and whether, seeing that the landlord, J. H. Lloyd, has agreed to sell this estate to the occupying tenants, the Estates Commissioners, before sanctioning advances for purchase, will fully investigate the facts and take into consideration Doolan's claims.

This property has not yet come before the Estates Com- missioners. The evicted tenant named in the Question has applied for reinstatement, and his application will be duly considered.

Is it the case that the agent of the estate now occupies the farm?

I believe that is so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of police at present stationed at Ballingeary; and, seeing that there were only eleven cases from the village tried at petty sessions during the past year, will he explain what necessity now exists for the continuance of this police barrack; and whether the peace of the district could not be efficiently protected from the other barrack in the parish.

A sergeant and four constables. The question of the necessity for the continuance of the barrack is one for determination by the authorities locally responsible for the maintenance of the public peace. These authorities do not consider the barrack can be dispensed with at present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the estate of Mr. G. A. G. Hickson, of Gortullea, county Kerry, who is a middleman under Trinity College, the tenants have been proceeded against for rent at quarter sessions because they refused to agree to the terms of purchase stated by the agent, and that the amount proceeded for includes the hanging gale, which has never hitherto been demanded; and, if so, whether he can do anything to protect these tenants, pending the decision of the Vice-regal Commission appointed to inquire into such cases.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Receiver under the Land Judge on the M'Cartie Estate, in the county of Kerry, on 22nd June, 1904, issued a letter to the tenants stating that the estate would not be sold for eighteen and a-half years purchase, and that an order had been made to proceed against the tenants; and, if so, will he state whether the Estates Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of these estates; and, if not, what steps he proposes to prevent such methods of forcing these tenants into unreasonable bargains.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the tenants on the estate of Mr. F. R. Bateman, Tralee, have paid, from 10th March, 1903, to 18th January, 1904, three gales rent, and have now been prosecuted for a fourth gale within a twelvemonth, and that these proceedings have been instituted for the purpose of forcing the tenants to accept the terms of purchase which Mr. Bateman is demanding; and whether any legislative steps will be taken to protect tenants from such exercise of their powers on the part of landlords.

This is one of three Questions falling within the same category to which it will be more convenient for me to reply together. I have no official information respecting the matters of fact alleged in the first and third Questions. With respect to the first part of the second Question the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court is not aware whether a letter was issued by the Receiver to the tenants in the terms stated. It is the fact, however, that the Land Judge recently made an Order giving the Receiver liberty to proceed for recovery of the rents on the McCartie Estate, which the tenants were withholding. On the general question I have to observe that the Land Purchase Act does not abolish any rights, either of tenants or landlords, in respect of the payment of rent. Legislation to affect these rights would, in my opinion, be most prejudicial to the successful working of land purchase on the lines laid down by the Land Conference. The hon. Members who put these Questions seem to suggest that a landlord should be debarred from suing for money owed to him pending a sale. The obvious objections to such a course must be apparent, if they will consider the opposite case of a number of tenants asking for a reduction on rent pending a sale. Section 13 of the Act of 1881 amply protects tenants from oppressive proceedings for recovery of rent, and Section 10 of the Purchase of Land Act, 1885, confers on the Land Commission all the powers of a Court of Equity to rescind contracts into which one of the parties has been by duress forced to enter In addition to these protections, under the Purchase Act of 1903 an inspection in respect of security is obligatory in the cases of all holdings other than those specified in Section 1, i.e., judical rents inside the zones.

Arising out of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him if it is not a fact that under the Act of last year sales should be voluntary, and whether in this case the landlord is not now using powers he never possessed before in order to induce the tenants to buy?

The hon. Member has not quite seen the purport of my reply. If tenants came in in a batch and said, "We want a reduction of 20 per cent.," that may be described as bringing pressure to bear, but it is far better they should come together amicably.

The right hon. Gentleman says the tenants are protected from aggressive proceedings. Is he aware that in this very district landlords have proceeded against the tenants for the recovery of rents not yet due?

Order, order! I would suggest to hon. Members interested in the Answer that they should see the written Answer. It relates to legal matters.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that part of my Question asking "whether a certain landlord having been paid three gales rent is how proceeding for a fourth in the same twelvemonth?

I did answer that. I said I have no information, and I have no means of information about the particular facts referred to by the hon. Member.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——

Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been answered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have taken any steps to purchase the farm recently put up for sale at Listellick, county Kerry.

The question of the purchase of this property will probably be considered by the Board at its next Meeting on the 15th July.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the conduct of a police constable named Molloy at Coleraine Petty Sessions in a prosecution against a hotel keeper for breach of the licensing laws; whether he is aware that this constable threatened one of the witnesses that whether he would be summoned or not in future would depend on the way he would give his evidence, and that the case was dismissed; and, if so, will he say whether the constable has been censured for his conduct.

The constable used no threat. He stated to one of the witnesses that if he told the truth he might not be summoned. This was an improper observation and the constable has been so informed.

Will this constable be removed from the district?

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to put an end to this systematic persecution of this publican, which has become a matter of public notoriety?

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state what substantial advantages have been received by the Catholic officials of the Veterinary Branch of the Agricultural Department in addition to pension rights; whether the new arrangement carries with it any reduction in salaries; whether he is aware that these officials on their present scale of increment would have served thirteen years before receiving salaries of £2 a week, and that the pension after twenty-six years service and upwards would be only 15s. a week; and whether any effort will be made to improve their position.

The Question presumably refers to some temporary clerks who were employed at weekly rates of pay before they were placed on the permanent establishment of the Department. In addition to pension rights they obtained the advantage of a more secure position, annual increments of salary, and sick leave privileges on full pay. As temporary clerks they were paid at the rate of 35s. a week, which is equivalent to £91 a year; on promotion they were paid an initial salary of £90. A salary of over £2 a week will be reached after six years established service; had they remained on a temporary footing their remuneration would have continued stationary at 35s. a week. No question of religion enters into Departmental promotions, and the Department is at all times ready to consider the claims of its officers for advancement when opportunity arises.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has considered the action of Mr. James Shanks in signing a licence certificate for a canteen situated in the county Wicklow, Mr. Shanks not being a magistrate for that county, and the local magistrates having refused to grant the licence on the ground that the canteen had been conducted in a disorderly manner; and whether he can now state what decision the Lord Chancellor has come to in regard to Mr. Shanks' action.

NO decision has yet been come to. The Lord Chancellor is in correspondence with Mr. Shanks in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the rules regulating the management of parish committees in Kerry have not been published; whether, under those rules, a district councillor who is a shopkeeper, or resides in a shopkeeper's house, or is a relative of a shopkeeper, is not allowed to act on the committee, and, if so, for what reason; whether he will explain the meaning of the word "shopkeeper" and state what classes of men it includes; whether landlords and their agents to whom the small landowners, for whom the scheme is meant, owe arrears of rent are allowed to be members of the committee; and, if so, will he state what is the cause of this difference of treatment.

At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the scheme for parish committees in Kerry is being blocked by the rule debarring district councillors who are shopkeepers from serving on the committees; and whether, in the interest of this scheme, he will at once withdraw this rule.

The rules have been freely supplied to persons locally interested, to members of the committees and to all other persons who have made application for them to the office of the Congested Districts Board. The rule prohibiting a shopkeeper, or a member of his household, from membership of a committee was adopted in the interests of the impartial administration of grants by the committee, the Board being of opinion that persons interested in the sale of materials or goods should not be eligible for membership of a body entrusted with the duty of dealing with applications for grants to enable them to purchase materials or goods. Resident landlords and agents are eligible for membership. They have no direct interest in the sale of materials. The rule in question has hitherto worked satisfactorily and it is not proposed to withdraw it.

asked if it were the fact that the rules were not followed and if, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman would not withdraw them.

replied suggesting that that was unreasonable as the rules were in operation in other parts of Ireland.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state by whose authority the most convenient parts of the Phœnix Park, Dublin, are railed off and preserved for polo and cricket; and whether, seeing that the Phœnix Park is a public park belonging to the citizens of Dublin, he will explain why the members of Sluagh na Heireann, most of whom are school boys, are prevented from playing native games in the Nine Acres; and whether he will consider the advisability of requiring the members of the polo club to go out to the Fifteen Acres.

The duties and powers of the Commissioners of Public Works in respect to the Phœnix Park are conferred by the Statute 23 and 24 Vict, cap. 42. The park is a Royal park and is the property of the Crown. With respect to the remainder of the Question, the hon. Member's attention does not appear to have been directed to my reply to the similar Question on the 16th instant of the hon. Member for the College Green Division.†

Am I to understand from the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Phœnix Park in Dublin is under the control of the Board of Works by statute and is not belonging to the people of Dublin?

I believe that is so. At the same time the citizens in no

†See (4) Debates, cxxxvi., 286.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with a view to arousing a spirit of enterprise in Ireland, he will consider the desirability of putting before the people such object-lessons as a number of small industries in successful operation in various districts; whether he will consider the best means for organising such small industries through the agency of the Agricultural Department; and whether he will take steps to utilise the acquirements of the children about to be trained in technical schools when fit for work, in order to check emigration.

The Department, acting in co-operation with local authorities or associations, has been engaged, for some time past, in conducting experiments of the character indicated. For example, shirt-making at Dundalk and Sligo; straw hat making at Wexford; furniture at Athlone; and hosiery at New Ross, Carlow and Cavan, Experiments of a similar character at Bandon and Clonmel are at present under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state at what price per acre the Congested Districts Board purchased the Kilclooney property, and what sum per acre the Board is asking from the Tuam District Council for the land required to enlarge the Kilclooney burial ground.

The average price of the Kilclooney property was £19 per statute acre, but the best land on the estate, such as that to be sold to the Tuam District Council, is estimated to have cost the Board £45 per statute acre.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Blakeney Estate, Abbert, county Galway, is in the Land Judge's Court; if so, for how long; whether he can state the name of the agent or receiver; whether he has been instructed to take advantage of the Land Purchase Act; and whether he will be directed to supply to the tenants any necessary information to enable them to make an offer for the property.

The position of this estate is being investigated, and I will ask the hon. Member to postpone the Question till Tuesday next.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that five of the Clanricarde tenants at Derrygoolan, Woodford, have been served with notices to quit in consequence of their asserting their right to the game on their lands; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the police shall not be allowed in the future to accompany poachers on the lands, seeing that such proceedings may intimidate the tenants.

This is a case in which two parties assert a right to one and the same incorporeal hereditament, i.e., the shooting. It is for them to prove such rights by due course of law. It is for the police to prevent a breach of the peace. The hon. Member describes one of the parties as "poachers," but that involves the decision of the very matter in dispute.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the tenants on the Rae Estate, Keel, county Kerry, have applied to the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of this estate; whether the beneficial owners have signified their consent to sell; whether the Congested Districts Board have made any offer or taken any steps preliminary to an offer.

Such an application has been made by the tenants, and the Board is in correspondence with the owners.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the traffic accounts of the Buncrana to Cardonagh Railway and the Letterkenny to Burtonport Railway have been settled half-yearly, as provided for by the Orders in Council authorising the construction of said lines; if he can say what has been the gross earnings per mile per week in each half-year of said railways; if not, what has been the cause of delay in settling the accounts; whether the accounts, as furnished by the working company to the Treasury or the Board of Works, have been accepted by them as satisfactory; if not, why have steps not been taken to compel the working company to furnish accurate accounts; and whether he can say what is the available surplus in each available for distribution between the Treasury and the working company after providing for the working expenses.

The accounts of the Burtonport Railway are not made up for the half-years ending 31st March and 30th September, but for half-yearly periods ending 30th June and 31st December in each year. The line was opened on 9th March, 1903, and the first accounts were made up to the 30th June following. The last accounts were for the half-year ended 31st December. The amounts of the gross earnings per mile per week for the period ended 30th June, and for the half-year ended 31st December were, respectively, £3 18s. and £3 14s. 10d., as shown in the printed accounts furnished by the Lough Swilly Company. The surplus of the gross earnings over and above the amount retained by the Lough Swilly Company for working the line, after payment of dividends on guaranteed shares, is £3,530 for the ten months referred to, but certain items in the accounts are in dispute between the Board of Works and the company. Meantime, pending a settlement, the surplus has not yet been apportioned.

asked a further Question about working expenses, but—

said he could add nothing to his Answer.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a letter was posted in Lisnaskea, county Fermanagh, on 23rd April, 1903, by a Mr. McBrien, of Carratistune, Derrylin, addressed to the Earl of Enniskillen, Post Office, Enniskillen, containing four postal orders of 20s. each, numbered 0/75 848,480, 0/75 848,479, 6/76 259,191, and 6/76 259,192, and that neither letter nor orders reached their destination; and, if so, will he investigate this affair with a view of ascertaining how the orders were finally disposed of, and will he direct that the amount be refunded by the Department to the sender.

Representation was made by Mr. Felix McBrien, of Carratistune, Derrylin, that a letter sent by him on 23rd April, 1903, to the Earl of Enniskillen at the Post Office, Enniskillen, had not been delivered. Search was made, but no trace of any such letter could be found. No postal order for 20s. was issued at the Lisnaskea Post Office on the date in question. The orders quoted were issued there on the 22nd April, and I am satisfied from the inquiries which have been made that they are not the orders which Mr. McBrien states were enclosed in the letter described. In the circumstances there are no grounds on which I should be justified in paying the amount to Mr. McBrien.

If I furnish the noble Lord with further particulars, with the numbers, and the handwriting of the postmaster, will it influence him to change his mind?

I shall be most happy to look into the question, but I do not say I will change my mind.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 22nd June the postmaster of Cork permitted Commander Salwey of His Majesty's Coastguards, Kinsale, to visit the interior of the Cork Post Office, the postmaster himself and the telegraph superintendent accompanying him in his tour of the office, and that Commander Salwey distributed religious tracts among the staff on duty; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that over 90 per cent, of the said staff are Catholics, he will state how the parties guilty of this conduct shall be dealt with.

From the inquiry which has been made, I find that while Captain Salwey was being shown the telegraph office at Cork he apparently dropped tracts on the tables and on the floor unnoticed by the postmaster or the acting superintendent who were accompanying him. The tracts were not, it appears, of a controversial character; and though I think Captain Salwey's conduct was indiscreet, I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this malpractice is not pursued in future, seeing that it is most offensive to a large number of employees?

If it had been discovered in time the officials would certainly have stopped it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the distribution of leaflets of this kind, and as to whether it was not done in the company of the postmaster of Cork and the superintendent?

I have said that they were present, but they did not see him dropping the leaflets.

They winked the other eye.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury why, in the official announcement of the list of Birthday honours, has that list been intituled the Prime Minister's List; what is the reason for this new departure in the form of the official announcement, and at whose suggestion and on whose responsibility has it been made; and whether there is any, and, if so, what, precedent for the announcement of the list of Birthday honours as the Prime Minister's List.

There was no official announcement of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I understand that the list of honours was headed in one newspaper in the way suggested, but that is not the ordinary way, and certainly it had no authority from me.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the office of Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture is a Ministerial office, held at the pleasure of the Crown, whose tenure depends on the existence of the Government of which the holder is a member; whether he is aware that the statute constituting the office provides that the person appointed thereto will not, if a Member of the House of Commons, vacate his seat, and will not be required to submit himself for re-election under the provisions of the Place Acts; whether, seeing that it is the duty of the Vice-President of the Agricultural Board to explain and expound in Parliament the policy of that Board, and to answer Parliamentary criticism of that policy on behalf of the Government, that since 1900 the Vice-President of this Board has been without a seat in either House of Parliament, and that the Vice-President himself stated shortly after the general election of 1900 that his absence from Parliament for any considerable time was not compatible with the retention of his office, he will say if there is any, and, if so, what, precedent for the holding by a Minister of the Crown for a period of nearly four years of office without a seat in Parliament; and what action, if any, does he propose to take in this matter.

The first Question is whether the Vice-President of the Irish Board of Agriculture would go out if the Ministry went out. The Answer is in the affirmative. Then the hon. Gentleman asks me whether the seat would be vacated in the ordinary way upon taking office. The answer to that is also in the affirmative. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether there is any precedent for any gentleman who holds Parliamentary office under the Crown not having a seat in this House. Yes, there are many precedents. I am informed that in Mr. Gladstone's and Lord Rosebery's Government of 1892–4 the Attorney-General for Ireland was not in this House, and I have no reason to believe that the life of that Government would have been prolonged if he had been in the House. As regards the quotation from the speech of the Vice-President himself, it is true that he thought, and no doubt thinks, that he could perform his duties better if he were able in this House to deal with the questions that arise in connection with his office. I will be quite frank with the House. When the office was first instituted it was undoubtedly the desire of the Government that the Vice-President should be in this House, and I think it would be more convenient that he should be.

Why do not you give him a seat?

I cannot state too emphatically that in my opinion the special qualifications of Sir Horace Plunkett for the duties which he carries out—duties which, as I am sure every Member of this House will admit, he has undertaken quite apart from ordinary Party politics—and the single-hearted ability which he has thrown into his duties render his case a special one.

asked whether, in view of the Prime Minister's high opinion of the services which Sir Horace Plunkett had rendered, and his opinion that he ought to be in that House, the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to have Sir Horace Plunkett selected as the Conservative candidate for one of the vacant seats.

I believe there are parts of the country where the Leader of the Party settles who shall represent a constituency. I have no such desire.

I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard not only to the inconvenience of short notice, but also to the fact that on all previous occasions when propositions of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman is to make to-morrow have been made longer notice has been given, he seriously proposes to take the notice standing in his name to-morrow.

Yes, Sir, I quite seriously propose it. I do not exactly understand what the right hon. Gentleman's objection is. Of course, if there are difficulties in the way of his marshalling his forces in order to deal with the question, I should sympathise with him. But it is certainly not a question in regard to which elaborate considerations have to be worked out, or on which hon. Gentlemen require time to prepare their speeches.

As I am challenged on the subject I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why we think longer notice is necessary. It is because we look upon this occasion as one of the utmost gravity and because many Members of the House who have business engagements made long ago will find it very difficult to be present tomorrow. Among them is the Leader of the Opposition, who is absent at this moment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, considering that the interests of the country and of this House must necessarily be involved in this matter, whether it would not be in accordance with his sense of due respect to the House of Commons to give longer notice.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a mistake. I have not refreshed my memory with the degree of notice given with regard to the Home Rule Bill, the Evicted Tenants Bill, the Education Bill, or the other Bills to which this process has been applied; but I certainly do not see why the interval which I have given between yesterday and to-morrow is not sufficient to enable hon. Members to make up their minds on the subject.

The right hon. Gentleman did not give notice yesterday. The notice only came to the knowledge of Members of the House this morning when the Papers were delivered. With regard to the Education Bill, the right hon. Gentleman gave notice at the end of a Friday sitting and did not take the Motion until the following Tuesday.

Can the right hon. Gentleman also refresh my memory with regard to the Evicted Tenants Bill?

My recollection is that considerable notice was given.