To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now give the number of accidents caused by motor-cars and by horses and horse-drawn vehicles in the year ended 31st May last. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The figures for the Metropolitan Police District are given in the table below. It is to be noted that in the absence of information as to the total numbers of horses or of the various kinds of vehicles in use, there is no basis for a comparison between the figures. It is not practicable to give similar figures for the rest of the country outside the Metropolitan Police District. Total number of accidents known to the police to have been due to the under-mentioned causes within the Metropolitan Police District during the year ended the 31st May, 1904.

To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will give directions that gravel or sand be placed upon the slippery wood pavement extending from the gateway of Constitution Hill across to the entrance of Hyde Park; and whether he is aware that up till 10 a.m. no such protection is given for drivers or riders crossing the wood pavement. (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The Westminster City Council are responsible for this road, and it would rest with them to provide gravel or sand as suggested.

To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state what has become of a number of bronze lions which were along the line of railings in front of the British Museum, and which were removed to widen the footway. (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) Twelve lions were removed to St. Paul's Cathedral with the concurrence of the Trustees of the British Museum; the remainder are at the Museum, in charge of the Trustees.

To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state what has become of the handsome stone colonnade (classical pillars, monoliths) formerly in front of Burlington House, Piccadilly, and removed by the Department of Works, and say why it is not re-erected in one of the Parks or elsewhere. (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The colonnade is lying in Battersea Park; the question of re-erecting it is now under the consideration of the First Commissioner.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will take steps to have a report made by the inspector now investigating the arrangements for outdoor medical relief in the Metropolis on the number of unions, if any, in which medical relief is granted on loan in the first instance, and on the practice of requiring applicants for medical relief to attend before the Board or a committee, with a statement of how long such practice has been in force and its effects on the number of applications. (Answered by Mr. Waller Long.) I will take steps to give effect to this suggestion as far as may be practicable.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in pursuance of their powers, the Board propose to take action on the lines recommended by the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning in Part VIIIA. of their Report, by the appointment of a special expert officer, or otherwise, for securing better control over the purity of chemically prepared, preserved, or other foods liable to contain deleterious substances; and whether progress has been made in giving effect to the further recommendation of the Royal Commission, that the principle of officially prescribed food standards already enforced in the case of certain articles of diet should be applied to other foods and beverages. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have not at present decided to appoint a special expert officer of the kind referred to. The consideration of the recommendations of the Royal Commission is being proceeded with, and in connection with it the proposal with regard to the appointment of such an officer will receive attention. Effect, however, could not be given to the recommendations as to food standards without legislation.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the Final Report of the Boiler Committee will be in the hands of Members; and whether he can give the House any statement as to the coal consumption in the case of Belleville boilers as compared with that in the case of Babcock boilers or Yarrow boilers. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Pinal Report of the Boiler Committee was received on the 2nd instant, and is now under consideration. It is hoped that it will shortly be in the hands of Members. The coal used per H.P. per hour on the trials conducted by the Boiler Committee was as follows:—

To ask the Secretary for Scotland how many sets of by-laws under the Employment of Children Act, 1903, have been sent to him for confirmation; what local authorities have sent these by-laws, and in how many, and what, cases the sanction of his Department has been given. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Proposed by-laws have been received from the town councils of Ayr and Glasgow, the county council of Dumfries, and the school boards of Greenock, Ayr, Glasgow, Stirling, Paisley, Perth, Annan, Govan Parish, Gourock, Leith, Peebles, Crieff, Blantyre Parish, Ardrossan. The proposed by-laws have been or are being locally advertised, and are now under consideration in connection with objections submitted in the respective cases. No by-laws have as yet been sanctioned.

To ask the hon. Member for Tonbridge, as Parliamentary Charity Commissioner, whether, before sanctioning and sealing the new scheme for the Whitstable Charities, he will so amend it that the endowment originally provided for the payment of teachers' salaries shall continue to be paid to the local education authority as provided by Section 13 of The Education Act, 1902. (Answered by Mr. Griffith Boscawen.) The Commissioners do not understand that any payment has been made to the local education authority from this Charity; and whether any such payment ought under any circumstances to be made is a matter not for the Commissioners, but for the Board of Education. In the circumstances the Commissioners have nothing to add to their Answer of 1st July.†

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any application has been made to the Estates Commissioners to purchase the farm of Ballinacross from Mr. John Robinson, Sub-Sheriff of county Longford, who is willing to sell same for the benefit of the representatives of the evicted tenants, and with a view to their restoration thereto. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No application has been made to the Commissioners for the sale of this farm.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state the present position of the negotiations for the sale of the O'Brien Estate at Corglass and Cornakelly; and whether, in view of the delay in completing this sale, the Estates Commissioners will apply to Judge Ross for a request to issue under the 7th Section of the Act of 1903. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed by the registrar of the Land Judge's Court that the notice in Form 10 prescribed by the rules of 10th January, 1902, is about to be served. The solicitor having carriage of the sale is also acting for the tenants, and this would seem to afford a guarantee that no unnecessary delay will take place in bringing about a sale. The case will not be lost sight of by the Land Judge.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that

†See page 317.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state why all the appointments made at Henry Street Police Barracks, Belfast, during the year 1902, and carrying with them extra pay, were given to Roman Catholics; and can he state the number of men stationed at this barrack, how many are Roman Catholics and how many are Protestants, including the district inspector who is in charge. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Two such appointments were made in the year 1902. Both men are Roman Catholics, but the appointments were not determined by considerations of religion. In one case the extra pay amounts to a shilling weekly, and the recipient lost a night-watch allowance of similar amount. There are fifty-two men at Henry Street Barrack, twenty-eight are Roman Catholics, and twenty-four Protestants. The district inspector is a Roman Catholic.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that flags and banners were some time ago hung out of all the public-houses in Roundstone, county Galway; that the Reverend Father Glee-son sent a written complaint to Sir Antony M'Donnell against Sergeant Ryan an I Constable Laidley for explaining to certain publicans that it was illegal to hang flags from their licensed premises; and that the sergeant was severely reprimanded and the constable transferred because of performing this duty; and, if so, will he say whether an opportunity was given to Ryan and Laidley to refute the charges contained in Father Gleeson's letter; if not, will he lay a copy of the letter upon the Table. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The replies to the first two queries are in the affirmative. On inquiry it transpired that only one publican was informed that a display of flags was illegal. The occasion on which these emblems were displayed was the eve of the visit to Roundstone of the newly-appointed Archbishop of Tuam, the first visit after his appointment. The flags exhibited were not Party emblems of the character contemplated by the statute 6 and 7 Will. 4, cap. 38, sec. 9, and as it appeared that the constable had acted without reference to the district inspector or head constable, the Inspector-General considered that his interference was improper, and he so informed him. The sergeant was exonerated from blame. Constable Laidley's transfer had no connection with this incident. The Inspector-General considered he had shown distinct sectarian feeling while stationed at Roundstone, and the county inspector was of opinion that, in the interests of the public service, it was necessary to transfer him to another station. Explanations were furnished by both the sergeant and constable in respect of the matters alleged against them by the Reverend Mr. Gleeson.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state approximately the estimated cost of conveyance to and from Portsmouth of the Militia Artillery Corps from Lancashire, Durham, Northumberland, and various parts of Scotland for the purpose of mobilisation under the existing arrangements. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The estimated cost is as follows:—

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Militia Artillery Corps, forming part of the war garrison of Portsmouth but belonging to Lancashire, Durham, Northumberland, and various parts of Scotland, have at their own local headquarters the means of training at guns and artillery appliances exactly corresponding to those they have to serve when mobilised at Portsmouth. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Units of Militia Garrison Artillery are trained every third year at least at the fortresses to which they are allotted for mobilisation, and during other years at a work of defence armed with a modern armament. The cost of providing at the local headquarters appliances exactly corresponding to those the corps have to serve in a modern fortress, such as Portsmouth, would be prohibitive.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any regulation has been recently adopted as to dispensing with or otherwise altering the attendance at Courts-Martial in India of a Deputy Judge-Advocate, and on what grounds, and whether such change was approved by the Government before it was made; and, if so, whether the presence of an independent official possessing special legal knowledge is no longer considered requisite to safeguard the interests of accused soldiers at Courts-Martial. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No report on the subject has been received from the Government of India. I will make inquiries.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the services of those who were detailed for naval service in Canada against the Fenians in 1868 have not been recognised by the reward of a medal. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Medals were granted to those who were engaged in repelling the Fenian raids of 1866 and 1870, and in the Red River Expedition of 1870, but it was not considered desirable to grant the medal to men who served in the defence of the Dominion along the frontier in other years about that period, since their services practically amounted to policing the frontier, and they were not engaged in actual military operations.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the announcement made by the Australian Commonwealth Government that from 19th August next all magazines and periodicals containing more than 15 per cent, of advertising matter will be liable to an import duty of 3d. per lb.; whether he is aware that the effect of this duty will be to exclude from a British Colony a number of British magazines and periodicals; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have not yet seen the notification of the Australian Government to which the hon. Member refers, but I will inquire whether such a notification has been issued and will draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the probable effect of the proposal to which the hon. Member refers. The matter, however, must be left to the discretion of that Government to take what action they think fit.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Messrs. Lysaght, of Bristol, are contractors for the Admiralty; and, if so, whether it has been brought to his notice that Messrs. Lysaght are discharging men from their employment on account of their membership of a trade union, in contravention of the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons, which has been adopted by all Government Departments; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. The Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons does not appear to lay down any guidance for dealing with cases of this character, unless it can be shown that the firm are paying less than the current rate of wages.

Does the Secretary to the Admiralty intend the House to understand that the question of the preferential employment of non-unionists as against unionists is net raised by the Resolution?

I do not think there is anything regarding that in the Fair Wages Resolution.

Will the hon. Member acquaint himself with the circulars issued by the Treasury on the subject?

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the number of Maxims, Nordenfelt, and Gardner machine guns, respectively, in use in the Regular Army; the number required to complete the armament; the number of each ordered for the present financial year, and where the orders have been placed; and also the cost of manufacture at Enfield Small Arms Factory, and the price paid to private firms for each class of gun.

There are in use in the Regular Army 990 Maxims, 33 Nordenfelts and 90 Gardner machine guns and a reserve of 25 per cent is held. The number of guns required to complete the armament is 110 Maxim guns; 81 are available for issue in store and 80 are still due on last year's orders. 100 Maxim guns have been ordered this year, one-half being placed with the Ordnance Factories and one-half with Messrs. Vickers, Maxim and Company. The only private firm manufacturing Maxim guns is Vickers, Maxim and Company, whose invention the gun is, and when arrangements were made with them for manufacture by them and the Ordnance Factories an undertaking was given not to divulge the price paid.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Messrs. Lysaght, of Bristol, are contractors for the War Office; and, if so, whether it has been brought to his notice that Messrs. Lysaght are discharging men from their employment on account of their membership of a trade union, in contravention of the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons, which has been adopted by all Government Departments; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

The statements of fact contained in the hon. Member's Question, as to which I have no knowledge, do not indicate any contravention of the Fair Wages Resolution, which obliges this firm, and any firm employed under a Government contract, to pay the rate of wages generally accepted as current for similar work in the same district.

Is it a fact that Messrs. Lysaght are doing work for the War Office, and, if so, will the War Office not consider themselves bound to interfere in a case where preference is shown to non-unionists as against unionists.

We do employ Messrs. Lysaght, but under the Fair Wages Resolution there is no obligation on us to compel them to employ any particular persons, unionist or non-unionist.

The hon. Gentleman has said that even if the facts are as set forth, the War Office would have no right to interfere.

No, I did not say that.

Will the hon. Gentleman acquaint himself with the evidence taken before the Fair Wages Committee, and the debates in which a positive pledge was given on this subject?

I will.

Will the hon. Gentleman also make himself acquainted with the facts as to whether men are being discharged or not.

I will make inquiries, but in any case I am not clear that we have any power.

Is it not the case that in August, 1893, the then Secretary of the Treasury and myself, speaking on behalf of the Government—

That is a Question of which, I think, notice should be given.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any available record of the number of retired Volunteers under thirty years of age who, during their term of service, were efficient for not less than three years.

The Answer is in the negative.

I beg to ask th.3 Secretary of State for War if he will say how much of the £40,000 set aside in 1899 for rifle ranges has been actually appropriated; where such new ranges have been constructed; and whether they are open or screened.

The £40,000 originally allotted from the Military Works Loan, 1899, for Volunteer ranges was subsequently increased to £170,000. It has been all appropriated as shown in the Return which I have the pleasure of handing to the hon. Member. The money has been utilised in assisting Volunteers in providing range accommodation suitable for the ·303 rifle, either by extending or improving existing ranges or constructing new ones. The ranges for which grants have been made are all open ranges except five, viz., Oxford, Lincoln, Norton (Stockton-on-Tees), Kirkland (Fife), and Clifton, which are screened.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the force suggested by the Government for the new South African Constabulary in 1901 was 10,000 men, whether he can say when the intention was formed that the force should consist of only 6,000, and when the strength was reduced to 5,000; whether he can state up to what date he possesses the Return of actual strength, and if he can give the figure of the actual strength at the date of the last Return; what was the original estimate of cost for 10,000 constabulary; and what is the expenditure contributed by the Transvaal towards the South African Constabulary in the present year.

It was decided to constitute such a force towards the end of 1900. Lord Roberts considered that the force should be 10,000, as the extra number would obviate the need of more Regular troops for the work then required, but from the beginning Lord Milner maintained that 6,000 would be sufficient for police purposes when the war was over, and that fewer would be required after a time. The force was reduced to 5,000 in the course of the present April. The last Return of strength is dated 1st June and gives the actual strength as 4,770. The original estimate was £250 per man, or a total cost of £2,500,000 per annum. The cost of the constabulary is provided in the Inter-colonial Budget and not directly on the Transvaal Estimates. Towards the deficit on the Inter-colonial Budget for the year ended 30th June the Transvaal is contributing a sum of £767,000. In general explanation, I would refer the right hon. Member to pages 30 and 51 of Blue-book, Cd. 2102.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that one of the conditions of the agreement under which Chinese labourers are being introduced into the Transvaal provides that Sunday labour shall be optional, and to the fact that a conference has been summoned by the Johannesburg Free Church Council (which defended the introduction of Chinese labour) to protest against this condition, he proposes to take any, and, if so, what action in the matter.

The contract provides that Sundays shall be holidays and that labourers are not bound to work on that day. Under the Sunday Labour Law, no ordinary mining work is done on Sundays, as I have been informed, but only work which is absolutely necessary, such as pumping, repairs, etc. I have not had the conference referred to brought to my notice, but I will make inquiry on the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the stamps, etc., are running every day and that the mining goes on on Sundays just the same as on ordinary days?

Why is it necessary to do repairs and pumping on Sundays?

Are not these labourers paid on the basis of thirty days per month?

Of thirty working days per month.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now ascertained from Lord Milner whether he is willing to furnish a detailed statement of the moneys expended in repatriation of the Boers after the war, and in compensation for losses sustained by them in or in consequence of the war, and stating the name and address of every person who received £100 or upwards of such moneys, and on what account the same was received.

I have referred the hon. Member's request to Lord Milner, and he informs me that the suggested limitation of the Return to recipients of £100 and upwards would not materially affect the reasons for which I stated that such a Return could not conveniently be prepared, as involving an unjustifiable expenditure of time and money.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety in South Africa as to whether the money has been properly expended, and is it not desirable to allay that feeling whatever the expense?

was understood to reply that wherever there was money to be distributed there was always anxiety.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a Return showing the names of the persons whose farms were sold during the time of the war while they were fighting for their country.

I shall raise the question on the Colonial Vote.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the £5,800,000 spent out of the Guaranteed Loan for repatriation purposes under Head III. was spent on cost of administration.

I am not able to state the amount spent on administration until I receive Lord Milner's final report. I would refer the hon. Member to Sir Arthur Lawley's observations on the point at page 64 of Cd. 1895.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of the Somali Mullah, stating the estimated number of his followers, and the amount of rifles and ammunition in his possession.

We have no definite information as to the present position of the Mullah or strength of his following, and the report that he has returned to the Nogal Valley is not confirmed.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many officers have been sent out in the last three months upon special service to Somaliland; whether any military operations are taking place in that country, and what force it will be necessary to maintain in the Protectorate in order to preserve peace; whether he can state what number of officers will be required in future to administer the Government there.

No special service officers have been sent out since the termination of the war, and no military operations are now taking place. Two Indian regiments and two companies of mounted infantry will remain as a temporary garrison pending the reorganisation of the local forces. The normal European staff of the Protectorate consists of eleven civil and ten military officers.

What was the date of the termination of the war?

said he could not give the exact date when military operations were supposed to have terminated. His Answer referred to the period when the Foreign Office took over the control.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government contemplate any immediate demarcation of the area of the Protectorate in Somaliland which, by the Order in Council just made by His Majesty, has been placed in charge of a Commissioner; whether this Commissioner is to act under the direction of the Foreign Office, or, if not, under the direction of what Department or official, and whether he is to be in any way instructed either from Aden or from Bombay; and whether he can give the House any information as to the recent movements and present position of the Mullah.

The Answer to the first paragraph is in the negative; the Commissioner is to act under the direction of the Foreign Office. As regards the last paragraph, I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I have given to-day to the hon. Member for South Molton.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the total sum and the chief details of the expenditure during the last financial year on or in connection with the Sugar Convention and the Permanent Committee at Brussels from money voted by Parliament.

The total expenditure was about £1,200. The principal items other than expenses for maintenance and travelling are: £700 for the remuneration of the British Delegate and of the Assistant Delegate, and £140 for the British share of the expenses of the Permanent Committee.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has acquiesced in Hilmi Pacha's circular limiting the duties of the European officers of gendarmerie in Macedonia to technical instruction of their men, and confining the right to receive complaints from the inhabitants to the civil assessors.

In an interview with Sir N. O'Conor, the Grand Vizier stated that he was not aware that any instructions had been sent to the Inspector-General in the sense of the alleged circular alluded to by the hon. Member, and the reports of Colonel Fairholme indicate that the British officers are receiving the cordial co-operation of the Turkish authorities.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the importation into this country by German and other Continental manufacturers of quantities of sweets, particularly chocolates, containing a large percentage of proof spirit; and whether, having regard to the danger of the sale of such articles to children, the Board of Inland Revenue propose to take steps to check such sale: and whether he will state under what conditions, if any, such articles are allowed to be sold without a licence.

The hon. Member was good enough to draw my attention to this matter by a private letter. I have been in communication with the Board of Inland Revenue on the subject. The only thing that they can do is to insist that goods containing an appreciable percentage of spirit should not be sold by any person not holding a spirit retail licence, and they are issuing warnings to that effect in such cases as appear to them to require it.

May I ask whether a proportionate duty is levied on these goods?

I think so.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet formulated any experimental scheme for the production and sale of alcohol for manufacturing and industrial purposes; whether he is aware that alcohol can be manufactured at fourpence a gallon from such materials as bad potatoes and mildewed grain; whether his attention has been drawn to the extent of German trade in this respect; and whether he intends to allow such spirits to be blended in bonded warehouses and sold as pure whiskey.

I am not quite clear as to what the hon. Member refers. I would, however, refer him to Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1902. I may at the same time mention that I am considering whether it would be advisable to alter the present law which prohibits the sale of methylated spirit by retailers in quantities of more than one gallon. As regards the cost of certain forms of alcohol, and its composition, and the extent of the German trade in such forms of alcohol, I have seen statements to the effect (more or less) of those made by the hon. Member, but I have no official information on the subject. And, with reference to his last Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on Wednesday the 22nd June† to a somewhat similar Question.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get information from the Customs officials as to the extent of the German trade?

I do not think I can. They cannot get information as to the sources from which the spirit is obtained. When spirit is imported as silent spirit it is absolutely impossible by any analysis to say how it has been made. It is pure spirit and nothing but that.

What is silent spirit?

Absolutely pure spirit.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman ascertain the quantity of the spirit imported from Germany.

Yes, I could obtain that, but I could not say how it was made, whether from potatoes or mildewed grain. I have no means of arriving at the sources from which it is manufactured.

Have you any information as to the amount of such spirit blended in the bonded warehouses and sold as whiskey?

Order, order! That does not arise out of the Answer.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that since May last mid-day mail bags from Belleek, Irvinestown, Billinamallard, and other places, have been abolished, while previous to this letters could be posted early in the day and delivered in Enniskillen at 2 o'clock p.m.; that, under the present conditions, letters posted in any of the places mentioned have necessarily to go viâ Omagh, and take a long time in delivery; and, if so, will he consider the advisabilty of improving the present postal system in the places referred to.

I will have inquiry made on the subject, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to make a statement relative to the representations which have been made to him concerning the hardship to poorer schools, and especially to country schools, likely to arise under the method of distributing Government grants to elementary schools proposed under Article 31^* of the Education Code for 1904–5, and relative also to the difficulties in registration which that proposed distribution will involve.

The total result of the method of distributing grants proposed in the Code would not involve a loss to local education authorities, taking the country as a whole; but it appears that some of the rural counties and some of the boroughs would incur a small, but an appreciable loss. I am of opinion that very slight improvement of attendance generally, and some better arangement as to the attendance of children under the by-laws relating to partial exemption, would cancel the losses which at present would arise in certain areas if the proposed change were carried into effect. But in view of the fact that under existing circumstances the change cannot be introduced without involving these losses the Board will revert to the system hitherto in force; at the same time they hope that in another year or two the methods proposed in the Code for 1904 may be brought into use without risk of hardship to any local education authority, rural or urban.

Will the hon. Baronet issue a Minute setting up the arrangement to which it is proposed to revert.

Certainly.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture exercise any supervision over the annual sums granted to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society; and by what power and authority are such sums granted, seeing that this society, aided by public money, is in direct competition with other similar societies dealing in Irish agricultural produce.

The sums paid to the society have been in respect of the remuneration and expenses of its officials whom the Department has employed from time to time instead of appointing additional officers on its staff. No payments have been made by way of grant. The Act of 1899 authorises the Department to apply its funds, with the concurrence of the Agricultural Board, for the purposes of promoting agricultural and other rural industries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this society is in direct competition with private enterprise all over Ireland?

I do not know if that is an accurate description, and even if it were I think the action of the society is one we ought to view with pleasure. The duty of the Department is to spend money for the promotion of agriculture, and, as I have said, it has simply employed officials of the society instead of increasing its own staff.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutentant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been directed to the sale of The Macgillycuddy's Estate, county Kerry, in the Land Judge's Court; whether they are aware that the holding of Mr. Daniel Shea, an evicted tenant who has made application to the Commissioners already, is situated at Cleeny on this estate, and held by the Earl of Kenmare as a middleman under The Macgillycuddy; and whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any, and, if any, what, steps to safeguard the interests of the evicted tenant.

Proceedings for sale of a portion of this estate were recently pending in the Land Judge's Court. On the application of the owner, however, proceedings were stayed, and an order was made enabling him to negotiate for a sale of the whole of the property to the Estates Commissioners. The application received from the evicted tenant will be duly considered.

Can we rely on the right hon. Gentleman to see that this evicted tenant is reinstated?

I have every confidence that the Commissioners will do their duty.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken by the Irish Government with a view to induce the American Government to withdraw the prohibitory tariff proposed to be imposed on Irish cured fish imported into that country.

The Irish Government communicated with the Foreign Office on the subject. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs states that the alteration in the method of assessing the duty is due to a ruling by the Board of General Appraisers. Against this ruling there is a right of appeal to the Circuit Court of the district, and, under certain circumstances, a further appeal to the Supreme Court It would appear that advantage has already been taken of this right of appeal, and my noble friend does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by making representations to the United States Government at the present stage. But the matter will be closely watched and representations made when they are likely to have good results.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this increased taxation is practically killing the Irish mackerel fishing industry?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement in his farm from Daniel Murphy, Dromin, Milltown, county Kerry; whether he is aware that the greater part of the estate (A. Blennerhassett's Estate) on which the farm is situated is already purchased; that the present holder of the farm (Mr. Wharton) has no judicial title; and, if so, whether steps will be taken, under the provisions of the Land Act, 1903, to have Mr. Murphy reinstated.

The greater part of this property was sold some time ago to the occupiers under previous Land Purchase Acts. No application has been received by the Estates Commissioners in respect of the sale of the remainder, nor have they received any application on behalf of the reinstatement of Daniel Murphy.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the water bailiffs at Ballynahinch, county Down, continually interfere with the rights of individuals fishing either with rod or line; and will he give instructions for their interference to cease.

There have, I believe, been several cases of interference by bailiffs with persons fishing legally with rod and line at this place. Further inquiries are being made in the matter by the new Department, the result of which I will communicate to my hon. friend.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in August or September, 1902, the Clanricarde tenants at Derrygoolan, county Galway, refused to allow strangers or poachers to trespass on their lands in pursuit of game, those tenants being in possession of their holdings for many years as tenants from year to year, and consequently the owners of the game rights on their farms; that on the 12th August, 1903, the same tenants again refused to allow strangers or poachers to shoot over their lands, although those outsiders were accompanied by police as a protection force; and whether, in view of the fact that no action has been taken since autumn, 1902, either by the landlord, Lord Clanricarde, or anybody else, to contest the tenants' right to the game on their holdings, a police protection force will be refused to any party endeavouring to shoot over these lands, to whom the tenants have refused permission.

I am not informed of the particulars of events which the hon. Member states took place in 1902–1903. The attendance of police on such occasions is solely to prevent serious breaches of the peace, and is not to prevent any person entitled to a legal right from asserting it in a lawful manner. If the tenants are the aggressors and remove the so-called strangers, the latter can proceed civilly or criminally for assault. If the so-called strangers are the aggressors, then the tenants can proceed civilly before the County Court or before the magistrates for trespass in pursuit of game, and thus have the legal rights of the respective parties determined in a Court of Law. I cannot and ought not to pronounce an opinion as to the rights of the respective parties, being, as I am, in ignorance of the nature of the contract of tenancy between the landlords and tenants.

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that these tenants are tenants from year to year and were so previously to the passing of the Land Act of 1881?

No.

Will you inquire from the police if the statements in my Question are correct, and whether, also an offer of 1s. per head has been made to the tenants for every bird killed?

said the police would only go to the place if there was reason to believe that there might be a breach of the peace.

What does the right hon. Gentleman think would be a lawful and legitimate protest under these circumstances?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from the Urban Council of Lame (county Antrim) praying for an increase in the number of councillors; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter.

The district council has made application to the county council for an increase in the number of urban councillors. It is for the county council to consider the application and, should it be of opinion that a prima facie case is made out, to cause an inquiry to be made in pursuance of Article 26 of the Application of Enactments Order.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Works Committee of the Belfast Corporation, held on 29th June, declaring that, owing to the serious and periodical outbreaks of infectious diseases in the City of Belfast, the attention of the Public Health Department be called to the present system of dumping the refuse, which must contain germs of disease, on ground intended for building purposes; and whether, seeing that the system has been encouraged rather than repressed by the Belfast Corporation, he will, in the interests of the health of the community, cause inquiries to be made by the Local Government Board into this practice with a view to its discontinuance.

The resolution of the Works Committee is under the consideration of the Corporation. As already stated, the Local Government Board has received no complaints in the matter. The Board's Medical Inspector will, however, make inquiries.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can furnish particulars as to the arrangements made for the experimental growing of tobacco in Ireland; and if such experimental growing will be carried on in different parts of Ireland, so that reliable trials may be made on a fairly large area of ground, in four or five different localities, thus enabling an opinion to be formed as to the results in different districts.

In 1900, 1901, and 1902 experiments under the supervision of the Department were undertaken at a number of selected centres in Ireland, the results of which have satisfied the Department that the tobacco plant can be successfully cultivated in that country. In order, however, to determine the possible commercial value to the country of tobacco cultivation, arrangements were made for the growing of the crop on about twenty acres in the vicinity of Navan during the present year. Until the Department has satisfied itself with respect to the actual financial result, it will not be in a position to consider the question of the initiation of similar experiments elsewhere.

Has it been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that tobacco was successfully grown in Tralee. Why have not the Department experimented in more than one county?

I think my Answer covers that ground.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have sought the counsel and advice of the Law Officers of the Crown to guide them in their decision on the appeal of the Rathmines Commissioners against the decision of the Dublin County Council.

No, Sir. I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for South Dublin on the 20th June, † that the Board has authority to obtain the opinion of counsel in important cases, and that should it become necessary to consult the Law Officers of the Crown in the present case the Attorney-General will alone advise.

Why not the Solicitor-General? Why is the exception made in this case?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it has come to the knowledge of the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Technical and Agricultural Instruction that eight trawling boats, whose decks have been seen strewn several inches deep with fish spawn, have been constantly operating on Sundays and week days for the past month across the entrance to Muir Bay, to the loss and injury to the means of livelihood of the local fishermen; has the "Granuaile" yet made the long-promised surprise visit to the neighbourhood of Muir Bay; and what steps, if any, does the Government propose to take, with the view of securing the fishermen from deprivation of their livelihood by the illegal practice of trawling.

The waters in question are closed to trawling inside denned limits, which are locally well known; but the Department has no information that trawling has been carried out within the prohibited area. It is giving the matter close attention, however, and if an infraction of the law is brought to notice it will institute proceedings. It was only on the 25th June that a promise was given that the "Granuaile" would visit the waters. The element of surprise will disappear if the hon. Member presses me to give indications of the visit's probable date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-

† See (4) Debates, cxxxvi., 491.

The attention of the guardians has been directed to this report, and the Board has no reason to doubt they will take suitable action to remedy the condition of things complained of.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the Local Government Board has refused to sanction the increase of £10 a year to £130 in the salary of Dr. Collins, the Protestant Medical Officer of Ballinasloe Union; whether he is aware that all the Catholic guardians are in favour of the proposed increase; and whether the Local Government Board, although withholding its sanction of this increase to an experienced Poor Law officer, has sanctioned initial salaries of larger amount for medical officers without Poor Law experience.

The Board has no knowledge of the religious persuasions of Dr. Collins and the guardians. The Board refused to sanction the proposed increase of salary, because of the small amount of work recorded as having been performed in Dr. Collins' district, and in view of the fact that his salary was increased to its present amount so recently as 1902. The Board, however, expressed its willingness to consider any reasonable scale of salary which might be formulated by the guardians, and made applicable to the entire medical staff of the union. Every case is considered on its merits, and higher initial salaries have only been allowed where they were warranted by circumstances.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Local Government Board that Dr. Collins is a medical officer, and that the increase of the salary has been voted by Catholic guardians.

How would the right hon. Gentleman like to have to live on 1130 a year?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many communications (giving dates) were received at the Merrion Street offices of the Agricultural Department, from the Catholic clerks of the veterinary branch since 1st April, 1900, in reference to their position; how many of these communications were registered as official documents, and on what dates were they respectively registered; and on what dates respectively were these communications replied to.

Several communications have been received by the Department from temporary clerks formerly employed in the veterinary branch, and transferred to the new Department. Their religions are unknown to the Department. The communications were duly registered as official documents, and were duly answered. I have already replied to numerous Questions addressed to me respecting the position of these clerks. It would be subversive of official discipline, and opposed to precedent, to enter into details of the character suggested by the hon. Member, and I must decline, in the circumstances, to give the information he desires.

Why is this disability imposed by the Department?

The hon. Member has no right to say any disability is imposed.

I am only suggesting what I am in a position to prove?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the case of lands acquired in fee under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, the Local Government Board issued a circular or letter to rural sanitary authorities, calling their attention to the desirability of having the title to the plots registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891; and whether, seeing that the average cost of registering the title to each plot is between £5 and £6, he will consider legislation with a view to providing for free registration of the title to these plots as of holdings purchased under the Land Purchase Acts.

I have ascertained that no circular of the character mentioned has been issued by the Local Government Board, the Land Commission, or the Registrar of Titles. The maximum fees payable in the Registry of Titles in respect of any such registration as that referred to amount to 13s. only.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to exchange the ratifications of the Convention between England and France of 8th April, 1904, relative to Newfoundland, the Gambia, the Isles de Los, the Niger, and Lake Chad; in case the Convention should not be ratified, will the stipulations it contains in Articles IV. to VIII. as to the Gambia, the Isles de Los, the Niger, and I Lake Chad becomes inoperative as well as the stipulations in Articles I. to III. as to Newfoundland; and have any steps been, or are any being, taken to carry out the Articles IV. to VIII.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury are the two Declarations, one respecting Egypt and Morocco and the other concerning Siam, Madagascar, and the New Hebrides, essential parts of the Agreement with France represented by those two Declarations and by the Convention of 8th April, 1904, relating to Newfoundland, the Gambia, and the Niger; and is it understood between His Majesty's Government and the French Government that the two Declarations will retain their effect and be carried into execution even in case the Convention fails to be ratified.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, have the Government of Newfoundland made any representation to His Majesty's Government or raised any difficulties affecting the rights conceded to the French under Article II. of the Anglo-French Convention of 8th April, 1904, in respect of Newfoundland local regulations as to bait, fishing, or access to ports on the so-called French shore, or in respect of the policing of the fishing; and was any agreement come to by His Majesty's Government with the Government of Newfoundland on these points before the Convention was signed.

Perhaps my hon. friend will be good enough to postpone, say for ten days, any Question upon this subject. I do not think it would be in the public interest that I should at this moment give a reply by way of Question and Answer across the floor of the House.

Does that refer to all my Questions?

Yes; they all relate, more or less directly, to the Anglo-French Agreement, and I am inclined to think that it would be desirable, if my hon. friend sees no objection, to defer them for the time I have suggested.

assented to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but added that, in view of the extreme gravity of the situation that might arise, he would put the Questions down again a fortnight hence.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what course the Government intend to take with reference to the Irish Labourers Bill; and whether they have considered the desirability of referring the Bill to one of the Grand Committees.

I see no objection to referring the Irish Labourers Bill to one of the Grand Committees in the present condition of public business.

Will the right hon. Gentleman adopt that course.

Yes Sir, I will?

To which Committee will it be sent?

I am afraid I cannot answer that, nor is it necessary I should do so at the present moment, but the information will be forthcoming when the Motion is made.

Until the Aliens Bill is disposed of, it is undesirable to send this Bill to the Grand Committee on Law.

Of course, the condition of business in the Grand Committees must be one of the governing considerations in determining to which Committee the Bill should be sent.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the disorganisation of the tobacco trade and almost complete cessation of dealings in stripped tobacco, as shown by monthly circulars, by reason of proposed fiscal changes, he can expedite the resumption of the debate on the Budget proposals affecting tobacco.

I am as well aware as my hon. friend of the inconveniences which have resulted from the postponement of the Budget. I hope to take it on the first complete Parliamentary day on which we do not take the present stage of the Licensing Bill.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury in what capacity and for what reason did Lord Curzon attend and take part in the proceedings of the Committee of the Cabinet for National Defence; and whether there is any, and, if so, what, precedent for a gentleman without special naval and military experience, who is not a member of the Cabinet, taking part in the proceedings of a Committee of the Cabinet or of the Cabinet as a whole.

The Committee of Defence have the right, and I think a most valuable right, to summon to their councils anybody whom they think will assist them in their deliberations.

Did Lord Curzon attend as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports?

No.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will hold an inquiry by Royal Commission or otherwise into the grievances of the 22,000 ratepayers who have refused to pay rates under the Education Acts of 1902 and 1903; and, if not, will he say what course he intends adopting to remove the grievances of those who object conscientiously to the provisions of these Acts.

I have never been able to understand that there were any grievances.

It is well known that there are grievances, so I press for a further reply.

It is not known to me.

May I ask what action will be taken with respect to the 22,000 ratepayers who have refused to pay the rates—putting aside the ques- tion whether or not they have a grievance.

I suppose that rests with the rating authorities.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government has received any information this morning with reference to the operations in Tibet.

Perhaps my hon. friend will put down a Question to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India, who is not now in his place.

But is there not important news to-day which the House should have?

I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that to ask me, without notice, at five minutes to 3 o'clock, and in the absence of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India, to give the House an account of events in Tibet, is a bit unreasonable. If I had had the smallest notice that such a Question was going to be asked I should have brought down the necessary documents.

I thought it was not unusual, except in matters involving complicated negotiations, to ask a Question without notice on incidents occurring from day to day.

I did not bring down the telegram, but if I had been told, even ten minutes ago, that a Question was going to be asked, I would have sent for it. But it so happens that a right hon. friend of mine has got it, and I see no reason why I should not read it to the House. But of course I could not be expected to bring it down, and I think that to repeat from memory a telegram of such a character would be setting a very evil precedent. The telegram is as follows—

"Young husband reports that to-day he sent two messengers to Tibetans that signal gun would be fired at 12 o'clock, and that if fort was not surrendered firing would commence at 12.30. The delegates—Tongsa Penlop and Ta Lama—women and children were warned to leave fort. No notice was taken by Tibetans there, and at 12.38 firing on the fort commenced."

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman what Votes will be taken to-morrow and Thursday in next week, as well as the business for Friday.

Irish Estimates will be taken to-morrow, the Votes being those for the Land Commission, the Board of Works, and the Chief Secretary's salary. Under any circumstances the Chief Secretary's salary will be the first Order at the evening sitting. In response to the earnest request made to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Somerset, Friday will not be an allotted day to the Licensing Bill, and I therefore propose to take the Irish Land Bill and the reference to a Grand Committee of the Irish Labourers Bill.

I presume the reference of the Labourers Bill will be the first Order?

There is probably a good deal-to be said in favour of that.

As the Labourers Bill is likely to be bitterly opposed by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman put that second Order.

was understood to express a hope that the opposition would not be of undue length.

As to the Cunard agreement?

I am not yet able to make any statement as to the debate on the Cunard agreement.