laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.

reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had discharged Mr. Charles Hobhouse, and had selected Mr. Black, to act as Commissioner.

To ask the Lord-Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland will cause; inquiry to be made as to the number of wrecks and lives lost during this last winter round the North Isles, Orkney, and the desirability of establishing a coastguard station at Sanday, equipped with a rocket life-saving apparatus. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have inquired into this question, and find that two vessels stranded on the island of Sanday this winter, and about sixteen lives were lost. It is doubtful whether a rocket apparatus would have been of any service in these cases, but I will make further inquiries, and inform the hon. Member of the result.

To ask the Lord-Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he can state when the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Depression of the Fishing Industry in Sutherland and Caithness will be issued. (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I am not able to give the exact date when the Report in question will be issued, but the Secretary for Scotland has been in communication with the chairman, and there will be no avoidable delay.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to state whether any new arrangements have been made with the West Coast Railways with the object of ensuring that the down night mails from London to the North of Scotland will be delivered at schedule times. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am glad to say that, as the result of measures taken both by the railway companies and by the Post Office, a considerable improvement has been effected in the working of the night mail service from London to the North of Scotland. There have, during the past few months, been very few cases of material delay not attributable to some unavoidable cause such as unfavourable weather or an accident on the railway.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether the rule providing that relatives of supervising officers should not be appointed at the same offices applies to all postal and telegraph offices; whether he will state the reasons for the exemption of any towns from the enforcement of the rule; and whether he will state what steps are taken to prevent nepotism at these places. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) At smaller post offices the rule generally is that male relatives of supervising officers are to be admitted only on condition of transfer to other offices at the age of nineteen, and female relatives on condition only of transfer if the relationship should at any time be considered detrimental to the efficiency of the service. At larger offices at which open competition is in force the condition on appointment for males and females alike is liability to transfer if the relationship should at any time be considered detrimental. I do not consider that there is any reason for modifying these rules.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that Shetland was deprived of telegraphic communication with the outside world for a period of three weeks, suffering inconvenience thereby, and if the persons responsible for the delay in repairing the cable will be called to account; and whether an offer was made to the Post Office to repair the cable in twenty-four hours; and, if so, why such offer was not accepted. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware that telegraphic communication with Shetland has been interrupted, but there has been no avoidable delay in restoring it. When the break occurred the telegraph ship "Monarch" was on her way to the Thames; after refitting she took in cable and sailed for the North on February 18th. Attempts to establish communication in the meantime by special electrical means through the broken cable had failed. The "Monarch" has encountered very stormy weather, and has therefore been unable to do any work. No offer to repair the cable has reached me. I am sorry for the inconvenience which has arisen; and I have endeavoured to minimise it by providing a special boat service for telegrams.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that twenty-five young men, ranging from eighteen years of age to twenty years; are employed to the indoor staffs at the Belfast office at a wage of 6s. per week; does he propose to give these young men any consideration; and, if so, when.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the position of the ten female learners who are attached to the telegraph staff of the Belfast office with a wage of 5s. per week; and whether, in view of the fact that vacancies are not now being filled up owing to a reduction of the female staff having been authorised, he will consider the advisability of increasing the salaries of these learners. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The pay of the male and female learners at Belfast, to which the hon. Member refers in his two Questions, will be considered in connection with the case of the learners generally throughout the United Kingdom with which I am now dealing.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury Minute issued in 1866, which stated that the Treasury offered no obstacle to the most free action on the part of Members of the Legislature who, on public grounds, may consider it their duty, whether in Parliament or communications to the Treasury, to call attention to the grievances of individuals, or desire to enter upon questions affecting the conditions of service of public officers is applicable to-day; whether public servants are liable to punishment from their superior officers in the event of their individual grievances being laid before the heads of their Departments by Members of Parliament; and whether he will consider the advisability of reissuing the Minute of 1866. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Minute, from which the hon. Member quotes, goes on to observe that "there is much inconvenience in and serious objection to the reception of applications coming from any of His Majesty's Civil Servants on matters affecting their personal interests or position, except through the head of the Department to which they belong;" calls attention to the "very stringent rules which have long prevailed in the Revenue Departments against the solicitation of promotion by influential persons unconnected with the service," and states that "the same objections apply in principle to applications for increases of salary on reclassification of offices, and the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury desire that it may be understood that henceforth, as a general rule, no application in relation to increased pay or allowances (or for promotion where such rests with the Treasury) will be entertained by them unless transmitted through the head of the Department to which the applicant belongs." In a second Minute, dated 2nd May of the following year, the Treasury recurred to the subject, remarking that "my Lords have observed with much regret a growing practice on the part of gentlemen employed in the public service to endeavour to influence this Board to accede to their applications for increase of salary or additional retiring allowance by means of the private solicitations of Members of Parliament and other persons of political influence." The Minute concludes by stating that "any attempt made by him to obtain the sanction of this Board to his application by any such solicitation as is hereinbefore referred to, will be treated by them as an admission on the part of such officer that his case is not good upon its merits, and such application will be dealt with by their Lordships accordingly." Both these Minutes are still in force, but I see no reason for re-issuing them. The answer to the second Question would depend upon the particular circumstances of the case.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the scheme of old age pensions submitted to the Government in 1895 by the originator, Mr. W. S. Cottew, involving no expense to the country, has been brought to his notice; and whether he can now take it into consideration. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I have had the scheme referred to by my hon. friend under my notice, but I am not impressed by its feasibility.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any intention to reduce the age of compulsory retirement for commissioned or warrant officers of any branches of the service. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Admiralty is not aware of any such intention.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice, in trying the case Rex v. Noble at Reading on February 4th, that there should be some better means of identifying law-breaking motorists; and, if so, will he say whether he proposes to introduce legislation with that object. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have seen no report of the observations of the Lord Chief Justice in the case referred to beyond a short newspaper paragraph. I am not aware of any better method of identifying law-breaking motorists than that at present in force.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has observed in the Return of hours worked by certain classes of railway men, recently issued, the number of instances of long hours of duty; and, if so, will he say what steps has he taken, or proposes to take, with the railway companies with a view to reducing the hours to a reason able limit; and will he ask for a Return for January last upon the same lines. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The recent Return has been carefully examined by the Board of Trade, and I have caused a communication to be addressed to each of the railway companies the hours of whose servants would appear from the Return to have been on some occasion or occasions unreasonably long. I am considering the question of falling for a further similar Return, but am not at present prepared to make a definite statement in the matter.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state how many young men and women respectively have qualified for admission to a training college by passing in the first or second class at the recent King's Scholarship examination, the final examination for pupil teachers in the public elementary schools; how many residential and day college places are available for these successful King's scholars, men and women respectively; and how the places available in the residential colleges are distributed in Church of England, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, and undenominational institutions respectively. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) At the King's Scholarship Examination held in December last, 1,506 men and 4,245 women qualified for admission to a training college. So far as the Board's information goes at present, the number of vacant places available for students desirous of entering a training college in October next will be at least 4,800. It must be remembered that some of these places will be filled by students who have qualified for admission by some means other than that of passing the King's Scholarship Examination. The

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will arrange to bring forward the Budget Statement at an earlier period of the session than on former occasions; and can he see his way to arrange for details of accounts to be quoted in pounds sterling as well as in rupees. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am not at present able to give information as to the date in the present session on which the usual Resolution concerning the revenue and expenditure of India will be moved. It has been the practice for some years to present to the House statements showing in sterling all the important figures in the Indian Accounts and Estimates. The Secretary of State's Explanatory Memorandum and the Return of Net Income and Expenditure for eleven years are prepared in sterling. In the tables accompanying the Financial Statement, which is prepared in India, the practice is (as the hon. Member will observe on referring to pages 83–99 of last year's Statement) to show some figures in sterling only and some in rupees and sterling. As this Statement and the accompanying tables are primarily prepared to be considered and discussed in the Governor-General's Council in India it would be inconvenient

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state the chief causes of the Indian Government's increased expenditure, during the first eight months of the financial year, under the head of Military Services, of 100 lakhs in excess of the Budget Estimates; have there been any recent savings under that head, or is that excess likely to be increased during the remaining portion of the year ending with next month; to what unforeseen circumstances is attributable the excess in those eight months under the head of Civil Debts; to what amount, beyond the Budget Estimate of £18,435,500 for the Home Charges, have the Secretary of State's drawings, on India reached at the present date, and to what purposes are these excess drawings being applied; and what is the present amount of the Indian Government's cash balances in this country and in India. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I gather that the hon. Member's Question is based on the account published in the Gazette of India of January 28th, but the excess of 100 lakhs (approximately) shown in this account in the military expenditure in the first eight months of 1904–5 is an excess over the expenditure for the corresponding period of 1903–4, not over the Budget Estimate for 1904–5. A comparison between the estimated and actual military expenditure in 1904–5 will be given, as usual, with explanations in the Financial Statement of the Government of India, which will be made in the course of the present month. I anticipate that the expenditure on Army Services in 1904–5 will exceed the Budget Estimate by more than 100 lakhs, the excess being chiefly due to the greater cost of the Tibet Mission and to outlay which it has been decided to incur in connection with the reorganisation and improvement of the Indian Army. The account to which I have referred shows an increase of 100 lakhs in 1904–5 in permanent debt incurred in India; this increase is over 1903–4, and is explained by the fact that a rupee loan of three crores was issued in 1904–5, whereas the loan of 1903–4 was for only two crores. The drawings on India amounted to £21,150,000 on February 28th. The excess over the amount required to meet the Home Charges (i.e., the payments in this country charged against revenue) is devoted to defraying capital expenditure on railways and irrigation works and to replenishing the balances of the Secretary of State in Council. The balances of the

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho is aware that there is no provision prescribed for summoning a special meeting of an urban council to transact the business of the quarterly meeting when the first fixture of same falls through for want of a quorum; and whether the Local Government Board for Ireland will take steps to apply to the proceedings of urban councils the provisions of Article 12 (3) and Article 16 (4) of The Local Government (Procedure of Councils) Order, 1901. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Local Government Board is not aware that inconvenience has been caused by the absence of such provision from the urban district councils' general rules; but, as the question of revising these rules is at present under consideration, the matter will receive attention.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the names, ages, previous occupations, and religion of the last five appointments to the position of resident magistrate in Ireland.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the advisability of granting full pensions to male teachers upon the completion of thirty-five years service, and thirty years for females, and in case of disablements after ten years service. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The pensions under existing regulations are as high as is consistent with the solvency of the pension fund, and I cannot undertake, as at present advised, to alter them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in October last a boy named George Lillie, of the cruiser list, was sentenced by a Court-martial, held on board H.M.S. "Victory," to three months imprisonment and to receive twenty-four stripes with the birch for rushing, during the caning of another boy which he was compelled to witness, at the officer who was superintending the punishment and striking him; and whether, having regard to the fact that the presence of all the boys on board ship to witness the birchings and canings of their comrades is calculated to engender feelings of resentment and to lead to acts of insubordination, steps will be taken for the rescission of the provision in the King's Naval Regulations for the presence of all the boys to witness such punishments.

The facts are as stated. There is no intention of making any alteration in the regulations.

On the first opportunity I will give the hon. Gentleman a rhetorical flogging on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total cost of the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress"; has the last instalment of that cost been paid, and has the yacht been taken over; what is the total annual cost of the crew and the keeping up of the Admiralty yacht; how many days has this yacht been used by the Lords of the Admiralty during each of the past three years respectively; and is there any reason why the Lords of the Admiralty should not use a cruiser for their official voyages.

The total cost of the "Enchantress" is £126,393. The last instalment has not been paid. The yacht has been taken over. The total annual cost of the crew and the keeping up, exclusive of coal and sea stores, is approximately £17,600. The cost of these stores would probably not exceed, on an average, £4,000 per annum. The yacht has only been available for use for the past nine months. The objections to the use of a cruiser for this purpose are—(1) the interference with the scheme of fleet organisation and general service; (2) the unsuitability of cruiser accommodation for the purpose.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that cruisers are constantly used for taking Ministers about?

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if a settlement has been arrived at with the Cape Government in respect of the counterclaim for £170,000 for rebate of Customs duties paid upon articles purchased during the war; how much has been recovered; and how has the amount been dealt with.

No settlement has yet been arrived at.

Is there any hope of an early settlement?

I must ask for notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of new guns for which orders have been given, and where these orders have been placed.

One hundred and ninety-four new 13-pounder guns and 878 new 18-poander guns have been ordered, and the orders have been placed as follows:—Ordnance factories, 352; Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co., 288; Vickers, Maxim, and Co., 288; Cammell and Co., 144—total, 1,072.

How many of these firms are Birmingham firms?

None.

Oh, what a pity!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the guns ordered by the War Office on March 5th, 1904, are to be paid for on the Army Estimates; and, if not, how is the payment to be made.

The date upon which the orders for the guns were given was May 5th, 1904, when orders were placed with the Ordnance Factories for twenty 13-pounder guns for India. For these guns the Indian Government will pay.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it was in the knowledge of the Army Council that the Small Arms Factory considered the specifications they were ordered to work on in making the new short rifle most unsatisfactory, and that in consequence the rifle would be no improvement on that now in use.

The Answer is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the regulation sash has been changed in colour and texture; and whether he can explain in the cavalry mess kit in frock coats (new parts), putties, the pattern legging for mounted units, the badges of rank, the great coat, and the cavalry and infantry sword, the object of the constant changes that have taken place more or less recently. The hon. Member explained that the Question had been rather mixed in the printing, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could answer it.

I will try. The numerous details involved in a reply to the hon. Member's Question cannot be conveniently given in the form of an answer in the House, but I shall be happy to supply him with particulars upon any specific points in connection with the changes in uniforms which have taken place. Generally these changes have been made with a view to economy and the increased efficiency of the service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the War Office lately invited applications from officers for two years residence and military study in Japan, with certain emoluments and privileges, he will state how many officers applied from each branch, Engineer, Artillery, Cavalry, and Infantry; whether, seeing that three Infantry and one Artillery officer were selected, he will state who are the persons who made this selection, and on what grounds did they prefer three Infantry officers to all the Engineer officers and all but one of the Artillery officers who applied; whether any further similar appointments are to be made; and, if so, will he direct the selection board to consider the claims of the scientific branches of the service.

The number of officers who applied was as follows:—Engineers 15, Artillery 46, Cavalry 11, Infantry 84, Army Service Corps 9, and Royal Army Medical Corps 1. Of these all who had not passed for promotion were excluded, leaving: Engineers 2, Artillery 15, Cavalry 3, Infantry 29, and Army Service Corps 4. The selection was made finally by the Chief of the General Staff. Four selections are made annually. There were already four Artillery and three Engineer officers in Japan as compared with three Infantry and two Cavalry officers; in these circumstances the selection of three Infantry officers and one Artillery officer was considered a proper proportion.

Are these appointments open to officers of the Indian Army?

A certain proportion of officers have been appointed from India, but I am speaking only of those appointed from here.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that twenty places in the Staff College are open to Army officers in each year, which, as the result of an examination, are awarded as follows, two to the Royal Engineers, four to the Artillery, and fourteen to the Cavalry and Infantry, and seeing that it constantly happens that as the result of the examination a number of Engineer and Artillery officers who are unsuccessful come out higher in the examination than many of the Infantry and Cavalry candidates who are successful, whether he will explain why this system is adopted of selecting for the most important and responsible positions officers who have by examination distinctly proved their inferiority.

The proficiency in mathematics which Artillery I and Engineer officers are obliged to attain before entering the Army gives them a special advantage in that subject, while in the military subjects Cavalry and Infantry officers more than hold their own. In these circumstances it is considered that mathematics should not be allowed to turn the scale against Cavalry and Infantry, and it is held to be fair and in the interests of the service to allot a certain proportion of nominations to each arm of the service. I must also point out that Staff appointments are allotted according to order of merit in passing out of the college, a test in which Cavalry and Infantry officers well hold their own with those of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the total cost of the Somaliland operations from January 1st, 1900, and inclusive of the Supplementary Vote now presented.

The total cost of the Somaliland operations amounts to £2,494,000.

Does that cover the period from the year 1900, or does it only refer to the third attempt to catch the Mad Mullah?

No, Sir.

May I ask whether the total as shown by the Vote presented to the House to-day is not £3,200,000?

Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that.

May it not be that no account has been taken of appropriations-in-aid?

Does it include merely the expenditure on Army Votes or on Civil Service Votes as well?

All.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War by whose authority the amount of 30s. a ton was paid to a contractor as compensation for non-delivery of 3,800 tons of hay and 6s. 10½d. a quarter for non-delivery of oats, as reported by the Public Accounts Committee; and has any action been taken in the matter.

It was not possible at the time to place full details before the Committee. The payments in question were made by the authority of the Secretary of State for War. It is not in the power of the War Office to fix the prices which contractors will accept under such circumstances; but the arrangements made were far more favourable than adhesion to the contract, and I think they were reasonable, as the contractors had, in addition to loss on sales, to be reimbursed for expenses which they had incurred for chartering ships sent.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received any remonstrances or complaints from individuals or associations regarding the terms on which 5,000 acres are held of the natives near Ibadan; if he is aware that the natives object to parting with their land; and if he will cause the fullest inquiry to be made before bringing any pressure to bear on the native chiefs to compel them to part with their land.

No such complaint or remonstrance has been addressed to me, and I should not countenance any such pressure as the hon. Member refers to being put upon the native chiefs.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a proclamation issued in the Transvaal Government Gazette of January 27th, to the effect that every employer of labour on the Rand must give prompt information by telephone or messenger to the Foreign Labour Department in case of any outbreak or disturbance amongst the labourers in his employ, and to the effect that any employer failing to do so shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £50, or, in default, to imprisonment for three months; whether he, has any information respecting the necessity for this proclamation; and, if not, whether he will communicate with Lord Milner on the matter.

I have seen the Government notice containing the regu- lation referred to. Lord Milner has not specially reported to me the reasons for issuing the regulation, no doubt because it simply embodies a provision naturally arising out of the administration of the Labour Ordinance.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the total adult white male population in the Rand district according to the last census, and the total number of indentured Chinese coolies now in the same area; and also the total number of Chinese coolies which it is contemplated will be in the Rand by the close of June.

The Census Returns received up to date do not show the white adult male population on the Rand. The total white male population was 73,434. The number of Chinese at the end of January was 27,222. I believe the number now on the Rand is about 33,000. I am informed that at the end of January the total number for which the labour importation agency had received application was 54,862 (including those already introduced).

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence which passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Dominion of Canada with reference to the assumption of the cost and responsibility of garrisoning Halifax and Esquimalt by the Canadian Parliament.

Correspondence on the subject will be laid on the Table of the House as soon as it is complete.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the Answer which he gave to a Question put by the hon. Member for Westminster, on August 10th,† 1904, what reply His Majesty has since then been advised to

† See (4) Debates, cxl., 16.

I did not find myself able to advise His Majesty to give any direction with regard to the petition, and the petitioners have been answered accordingly. It is not proposed to present Papers on the subject to Parliament.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider more fully the whole circumstances with a view to secure to the Church of Natal its statutory rights as a branch of the Established Church of the United Kingdom?

No, Sir.

gave notice that he would draw attention to the matter on the earliest occasion.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a petition from the Committee of the London branch of the Telegraph Clerks' Association dealing with the claim that all operators should rise to a salary of £190 per annum, by reason of certain papers issued by the Civil Service Commissioners holding out this prospect; and whether, seeing that the Bradford Committee stated that these announcements on the part of the Commissioners were liable to misconception, he can state what compensation he is prepared to give to telegraphists who entered the service as a result of the inducements held out, and which have remained unfulfilled.

I have received the petition to which the hon. Member refers, and I have informed the memorialists that I can find no justication for an increase in the maximum pay for telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office. The hon. Member appears to have overlooked the paragraph in the Report of the Bradford Committee immediately preceding that from which he quotes. In it the Committee state that they are convinced that there is no good ground for the allegation of breach of faith, and that they are satisfied that there is the same prospect now of attaining a salary of £190 a year as there was during the period when the announcements in question were made.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that under the Act 12 and 13 Vic., c. 103, s. 20, guardians were empowered, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to spend one-half the average yearly poor rate raised in the parish in emigrating destitute persons at a cost not exceeding £10 per head, he will say whether these powers have ever been repealed; and, if not, whether he will call the attention of Metropolitan boards of guardians to the Act, and recommend them to work in conjunction with the Central Unemployed Committee in selecting destitute applicants who desire to be emigrated.

The section referred to has not been repealed, though the effect of subsequent enactments has been to modify its provisions. A board of guardians may, however, assist in emigrating poor persons belonging to the union, and I am now considering the question of recommending the making of arrangements between the Metropolitan boards of guardians and the Central Committee with a view to aiding emigration in suitable cases.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the memorial from the assistant clerks, known as abstractor clerks, has been considered by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury; and, if so, whether he is prepared to say if any improvement is to be made in their status and positions.

The memorial to which the hon. Member refers is still under the consideration of the Treasury.

And when may an answer be expected?

I hope very shortly.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give a Return showing the quantity of duty-paid brandy, rum, geneva, medicated spirits, and other foreign spirits, removed from one part of the United Kingdom to another, similar to the Table 27 for Home-made Spirits on page 36 of the last published Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

If the hon. Member will put down an unstarred Question I shall be happy to print an Answer showing the total quantities of duty-paid foreign spirits removed from one part of the United Kingdom to another in 1903–4. But it is not possible to distinguish between the different kinds of spirits named in the Question.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state, with reference to Table 27 on page 36 of the last published Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, whether any Government officer ever checks, or is instructed to check, the bulk, quantity, or strength of the duty-paid spirits removed, accompanied by spirit certificates, from the stocks of spirit dealers; whether such certificates are usually filled in by lads employed by spirit dealers; and whether it is the custom of the spirit trade to give, on the face of such certificate, a strength greater by from 10 to 20 per cent. than is actually the case; and, if so, whether this table is taken into account in arriving at Ireland's contribution to the Imperial Revenue in Parliamentary Paper, No. 225.

The answer to the hon. Member's first Question is in the negative; the Inland Revenue officials check or test only those statements which affect payment or rate of duty. Inaccuracy in the particulars named in this part of the Question would not affect the Revenue, and the certifi- cates of traders are therefore accepted without further test. As regards the second point, the Inland Revenue have no information which would tend to confirm the hon. Member's suggestions. The person who gives an inaccurate certificate renders himself liable to a fine of £100 and the forfeiture of the spirits; and, as such action would be a fraud upon the customer, the latter, I think, may be trusted to deal with the matter himself. To the third part of the Question, the answer is that the table is used in the preparation of the Return.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can explain why the pillars, now in course of erection on either side of the approaches to the Mall and Birdcage Walk from Buckingham Gate, are being built at an angle to instead of square with the roadways and footways.

These pillars are part of an architectural design forming a segment of a circle, as is clearly seen in approaching from Buckingham Palace Road. This accounts for their not standing squarely with the roads.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if, before bringing into operation in Scotland the Orders by which motor-cars with their loads weighing up to twelve tons are permitted to be driven on public highways in England at a speed of twelve miles an hour, he will take steps to ascertain the opinion thereon of the local authorities.

The hon. Member may not be aware that the Heavy Motor Car (Scotland) Order, 1905, is already in force, having taken effect yesterday. The Secretary for Scotland consulted various authorities before issuing the Order, and gave consideration to their views.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which took place last year between the Foreign Office and His Majesty's representative at Christiania on the subject of illegal trawling in Scottish waters by trawlers registered in Norway?

Before giving a definite Answer to the hon. Member's Question it will be necessary to consult with the Foreign Office on this subject. I shall communicate with the hon. Member on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Viceregal Poor Law Reform Commission appointed in 1903 has completed the taking of evidence; and, if so, when it may be expected to present its Report.

The Commissioners hope to complete their inquiries early next month. It is not possible at present to state, even approximately, when their Report will be issued.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the present position of the Pirie-Iveagh motor scheme.

The County Councils of Mayo and Galway, while approving of the experimental services proposed under the scheme in these counties, have not agreed to incur the expenditure necessary for putting the roads into a proper condition for motor traffic. In the County Antrim, the Midland Railway Company has taken up one of the services, and has, I believe, another service under consideration.

Is that all the progress that has been made with this scheme, which was announced two years ago?

According to the information in my possession it is.

Only two county councils have approved! What about the other county councils?

I have no further information.

Were hopes held out to the promoters of the scheme that public money would be forthcoming for the repair of the roads?

I know nothing of that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received the unanimous resolution of the Downpatrick Union protesting against the adoption of the Public Bodies Order, 1904, and The Union Accounts Order, 1904; whether, in view of the protest of all the local authorities in Ireland, he proposes to suspend these Orders; and whether it is intended to give effect to the request of the Downpatrick Union for the issue of a volume containing the Rules and Orders issued prior to and since the passing of The Local Government Act, 1898?

The resolution has been received. The rural district council and the guardians were invited by the Board to indicate the provisions of the new Orders to which exception was taken and which would lead to the consequences suggested in the resolution, but, so far, they have failed to comply with, the Board's request. My right hon. friend has already stated that the Orders are essential to a proper system of financial administration. With respect to the second part of the Question, I would refer to Parliamentary Papers, No. 360 of 1899; No. 359 and 360 of 1900; and No. 363 of 1904.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no public board in Ireland and nobody else can make head or tail of these Orders? Will he consider the propriety of issuing them in a form more easily understood? There are about 600 of them.

was understood to reply that they were clear.

Has any public body approved them?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain the cause of delay in the matter of the sale of the O'Brien Estate at Comakelly and Corglass, county Longford; whether he is aware that terms of purchase were agreed on by the tenants and landlord's representatives in Longford in October last, and that when in January last a tenant named Francis M'Cabe tried to have a fair rent fixed by Judge Curran the case was struck out on the ground that the estate had been sold; and can he state when this matter is likely to be closed.

It has not been found possible to obtain the information necessary to enable me to give a reply to this Question to-day and I must ask the hon. Member to postpone it until Monday next.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that an inquiry has been presently held in Ardee into a proposal on the part of the Local Government Board, Ireland, to convert the three existing dispensary districts of Collon, Drumcondra, and Dunleer into two, at an extra cost to the ratepayers, that the balance of evidence at the inquiry was against the proposal, and that the proposal, if carried into effect, would leave some of the people likely to require advice a distance of fourteen miles from the residence of the medical officer, he can state what is the final decision arrived at by the Local Government Board in regard to the matter.

The inquiry referred to was held in January of last year. In September the Local Government Board made an Order under Seal rearranging the dispensary districts. Application was then made to the King's Bench Division for a Writ of certiorari to quash the Board's Order, and was refused with costs. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on the 2nd ultimo. The Board's Order is now being put into operation, and the Board has also regulated the salaries of the two existing medical officers, allowing to them the amounts formerly paid to three officers. No extra, cost to the ratepayers is entailed.

In consideration of these matters was regard had to the fact that the medical officer has to travel a distance of fourteen miles?

Every fact was considered by the Local Government Board. They did not agree with the accuracy of the representations made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the action of the Local Government Board taken on the report of their auditor, Mr. Browne, in drawing the attention of the Valuation Office to the present position in connection with the Limerick and Kerry Railway, has resulted in a loss of £486 12s. 4d. of the amount payable to the County Council of Kerry out of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Act, he will take any steps to prevent such loss, having regard to the fact that the Under-Secretary, on January 16th last. No. 637, wrote to the council that the apportionment of the proceeds of the purchase of the Limerick and Kerry Railway was duly and legally made.

It is impossible in an Answer to the hon. Gentleman across the floor of the House to explain in an intelligible manner the difficult questions of law involved in this matter, and their bearing upon the facts, but if he will be good enough to put down an unstarred Question for Monday I shall be happy to give a reply dealing with, the whole matter.

Was it the duty of this boy auditor to give information to the Valuation Office?

He did nothing of the kind.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what were the charges preferred against Constable M'Garry, of Musgrave Street Barracks, Belfast; on what date were the charges made against him; on what date was he sent to a lunatic asylum; and what was the date he was told that he had been pensioned off; what was the date of his discharge from the asylum, and what was the nature of M'Garry's discharge from the force.

I am making further inquiry into the facts in this case. Perhaps my hon. friend will postpone the Question until Monday next.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Wicklow County Council, the Wicklow Urban Council, the Bray Urban Council, and the Rathdrum Rural District Council passed resolutions disapproving of the Public Bodies Order, 1904, and alleging that many of the provisions of the Order are in excess of the powers conferred by statute upon the Local Government Board arid lead to unnecessary complication and expense, and asking to have the Orders withdrawn or suitably modified so as to avoid friction and unnecessary expenditure; and, if so, whether, under these circumstances, he will have the Order withdrawn.

The resolution has been received. The Local Government Board has been advised that all the provisions of the Order are intra vires. With regard to the remainder of the Question, I refer to the replies given by my right hon. friend, on the 16th †and 22nd ‡ February, to the similar inquiries addressed to him by the hon. Members for West Wicklow and North Kilkenny. It is not proposed to withdraw the Order.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the county councils of Ireland have refused to obey these Orders? What action do the Local Government Board intend to take on the matter?

I am not aware of it. The remainder of the Question is hypothetical.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in connection with the sale of Lord Crofton's estate in the county of Roscommon, a grazing farm of 270 Irish acres is about to be sold to four persons named Cotton, whose tenancies were created by the landlord's agent for the purpose of carrying out a sale to them; and whether, seeing that the sale, if carried out, will deprive the Estates Commissioners of the opportunity of properly dealing with the small tenants and labourers of the district in regard to the enlargement of holdings and otherwise, he will take any steps to prevent a sale to these persons.

Agreements for purchase by tenants on this estate were lodged with the Commissioners so recently as January 5th. The estate has not yet been inspected, and pending the receipt of the inspector's report the Commissioners cannot make any statement in respect to the matters mentioned in the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of appointments to

† See (4) Debates, cxli., 322

‡ See (4) Debates, cxli., 885.

Six magistrates were appointed for the county Cavan during the year 1904. It is believed they are Protestants.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have yet been taken by the Estates Commissioners to acquire the Thompson (Clonfin) Estate, which is at present in the hands of the Scottish Provident Assurance Company, and is an insolvent estate within the meaning of the Land Purchase Act, 1903.

No application in respect of this estate has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. St. George R. Johnstone, J.P., of Kinlough, county Leitrim, is about offering for sale at Rathclive, county Longford, a grazing farm of ninety-six acres which would be suitable for the providing for evicted tenants of equivalent holdings under the Land Purchase Act, 1903; and, if so, will he direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to this farm with a view to its purchase and sub-division amongst the evicted tenants of the county Longford.

No application for the sale of this estate has been made to the Estates Commissioners, and I see no necessity for taking any special course with respect to the farm referred to.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many police constables have been stationed in Rasharkin, county Antrim, since Sergeant Long's appointment to that station; how many applied for transfers; and how many of those who applied for transfers were Catholics.

Sergeant Long has been six years at this station. Sixteen constables have been at the station in that period. Of these seven, all of whom were Catholics, applied for transfers to other stations. Three of them wished to be near their native places, one was transferred for the benefit of his health, and two wished to go to better stations.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what particular disease this constable was suffering from that made him wish to be transferred?

No.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the Government has come to the conclusion that public money should be applied to the drainage of the River Bann; whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings of the meeting of the Joint Committee, representative of Kildare, Carlow, King's and Queen's Counties, formed for the purpose of considering the question of the Barrow drainage; and, if so, whether the Government are prepared to advance public money for the drainage of the Barrow when advancing money for the drainage of the Bann.

My right hon. friend replied to a similar Question † addressed to him on Monday last by the hon. Member for South Roscommon. To that reply I have nothing to add.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is now in a position to state whether the Estates Commissioners are willing to compensate in cash or by procuring other holdings the

† See (4) Debates, cxli., 1334.

I beg to refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. friend on August 13th † last to a Question put to him on this subject by the hon. Member for South Kildare. I am not at present in a position to make any further statement in the matter.

This a very important question. When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give an Answer?

I cannot fix a definite day.

I never got any such reply as suggested from the Chief Secretary.

I will inquire into that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that, at the last meeting of the South Tipperary County Council, held at the county Court-house at Clonmel objection was taken to the Court-house being used by a club for social purposes; and, if so, whether he will take steps to release the county council from paying rent for and maintaining this Court-house, over which they are permitted to exercise no control, and which is being used for purposes which they do not approve of. In putting the Question the hon. Member said that its terms had been so much altered since it was handed in at the Table that the right hon. Gentleman might not be able to answer it. The phrase "social purposes" had been substituted for "a tea and bridge party."

In the proceedings in Committee on the Local Government Act of 1898 the question of the control of the county Court-

† See (4) Debates, cxl., 516.

It is evident that we have no control over the Court-house. May I ask whether the Government consent to even the High Sheriff of a county giving the Court-house, which the ratepayers are maintaining at their own expense, for the use of a club for tea and bridge parties?

I must ask for notice of that Question.

May I ask the Attorney-General for Ireland if it is true that the Congested Districts Board has bought the De Freyne Estate, and, if so, upon what terms?

I have only just received notice of the Question and have telegraphed for information, which I shall be most happy to communicate to the House when it arrives.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that there wore only 182 outbreaks of swine fever last year in Ireland, as against 1,196 in Great Britain, the Board of Agriculture will consider the advisability of withdrawing the restrictions placed on the movement of Irish swine into Great Britain.

In my printed reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question of the 20th ultimo, † I stated that owing to a difference in the meaning attached to the term outbreak in Great Britain and Ireland the numbers returned for the two countries were not comparable. I also briefly alluded to the considerations upon which the Board's recent action was based. Since then there has been no change in the circumstances necessitating a reconsideration of the matter on the part of the Board. I may add that while the total number of swine in Great Britain is 2,861,000, the total number in Ireland is 1,315,000, and that while the average number of outbreaks of swine fever in Great Britain for the first eight weeks in last year was 26·25, the outbreaks for the first eight weeks of this year have averaged 10·87.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any outbreaks in Great Britain have been traceable to swine imported from Ireland?

I am afraid that is the case.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state when the Order was made and became operative in connection with the alleged cases of swine fever in Ireland; whether he can state the number of swine fever cases in existence in Ireland for thirty days prior to the Order coming into force; and also for the thirty days after the Order became operative.

The Swine Fever (Movement from Ireland) Order of 1904 became operative on January 23rd, 1905. In the four weeks ending January 21st there were three outbreaks of swine fever returned for Ireland, and during the following four weeks one. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of February 20th † to a somewhat, similar Question put by the hon. Member for Queen's

† See (4) Debaes, exli., 585.

Are the same precautions taken to prevent the disease coming from Denmark and other Continental countries?

No live cattle from the Continent may be landed here.

Was the Irish Board consulted by the English Department before the Order was promulgated?

Yes, the Board has been in constant communication with the Irish Department.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the difference of opinion existing between the Board of Works and the operative painters as to the employment of labourers to do painting work at the Viceregal Lodge, Dublin, he will take some expert evidence on the matter; and whether he will say what was the rough work these men were engaged on.

One labourer only is employed part of his time at the Viceregal Lodge for rough painting work such as fencing, garden and pit frames, barrows, etc. I do not consider that expert evidence is required to decide that such work is of an unskilled description.

Eighteen men have been thus employed. I shall raise this question on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain why the pension benefits of national school teachers have been reduced, seeing that the capital fund has been growing at the rate of £40,000 per annum.

The administration of the pension fund is regulated, not by a comparison of the receipts and expenditure of the present time, but by the total prospective liabilities as compared with the total prospective assets; and the changes embodied in the Irish Teachers Pension Rules, 1897, were governed by this consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the use by cyclists of the footpaths in the Phœnix Park has rendered them unsafe and unfit for use by pedestrians; if so, whether, under the circumstances, the Board of Works will provide a suitable footpath for the exclusive use of the public who wish to walk in the park.

Owing to the absence of a Park Regulations Act the Board of Works have no power to restrict the use of paths by cyclists. I am considering the advisability of introducing such an Act, in the furtherance of which I should value the co-operation of the hon. Member and his friends.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant a Return of the joint stock and limited liability companies in Dublin, with the valuation of all the property occupied by them, and of the total value of the respective companies, including shares, capital, and debentures.

Such of the information asked for as can be given will be found in the Return of Joint Stock Companies, 1904, No. 282. This Return will be brought up to April 30th, 1905, during the current year. No information is available with regard to the valuation of the property occupied by the companies referred to, nor with regard to the total amount of the debentures issued.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is appointed by Letters Patent signed by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland as representative of the Crown in Ireland; whether the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland was determined by a change in the personnel of the occupant of the Lord-Lieutenancy till by statutory enactment it was provided that the tenure of the office of the Lord-Lieutenant should not be affected by a change in the holder of the Viceroyalty; and whether it is the duty of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to acquaint the Lord-Lieutenant with reference to matters of Irish policy and administration and to take his advice on such matters, whether the Lord-Lieutenant be or be not a member of the Cabinet.

The Chief Secretary is appointed by a Minute signed by the Lord-Lieutenant, and he is further appointed by Letters Patent under the Privy Seal. His tenure is not affected by a change of Lord-Lieutenant. There were apparently doubts as to whether he would require re-election after a change of Lord-Lieutenant, but these doubts were set at rest by statute as far back as 1813. As to the last part of the Question, I dissent from the hon. Gentleman's view of the relations between the Lord-Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this description is taken from Lord Spencer's speech in reference to those duties?

I still dissent from that view.

I agree with Lord Spencer.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give any information whether the Royal Commission on Trade Disputes have completed taking evidence; and when are they likely to issue their Report thereon.

The Commissioners have, I understand, finished taking evidence, and are engaged in the consideration of their preliminary Report. At present they are unable to fix a day for its presentation.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the urgency of providing adequate machinery for dealing with unemployment and the distress arising there from, and to the practical breakdown of the efforts of the London Central and other unemployed relief committees owing to lack of funds, he will give the measure for dealing with unemployment promised in the King's Speech priority over other measures referred to therein.

I understand there is some exaggeration m the statement with which the hon. Gentleman's Question begins. The work of the Committee has not broken down for lack of funds, though undoubtedly I should like the amount of those funds to be increased. As regards the further Question about the order of legislation, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that a Bill should pass in the course of the present session, but I do not think it very important at what period of the session it passes. What is desirable is that the machinery should be in operation before the next period of distress is likely to become acute.

Will any effort be made on the part of the Government to supplement the funds at present in the hands of the Central Committee? Otherwise we shall have the whole of the people starving.

I hope that will not be the case; but, as the hon. Gentleman will readily see, it will not be remedied by the Bill in any event.

I beg to ask die First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether, in recommending Lord Selborne to the Crown for appointment as High Commissioner in South Africa, he had regard to the circumstances that Lord Selborne had filled the office of Undersecretary for the Colonies from 1895 to 1900, at the period of the Rhode; and Jameson conspiracy, the Jameson raid, and the friction between the Colonial Office and the South African Republic which led to the Boer War, and to the effect calculated to be produced by such an appointment—

Order, order! A Question in that form would not be put on the Paper.

I am quite willing to answer it.

Well, answer.

I am not at all objecting to the hon. Gentleman's right to ask a Question in proper form on the subject of the appointment of Lord Selborne; but the hon. Member was putting his Question in rhetorical language that would not be permitted on the Paper. I think he had better frame his Question in more suitable language.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state what will be the business next week?

I hope to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates on Monday. I shall go on with Supply on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Either Navy Estimates or Supplementary Estimates will be taken. The Estimates will be in the Vote Office this evening.

said that last year the House were hustled in dealing with the Navy Estimates. This year questions of exceptional importance arose, and he hoped arrangements would be made to give the House at least a week for the consideration of those Estimates before they were taken.

thought the hon. Gentleman would see that the request was somewhat unreasonable. He agreed that very broad questions of principle were raised by the Navy Estimates this year; but the principles had long been before the House and the country with official authority, and on those broad principles he thought the House were already fully armed with the information they desired to obtain.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be content with getting the Speaker out of the Chair on the Navy Estimates without taking the Vote.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to consider that suggestion. I certainly do not negative it.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to move the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service or Army Estimates next week.

I do not.

asked whether it was intended that the Secretary to the Admiralty should make his introductory statement with the Speaker in the Chair or wait for Committee to be opened.

desired to know whether hon. Members who were successful in the ballot would be allowed to bring in their Motions before the statement on behalf of the Government was made. That, he believed, was the old and better practice of the House.

And in case the statement is made with Mr. Speaker in the Chair will the right hon. Gentleman see that the hon. Member making it does not monopolise the greater part of the time available?

said he believed it would be much more to the convenience of the House to follow the recent practice than to go back to the old practice. The House and the country ought to be greatly interested in the new naval policy which his hon. friend would propound to the House. It would be most undesirable that all the edge of the interest should be taken off by a series of miscellaneous discussions upon details. He thought it would be better to begin the Navy Estimates with a broad statement of the policy of the Government.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind what took place five or six years ago when Mr. Goschen made the statement. After the principle had been approved the debate was adjourned in order that details might be considered.

As a point of order, is it not for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide who shall be heard first. Formerly private Members had the first hearing, but of late years the practice has grown up for the Minister to make his statement first.

The old practice was that when the Navy Estimates were called on for the first time the Minister formally moved, and the Speaker thereupon called upon the Member who was first in the ballot. Then the practice grew up which I have no control over, that the Minister should make a long statement before moving that I should leave the Chair. That statement he formerly used to make in Committee. Then it appeared to me to be more fair and convenient that in such a case some hon. Member representing the Opposition on Navy matters should have an opportunity of making some general observations on the statement before the first name in the ballot was called. That I understand to be the recent practice. If it is thought undesirable that a Member should be called upon to make general observations in reply before the ballot comes on, that is a matter the House can settle itself.

Would it not be competent, Sir, for any Member to move that a certain Member be now heard—the Member, for instance, in charge of a Motion?

No, I think it would not. That is a form used in the House of Lords when two Members both claim to speak, because, the Speaker there has no authority to decide such a question, but the practice here is different.

Have we no remedy then?

Order, order!