To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give a statement of the various claims outstanding against the Transvaal and Orange River Governments since the close of the war on account of the railways and other matters, exclusive of the promised war contribution, and the terms of settlement agreed upon by the Treasury in each case; when will the payment be made; how is the money to be raised; and will it, when received, be applied to the reduction of debt. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The following statement shows how the outstanding claims of His Majesty's Government against the Transvaal and Orange River Governments have been settled:—

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any new regulations have been issued by the Transvaal Government on account of the increasing number of riots and disturbances amongst the Chinese indentured coolies on the Rand gold-fields; and, if so, will he state what they are. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) There is not an increasing number of riots and disturbances among the Chinese. The only new regulation is that published in the Government Gazette of January 27th, requiring prompt information to be given to the Foreign Labour Department in case of disturbance, about which I was asked a Question on the 2nd instant.† Lord Milner informs me that there has been no disturbance lately worth mentioning.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of cat-o'-nine-tails provided for the flogging of refractory Chinese indentured labourers in the Transvaal mines; by whom and under what conditions are these floggings inflicted, and what is the maximum, if any, of the number of lashes which may be inflicted; what is the weight of these cat-o'-nine-tails, and are they made on the model of the cat-o'-nine-tails supplied to ships of His Majesty's Navy or on what other model. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) There are no cat-o'-nine-tails. The maximum of strokes inflicted with a cane, which is the instrument of whipping, would be twenty-four. The whipping would be given in the presence of the governor or deputy-governor of the prison, and the goaler, and the visiting medical officer, who certifies to the fitness of the prisoner to undergo the punishment. The sentence being by a magistrate cannot be carried out till the record has been sent to and confirmed by a Judge of the High Court.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will His Majesty's Government request by cable the British Consul at Boma for a full report from Mr. A. E. Scrivener at Bolobo, Mr. A. Billington at Bwemba, Mr. Gilcriest at Lolanga, Mr. Weeks at Mensembe, Mr. Joseph Clarke at Lkeko, and Mr. Ruskin at Bongandanga, of their Depositions before the Commission of

† See page 181.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is His Majesty's Government aware that a number of native witnesses to outrages committed in the Baringa region were, at the instance of the British missionaries at that place and at the request of the Substitut of the Procureur d'Etat, sent down last August to Boma, involving a journey there and back of three months; can His Majesty's Government give any indication of the treatment these native witnesses are receiving at Boma; and will His Majesty's Government request the British Consul to inform them by cable on the subject. (Answered by Earl Percy.) I am not aware of any recent occurrence of the character described.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has the intention of His Majesty's Government been drawn to the published notes of the Rev. W. T. Currie, of Living-stonia, British Central Africa, on his recent experiences in travelling through the Lualaba country in the Congo Free State; and will His Majesty's Government, in view of the general condition of oppression and ill-treatment of the natives reported by Mr. Currie, request the authorities of the British Central Africa Protectorate to obtain a detailed report from that gentleman for the information of this House. (Answered by Earl Percy.) We have not heard of the report alluded to. I will ascertain from the Colonial Office whether it is possible to obtain the information desired.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the restrictions on the employment of women before and after childbirth prevailing in foreign countries, so far as they are known to the Foreign Office. (Answered by Earl Percy.) The latest information in the possession of the Foreign Office is contained in the "Further Correspondence respecting the International Labour Conference at Berlin," Commercial (No. 10,1890). The Secretary of State will be happy to bring the information up to date if the right hon. Member desires it.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what steps have been taken towards the publication of the Irish Franciscan MSS. by the Historical MSS. Commission; and when it is expected that these MSS. will be published. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Manuscript of the Irish Franciscan MSS. is now in the hands of the printers, and I hope that the Report will be published very shortly.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Treasury, in December, 1904, informed the War Office that the ages for retirement of those temporary copyists selected for beneficial promotion to the established abstractor class were to be sixty-five and seventy years, and that this Treasury decision was to be applied retrospectively to temporary copyists so appointed since 1890 to the War Office, he will now cause the three War Office abstractor class clerks compulsorily retired from that office at the respective ages of sixty, sixty-two, and sixty, while efficient and with less than forty years of service, to receive the benefits intended by this Treasury decision. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Full discretion rests with the Department concerned to call upon any officer to retire upon reaching the age of sixty or upwards. With that discretion I have no power nor wish to interfere.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Irish Government was first requested to remove the wreck of the "Albert" which lies off Blackwater, in the county of Wexford; which of the Irish Departments is responsible for the removal of wrecks; and whether he will consider the advisability of giving compensation to the local fishermen for the injuries done to their fishing gear for several years past by this wreck, which lies directly in the fishing channel. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Under the provisions of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, it would appear to be the duty of either the harbour or conservancy authorities, or of the general lighthouse authority for the district, and not of the Irish Government, to provide for the removal of the wreck in question.

:To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state how many promotions have been made under Clause 15 of the Order in Council, November 27th, 1898, from assistant clerks of the abstractor class to the second division, and how many of these in the Custom House. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Number of promotions of assistant clerks (abstractors) under Clause 15 of the Order in Council of November 29th, 1898:—

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has carried out the promise made by him last session to look into the questions raised on behalf of the Customs watchers; and, if so, will he state whether he has taken or will take steps to accede to their requests. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The questions raised in the last session as to the duties and remuneration of Customs watchers have not been lost sight of; but I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a sorting clerk and telegraphist named M'Clusker, stationed at Armagh, has been for a number of years subjected to discomfort through the action of certain of his immediate superior officers, and that in at least one case brought against him and for which he was punished, the preponderance of expert evidence was on the side of M'Clusker; and, if so, whether he will make personal inquiries into the whole of the facts of the difficulties between M'Clusker and his superiors. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I presume that the hon. Member's Question refers to Mr. R. J. M'Cusker (not M'Clusker), a sorting clerk and telegraphist at the Armagh Post Office. I have no reason to think that Mr. M'Cusker has been subjected to discomfort through the action of certain of his immediate superior officers, nor am I prepared to reopen the disciplinary case to which the hon. Member appears to refer, seeing that it occurred in 1897.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the Branch Office Circular 171 of December, 1902, stated that risk allowances were to be paid on newly created counter duties, and that the staff at Ludgate Circus Branch Office, who petitioned in 1902, were informed in December,1904, that the matter was still under consideration, he intends to give effect to the instructions contained in that circular. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The arrangement sanctioned in December, 1902, was duly carried out, and it is not the case, as the hon. Member appears to think, that the matter now under consideration has any reference to the decision then given Certain new duties were created at the Ludgate Circus Office in November last, and it is the amount of risk attending those particular duties, and consequently the proper amount of risk allowance to be granted to the officers performing the duties, which is now under consideration. A decision will be given as soon as possible.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether a provision will be inserted in the new Code making the payment of Parliamentary grants to public elementary schools conditional upon the Board of Education being satisfied by medical inspection or otherwise that the children in respect of whom the grant is made are physically fit to receive the instruction for which the grant is paid. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) It is extremely doubtful if the Board have the legal power to require the medical inspection of children in public elementary schools. Even if they do possess such power, the right hon. Member hardly seems to have realised what the effect of their putting it into operation would be. The organisation of any such system as is suggested in the Question must take some time to complete, and in the meanwhile the public elementary schools throughout the country would be deprived of Government grants. The Board do not propose to insert any such provision in the new Code.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recent case of a female prisoner having had her hair cut while awaiting trial; and whether he will state what steps he has taken in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Careful inquiry was made into the case as soon as attention was called to it (which was done by the girl's father on February 20th), and I find that sanitary considerations rendered the cutting of the hair necessary. The woman was examined on reception by the deputy medical officer of the prison, who found her hair to be verminous, and gave written directions authorising it to be cut. Dr. Quinton, the governor, himself a medical man of great experience, is satisfied from the deputy medical officer's account and from the report of the hospital officer that no other measures would have eradicated the dirt and vermin without seriously injuring the scalp. In the interests of other prisoners it is necessary to take prompt and effectual precautions in cases of this kind, but a woman's hair is never cut except when there is no possibility of cleansing it in any other way, and then only on the certificate of a medical officer.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in proceeding with the marine works in county Mayo; and whether there is any prospect of their being commenced in the near future. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) Negotiations are still in progress with respect to these works. I am not, therefore, in a position to reply to the second inquiry.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that distress prevails in the districts around Newport, county Mayo; and if he will explain why relief works have not been I started there. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The Local Government Board have approved of schemes prepared by the Westport Board of Guardians for the relief of distress in the Achill and Ballycroy divisions of the union, and relief works in these divisions were, I understand, to be opened to-day.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Jones, of Burrishoole, Newport, county Mayo, is anxious to sell his estate to the Congested Districts Board; that he has been in negotiation with the Board with a view to sell such estate; that those negotiations have been broken off; and if he can state why those negotiations were broken off. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The negotiations between Mr. Anketell Jones and the Board have not been broken off.

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. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The county council in the year 1903 applied portion of the sum received under the Limerick and Kerry Railway Act in reduction of the rate estimates for charges on the guaranteeing baronies alone, and thereby received from the Local Taxation Account a larger contribution, to the extent of £486 12s. 4d., than they were legally entitled to. In the year 1904 the county council adopted a different procedure, and apportioned part of the purchase-money in relief of the general rates. The letter of the Under-Secretary of January 16th last, in addition to intimating that the apportionment of the proceeds of the purchase of the Limerick and Kerry Railway for the year 1904 was duly and legally made, further stated that the sum of £5,225 7s. 2d. was subject to a deduction of £486 12s. 4d., to be refunded in respect of the back payments previously made by the Government to the county council in respect of the Limerick and Kerry Railway Company guarantee, as the result of previous apportionment of part of the purchase money in reduction of the rate estimates for charges on the guaranteeing baronies.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state up to what amount of purchase money have agreements been lodged in the Land Commission under the Land Purchase Act of 1903 up to March 1st; up to what amount of money have sales actually been completed; how much money has actually been paid to owners on foot of their estates under the Land Act of 1903; what is the balance required to finance the Act; and if the Government propose to make any arrangement to speed sales by providing all the money required for sales which are pending. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) Agreements have been lodged to February 28th for advances amounting to over £16,900,000. Advances have been made to purchasers in receipt of completed sales to the amount of £4,630,000. The amount paid to owners cannot be stated without an investigation which would involve considerable delay; but the amount of purchase money distributed to claimants on estates sold is between £3,500,000 and £4,000,000. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated on 1st instant† that the two issues of stock, amounting to £11,000,000, are expected to yield cash to a total amount of £9,691,421 6s. 8d. All reasonable steps are being taken to

† See page 16.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a meeting of teachers recently held in Wexford protesting against the allocation of the Equivalent Grant to purposes other than the promotion and extension of primary education, and requesting the Government to place the Teachers' Pension Fund on a sound financial basis; and, if so, will he state what steps, if any, the Government will take during the present session to meet the wishes of the teachers. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) I have seen a report of the proceedings at the meeting referred to. The question of the allocation in Ireland of the amount provided as an equivalent of the aid grant for education in England has been frequently discussed in this House. The Government have no further statement to make in the matter at present. The hon. Member's inquiry respecting the Teachers' Pension Fund should be addressed to my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to adapt the existing long rifles for clip loading. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) All rifles will be supplied with the clip loading. The question whether all the long rifles so fitted need also be shortened is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty on what date were His Majesty's ships "Clio" and ''Cadmus" laid down; when were they completed; what was their cost; and whether it is now proposed to remove them from the active list as being obsolete.

The "Clio" and "Cadmus" were both laid down on March 11th, 1902. The "Clio" was completed in January and the "Cadmus" in April of 1904. The first cost of these vessels is as follows: "Clio," £80,796; "Cadmus," £76,657. They were never designed for fighting purposes but for subsidiary work in peace or war, for which they are still available, and in which they are at the present moment engaged.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the promised Returns relating to ships struck off the effective list and to cruisers not so struck off will be in the hands of Members before the discussion of the Navy Estimates in Committee of Supply.

The information asked for by the hon. Member will take some time to prepare, but I hope that it may be in the hands of Members during the next fortnight.

Will the further discussion on the Navy Estimates be postponed till then?

:That is a Question I am not able to answer.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us the number of ships?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will undertake to circulate copies of the Order in Council of August 10th, 1904, relating to the distribution of business at the Admiralty, before the discussion of the Navy Estimates begins in Committee of Supply.

This Paper is being laid on the Table to-day, and will be circulated in due course.

When will it be circulated?

To-morrow, I hope.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why that Order in Council alone of all the Admiralty Orders in Council has not been sent to the Library?

I was not aware of the fact. I regret it.

Will the hon. Gentleman defer his statement until the Order has been circulated?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the speed of the ''Harrier" gunboat, and the cruiser "Barham;" when did they commence fishery duties; and what waters do they respectively control.

The speed at authorised natural draught of the "Harrier" is 16·4 knots per hour, and that of the "Barham" 18·7 knots per hour. These vessels commenced duties in charge of fisheries in Scottish waters and in the North Sea on February 13th and 4th respectively.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether a Naval Works Bill is to be introduced this year, and when.

A Naval Works Loan Bill will be introduced this year, and is now in course of preparation. It is not at present possible to say I on what date it will be introduced.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the amount of money spent during the current year, and the estimated amount to be spent during the ensuing year, under the Naval Works Acts.

The amount of money spent under the Naval Works Acts during the current year is estimated at £3,589,600. The estimated amount to be spent during the ensuing year cannot at present be stated, but will be included in the forthcoming Naval Works Loan Bill.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what orders have been given for the new pattern short rifle and where those orders have been placed, also the number of these rifles already manufactured and the number already issued.

Orders have been placed as follows: New rifle, B.S.A. Company, 70,000; L.S.A. Company, 35,000; Sparkbrook, 19,000; Enfield Lock, 98,000; converted rifle, Sparkbrook, 25,000; Enfield Lock, 39,500. 158,000 short rifles have been already manufactured; and 130,000 have been issued to date.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what (if any) course is intended to be taken with reference to the Militia and Volunteer Submarine Mining Divisions (R.E.) stationed on the Humber, Tyne, Clyde, and at other commercial harbours; and, if submarine mining is to be discontinued, what, if any, provision will be made as to the services of the officers and men of such divisions.

Submarine mining in the estuaries and harbours of the United Kingdom will be discontinued. The question of how the services of officers and men who have hitherto been engaged on submarine work can be best utilised, therefore, becomes a matter for consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is decided that all white infantry are to be removed from the West Indies, Demerara, and Honduras; and, if so, by what date; where in future will artillery be stationed, and in what numbers; what naval force is contemplated to be permanently stationed in the district, and what probable lauding force a cruiser or gunboat could respectively supply; whether any direct telegraph communication connects the chief islands with Demerara and Honduras; and whether His Majesty's Government are proposing to improve or add to the present system.

It has been decided to withdraw all the white infantry from the West Indian Islands, but the date has not yet been settled. No white infantry has been stationed in British Guiana or British Honduras for many years past. It has not yet been finally decided what artillery will be retained or where it will be stationed. Adequate naval force will be stationed in the district. It is not desirable in the public interest to give further details. There is telegraph communication between the islands and British Guiana. There is no telegraph communication between them and British Honduras. The subject of West Indian telegraphs has recently engaged the attention of His Majesty's Government, but it is not proposed to incur any Imperial expenditure on this account at the present time.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is anything in the terms of their indenture which makes it illegal for Chinamen in the Transvaal to form a trade union or a secret society.

The terms of the indenture contain nothing bearing upon the point raised.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Tang Shao Yi has been appointed Chinese Plenipotentiary to negotiate with the Government the terms of the Tibetan Treaty, and is now at Calcutta; and whether he has been appointed Chinese Ambassador to the British Government.

Mr. Tang Shao Yi has been appointed Plenipotentiary by the Chinese Government for the purposes of the negotiations at Calcutta regarding the Tibetan Treaty. Mr. Tang, I understand, has arrived at Calcutta. Mr. Tang has been appointed Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at this Court.

With whom will you negotiate?

The negotiations have to take place with the Suzerain Power.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what steps were taken to obtain the views of the Indian public on the measures recommended by the Police Commission Report before the Secretary of State passed his decisions on the subject; and whether, before the Government of India state their conclusions upon the question, the public and the Press in India will be informed as to what these recommendations are, and will have an opportunity of expressing their views upon them.

The Report of the Indian Police Commission was founded upon an exhaustive inquiry carried out in public, the evidence given at which, by a very large number of persons, unofficial as well as official, was published in the newspapers at the time. The decisions which have already been arrived at relate to questions of establishment, pay, and organisation, in regard to which the Government considered that they already had sufficient information before them. Other recommendations contained in the Report will require legislation to give effect to them, and, as the hon. Member is aware, the ordinary course of legislation in India fully secures to persons interested an opportunity of expressing their views on the questions to which it relates.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs is His Majesty's Government aware that a number of native witnesses to outrages committed by Congolese soldiers in Ikeko were, at the instances of missionaries in that district and at the request of the investigating magistrate, sent down to Boma; and will His Majesty's Government instruct the British Consul at that place to report by cable as to the allegations that these native witnesses are virtually kept as prisoners, and have in some cases been compelled to labour on behalf of the Congo Government.

No Sir, we have no information on the subject. If the hon. Member will acquaint me with the source of the allegations I will make inquiry.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the practice of the Canadian Government in granting certificates, on the payment of a small stamp duty, to distillers and merchants endorsing the age guarantee affixed by such traders to potstill whiskies bottled in bond, as the Excise officers know by the official books the exact time such whiskies have been in Government custody; and, if so, whether, in the interest of trade, the public health, and increase of the revenue, he will instruct the Excise authorities to adopt a similar practice in these countries.

I have not sufficient information as to the Canadian practice in this matter, but I will ask the Colonial Office to obtain a full report upon the subject.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is the amount of Consols sold from the Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1898, Fund since February 8th, 1904; what was the average price obtained for those sales; what was the loss incurred; and what is the amount of Consols left.

The Consols sold from the Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1898, Fund since February 8th, 1904, amount to £433,477 12s. 8d.; the average price obtained was £88·526; and the loss on these transactions was £90,804 17s. 11d. The amount of Consols now held for the Fund is £397,693 4s. 6d.

On behalf of my right hon. friend the Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any estimate has yet been arrived at of the sum of money that will be payable to the National Telephone Company for the purchase by the Postmaster-General of their undertaking in 1911, under the agreement of February 2nd, 1905; and, if so, what is the amount of the estimate; and whether he will alter the Notice of Motion standing in his name with regard to the reference of that agreement to a Select Committee, so as to give local authorities and others interested the right to be heard by counsel or otherwise before the Select Committee.

The price to be paid to the National Telephone Company for plant in 1911 must depend on many things, including the maintenance of the plant in the meantime and the expansion of the system. It is impossible, therefore, to estimate at the present time the amount to be paid to the company. The committee will have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and can take any evidence they may consider necessary. I do not think any further directions necessary.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when it is intended to re-appoint the Select Committee on the application of Statutory Powers to Foreign Ships.

As soon as possible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to receive a deputation on the subject?

I cannot possibly say that.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what date has been fixed for hearing the appeal of the British Government against the condemnation by the Permanent Commission of the Brussels Convention of the eighteen countries in October last; whether different delegates will be appointed as judges from those who have taken part in the deliberations of the Permanent Commission; what are the grounds on which the British case is based; and whether it will be prepared and laid before the tribunal by the Law Officers of the Crown.

The questions on which His Majesty's Government has lodged an appeal against certain decisions of the Permanent Commission will be re-discussed by that Commission at its next session, which opens on April 6th. The selection of delegates rests entirely with the various Governments. As regards the remainder of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given by me on February 16th† to the hon. Member.

Will the same delegates be sent to re-hear the cases?

That Question should be addressed to the Foreign Office.

† See (4) Debates, cxli., 309.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if any steps have been taken to bring to the notice of manufacturers in this country the provisions of the new German commercial treaties.

A statement showing the effect of these treaties on the new German tariff has been prepared and presented to Parliament and will be circulated in a few days.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state when the Swine Fever Order was being promulgated the Irish Department was consulted; if so, can he now say what representation was made by the Irish Department; and, if the Irish Department were opposed to the Order, why was the Order put in force.

These questions were answered in my printed reply to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for Queen's County on February 20th,† to which I would ask the hon. Gentleman to refer.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether it is proposed to continue the present Order in reference to the importation of swine from Ireland for any fixed period, or to revoke same as soon as possible.

It is not possible to fix a period for the continuance of the Swine Fever (Movement from Ireland) Order. Since the Order came into force on January 23rd last, the circumstances which influenced the Board's decision in passing it have not changed. The time, therefore, has not arrived for a reconsideration of the matter.

† See (4) Debates, cxli., 585.

Did any communications pass between the English and Irish Agricultural Departments on the subject?

Yes, Sir; I am in continual communication with the Irish Department.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that, although the population of Scotland is slightly in excess of that of Ireland, there is only one medical inspector provided under the Local Government Board Vote for the whole of Scotland, whilst seven such inspectors are provided for Ireland under the Irish Vote; and, seeing that it is quite impossible for one medical inspector to visit the various districts in Scotland requiring his presence, will the question of appointing additional medical inspectors be considered.

The facts are as stated in the first part of the hon. Member's Question, but the Secretary for Scotland has no proposals to make at present in the direction suggested.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland will consider the expediency of issuing to parochial medical officers, sanitary inspectors and inspectors of poor, leaflets containing the opinions of the Committee on Physical Deterioration relative to ventilation and the bringing up of young children, with a view to the dissemination of information on these subjects.

The Secretary for Scotland will consider whether any official communication relative to the Report to which the hon. Member refers, can advisedly be made to the local authorities in Scotland.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that, as there is no footbridge or other means of crossing the Achintee River, children from Strathcarron who attend the Attadale Public School have to walk along the railway line for about 400 yards in order to cross the river by the railway bridge; and, as this practice is attended with risk to their lives, especially having regard to the frequent special trains, will he take such steps as may be necessary to secure the construction of a footbridge.

This matter appears to be one which is entirely within the powers of the parish council as defined by the Local Government (Scotland) Act of 1894, and the Secretary for Scotland is not able to take steps in the direction contemplated by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether, in view of the fact that a considerable portion of the public in Peebleshire strongly object to their servant, the clerk to the county council, for whose salary they are rated, acting as election agent and appearing as paid agent in the Registration Courts for a political Party in connection with the Parliamentary and county roll; and whether, looking to the fact that Peebleshire is the only county where such practice actually prevails, and that every representation for its discontinuance has been persistently ignored, he will introduce a short Amendment to the Local Government (Scotland) Act placing county clerks and their firms, if they be solicitors, on the same neutral footing in respect of politics as thaof procurators-tfiscal.

I would remind the hon. Member of the Answer given by Mr. Graham Murray to a similar Question on March 14th, † 1904. The Secretary for Scotland is not prepared to introduce special legislation on this subject.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for

† See (4) Debates, cxxxi., 952.

I regret I am not in a position to reply to this Question at the present moment. I have referred it to the Land Commissioners and expect to receive their further observations in the matter this afternoon, when I will communicate with the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of applications received by the Estates Commissioners from evicted tenants in the county of Kerry; whether any of such applications have been dealt with, and how many tenants have been reinstated through the action of the Commissioners: and whether any proceedings are now in progress to effect the reinstatement of tenants whose farms are unoccupied and in the landlords' possession.

The number of such applications received is 411. So far as the Commissioners are aware, nineteen evicted tenants have been reinstated by landlords. None have been reinstated by the Commissioners, but the applications are with the inspectors and will be considered with a view to providing the applicants with new holdings on untenanted land in their neighbourhood when such becomes available, or to their reinstatement on former holdings, as the case may be.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the legal proceedings taken on the estate of Mr. Collis Sandes at Brosna, county Kerry, against tenants who refused to agree to purchase on terms which they considered excessive; and, if so, whether, seeing that the landlord has publicly stated his readiness to sell, and the tenants to purchase, that the sale is stopped owing to the terms mentioned by the landlord, and that the estate is scheduled as a congested district, the Congested Districts Board, or the Estates Commissioners, are in a position to take any steps to carry out a settlement on reasonable terms on the estate.

I have no information that the facts are as stated in the first part of the Question, but I would observe that the Land Act of 1903 does not interfere with, and was not intended to interfere with, any rights possessed by either landlords or tenants in respect of the payment of rent. With regard to the remainder of the Question, I understand that negotiations are in progress between the Congested Districts Board and the tenants, and until these have been concluded I cannot make any further statement in the matter.

Will the Congested Districts Board take steps to prevent seizures while negotiations are proceeding?

I require notice of that. I should wish to know the nature of the proceedings.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state upon what grounds the Estates Commissioners have informed Mr. M. Moore, who was evicted from the estate of Lord Lansdowne, Luggacurran, Queen's County, in the year 1887, in reply to his application for reinstatement, that they cannot consider his case as that of an evicted tenant.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that an application for reinstatement was received from this man in January last. He stated he was evicted in March, 1887, from a house with a rood of ground, which he had held at a rent of £1 a year. On the facts so stated it appeared to the Commissioners that the holding was not an agricultural holding to which the Land Law Acts applied, and Moore was so informed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the re-sale of an estate of 447 acres at Rochfort Bridge, near Mullingar, the Estates Commissioners have disregarded the expressed wishes of Mrs. Maher, the vendor, that the land should be divided amongst the villagers, and have sanctioned a list of purchasers largely made up of, and furnished by, officials and members of the local branch of the United Irish League, most of whom live several miles distant; and, if so, will he state what communications passed between the Estates Commissioners and the United Irish League, and which of the Commissioners were concerned.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that it is not the case that they have disregarded the wishes of Mrs. Maher, who, together with a Mr. McDermott and Mr. Leonard, executors of the will of Mrs. Maher's husband, were the vendors of these lands. The solicitor of the vendors, on July 15th, 1904, furnished to the Estates Commissioners a list of purchasers whom they could recommend, the same being in fact a copy of a list supplied to the vendors by the parish priest with the exception of one person added by the vendors. On September 15th, 1904, the solicitor for the vendors submitted an additional list of purchasers, this latter list being in fact a copy of a list sent on September 8th by the local branch of the United Irish League direct to the office of the Estates Commissioners. Subsequently to September 15th the Commissioners instructed one of their inspectors to inspect the lands and obtain undertakings to purchase from suitable purchasers, with the result that he obtained undertakings from nineteen persons. These nineteen persons comprised eight who were included in the lists previously furnished by the vendors, the parish priest, and the United Irish League; three others whose names were on the list furnished by the vendors and the parish priest; two who were recommended by the parish priest alone; three others who were recommended by the United Irish League alone; and the remaining three who ware recommended by the inspector alone. I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that eighteen of these persons live in the immediate vicinity of the lands, and that the remaining person lives three miles distant. The Commissioners also inform me that they themselves had no communication with the United Irish League other than a letter acknowledging the receipt of the above mentioned list. It appears that all three of the Commissioners took part in these proceedings at different stages.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say which of the Commissioners made the order dividing the land?

I cannot.

Was one Mr. Wrench?

I can give no further information.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sir Joselyn Gore Booth, landlord, of Ballymote, county Sligo, has agreed to sell to his town tenants through the Estates Commissioners, but that the latter decline to advance the purchase money, although the estate on which this town is situated has already been sold under the Act of 1903; and, if so, will he state the grounds on which the Commissioners base their refusal of this application.

The Land Purchase Acts do not contemplate the sale of towns and villages.

Will the right hon. Gentleman amplify his Answer. Does he mean to say that the Land Purchase Act in Ireland does not permit the purchase of towns and villages. Is it not the fact that some towns and villages have been purchased?

The Land Act was intended for the purchase of agricultural holdings.

But is the purchase of towns and villages excluded. Is it not the fact that some have already been purchased?

It is not expressly excluded. I must ask for notice of the Question whether any towns and villages have been purchased.

Was not Boyne sold under the Act?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what is the settlement of the question of higher education in Ireland referred to in his correspondence with Sir Antony MacDonnell, in view of the fact that it is not the intention of the Government to introduce any legislation on the subject.

I must ask my hon. friend to postpone this Question until my right hon. friend returns to his place.

When will that be?

In the Ides of March.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government has decided to close the county road through the hamlet of Coagh against the Nationalist contingents from the Arboe district to attend the public meeting which is to be held on St. Patrick's Day near Cookstown; whether the Government has been informed by their local advisers that the direct road from Arboe to Cookstown runs through Coagh; that there are precedents for Nationalist processions passing through Coagh since 1879; and that the only alternative road is much longer and passes through several miles of an Orange district; whether he is aware that a Nationalist procession last year passed through an Orange suburb of Dungannon, and the police arrangements were so satisfactory that no disturbance whatever took place; and, if so, whether similar arrangements will be made this year to keep the peace in Coagh, whose population is only 394, instead of depriving the people of a Nationalist district of their right to use the public road.

My right hon. friend stated on February 24th † that for the reasons then explained the Government were unable to allow the proposed procession to pass through the village of Coagh. The direct road between Arboe and Cookstown passes through Coagh, and it has been the rule during the past twenty-five years—a rule recognised by both the Orange and Nationalist Parties in the district—that neither Party should march in processional order through the territory of the other Party. The alternative route, to which the same objections do not apply, is only 2½ miles longer than the direct road. On March 17th, 1902, a Nationalist contingent with a flag and drums entered the village of Coagh, and the police experienced the greatest difficulty in safely escorting them out again, with rifles and fixed swords. The practice followed at Dungannon is not to allow either Party, if objected to, to pass through districts claimed by the opposite Party unless it has been the custom to do so, and the arrangements at Dungannon last year were made on this principle.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only a few perches of the road pass through Coagh, while the alternative route is 7 miles longer and runs through several red-hot Orange districts, where the chances of attack will be far greater, and that it would require a much larger force of police to keep the peace?

My information does not tally with that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-

† See (4) Debates, cxli., 1214.

I am informed that the Board have already allowed the tenants in the neighbourhood to graze their cattle on this estate on the terms usual in such cases.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since dissatisfaction exists in the Irish Agricultural Department on account of the inequality in the treatment of its staff, and having regard to the further circumstances that have arisen within the last few weeks, he will cause independent inquiry to be made into the whole matter with a view of ascertaining how far such grievances actually prevail, and further with the object of definitely fixing responsibility for them.

The only dissatisfaction that exists, so far as I am aware, is that which has formed the subject of numerous Questions put by the hon. Member. Both the vice-president and the secretary of the Department have made a very careful and extensive inquiry into the matter, and found that there was not the slightest foundation for the suggestion which has been made that the members of the staff to whom reference is made had in any way been prejudiced on account of their religion. The Department is fully competent to deal with all matters affecting the staff, and the Government see no reason for any independent inquiry, as suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Congested Districts Board has purchased the estate of Lord De Freyne in the counties of Roscommon, Galway, and Sligo: and, if so, whether he can state the total purchase money and the number of years purchase for the different classes of tenants, also the particulars of the arrears, current rent, and untenanted land.

I am informed that negotiations with a view to the sale of this estate are still in progress between the Congested Districts Board and Lord De Froyne. Until these negotiations have been brought to a conclusion I cannot make any further announcement in the matter.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent decision of the Court of King's Bench in Dublin, to the effect that a person summoned before a Court of petty sessions to show cause why he should not give solvent bail for his future good behaviour, is not competent to give evidence by himself or any one else by way of showing cause; and whether, seeing that in the event of the accused being unable to give solvent security, or refusing for any reason to give bail, the accused may, under the law as it now stands, be sent to gaol for six or twelve months, without being allowed to give any evidence in his defence, and that the Court of King's Bench has also decided that imprisonment inflicted under such circumstances involves no punishment, the Government propose to introduce any legislation for the purpose of remedying this condition of the law.

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. My attention was called to the matter so long ago as the year 1901, when I introduced a Bill to amend the law on this subject which was more favourable to the accused than the corresponding provision in the English Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879. It was not possible to carry the Bill that session, but if there be any reasonable probability that it would be regarded as non-controversial I should be happy to reintroduce it forthwith.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Sligo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any regulations, instructions, or orders have been Issued by the Irish Government in reference to the administration of the provisions of the Land Act of 1903, under which the reinstatement of evicted tenants can be carried out; and, if so, whether he will lay such instructions or orders upon the Table of the House.

The Government have been in correspondence with the Commissioners with respect to this matter, but it is not proposed to lay the correspondence, which is Departmental and confidential, on the Table of the House.

The question is whether any orders or regulations are contained in these letters, and, if so, are not the Government bound by Act of Parliament and by their pledges to this House to lay them on the Table?

I do not agree with the hon. Member that there is anything in the Act requiring us to lay this correspondence on the Table.

Are there any instructions contained in the correspondence?

No regulations have been made, but instructions and orders are contained in the correspondence, which is confidential and cannot be laid.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see how impossible it is for us to discuss the administration of the Land Act if we do not know what instructions and orders have been issued.

And in debates in this House it was stated that the action of the Commissioners would be open to our criticism. How can we criticise them?

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 Gornakelly 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.

This estate is administered in the Land Judge's Court. The solicitor having carriage of the sale states that considerable difficulty, inherent to the nature of the property, has been experienced in completing the arrangements for sale. The matter came before the Land Judge on Thursday last, and he expressed himself satisfied that the solicitor is in no way to blame for the delay. I have called for a report in reference to the case of the tenant Francis M'Cabe, but I have not yet received it. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I am in a position to do so.

When may we expect the matter to be completed?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the authorities in the General Post Office in Dublin, having first accepted a number of parcels from the Gaelic League on the evening of March 1st, sent an intimation to the secretary of the league that the Post Office could not accept the parcels as they were addressed in Irish; and will he state whether this action on the part of the authorities was in consequence of special instructions from himself, or was it taken without his knowledge.

I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that numbers of parcels posted by the Gaelic League in Dublin containing material connected with the annual Irish Language Collection about to be held were returned by the Post Office authorities because they were addressed in Irish, and that in consequence the business of the Gaelic League has been impeded; and whether, seeing that an average of about 4,000 letters a week addressed in Irish are posted in Dublin and regularly delivered, will he give directions that the parcels in question be despatched in due course.

A large number of parcels posted by the Gaelic League in Dublin, and addressed in Irish, were recently returned to the league offices for a translation of the addresses to be added in English. The course followed was in accordance with the official regulation which is published in the Post Office Guide in the following terms:—"The address of a parcel must be clearly written in English in characters in ordinary use in the United Kingdom. A parcel bearing an address otherwise written will not be accepted unless a translation of the address can be added." It is true that a large number of letters addressed in Irish are posted in Dublin, and it has been the practice, as far as possible, to add a translation of the address in English. But in view of the inconvenience, delay, and expense which is occasioned by this practice, I have grave doubt whether its continuance is justified, and the question is being further considered.

Is it not the fact that an average of 4,000 letters a week are delivered in the ordinary course through the Post Office, addressed in Irish? I received a letter myself, posted in Colorado, the name and address on the envelope being in Irish.

Yes, I believe the hon. Gentleman is correct. If I may say so, I have a great deal of sympathy with the objects of the Gaelic League in certain districts in Ireland, and I shall be very glad in those districts were Gaelic is used, as far as possible, to co-operate with them, but I hope they will not carry it to the extreme carried by the hon. Member of addressing me in Gaelic.

That must have been done by my hon. friend. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would not endeavour to have letters and parcels addressed in Irish delivered not only in Irish-speaking districts, but wherever they are sent to. Are not letters addressed in Welsh delivered?

I am making inquiries in regard to Welsh. I believe there are certain districts where letters in Welsh are delivered, but that it is not done in the larger centres. It is usual for the address to be put in English as well as Welsh.

I beg to give notice that, on the earliest possible opportunity, I shall call attention to this matter and to the action of the Post Office in endeavouring to thwart the efforts of the Gaelic League.

Is any difficulty whatever made by the Post Office in delivering letters here addressed in the German language and written in German characters?

I will make inquiries.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the reason which induced him to transfer a clerk in the Blackpool Post Office to the charge of a post office m Ireland; and whether, as in these cases the rule was to advance local officials of proved service and ability, he will state on what grounds this rule is being now abrogated.

No clerk has been transferred from Blackpool to the charge of an office in Ireland; but if the lion. Member refers to the Postmaster of Arklow, who was an officer in the Hartlepool Office, I may say that I considered him the most suitable of the candidates who applied for the appointment. There is no such rule as that to which the hon. Member refers.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Aliens Bill will be introduced.

I am not able to fix a date at present, but I hope it will not be long delayed?

Will it be before Easter?

I hope so.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before the Cabinet first considered Sir Antony MacDonnell's action in aiding Lord Dunraven to draft the programme of the Reform Association and decided to censure him, Sir Antony MacDonnell was invited to submit any explanation of his action to the Government; whether such explanation was before the Cabinet in writing; and, if not, how it was communicated to the Cabinet.

I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, after he had been censured by the Cabinet, Sir Antony MacDonnell laid before the Government any explanation in defence of his action; whether such explanation was in writing; and was Sir Antony MacDonnell's defence considered by the Cabinet before they authorised the publication of the censure passed on Sir Antony MacDonnell in the Answer of the Chief Secretary on February 16th† last.

With regard to these Questions, I have to say I do not think anything can be added with advantage to the Answer which was given a week ago by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary.

In view of the fact that Sir Antony MacDonnell has been publicly censured, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it would be to the advantage of the public, and common justice to the gentleman concerned, that his explanation in defence of his conduct should also be made public?

I believe the case is fully before the House and the country, and I do not think anything can be added.

Sir Antony Macdonnell's defence is not.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the fact, that, under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Amendment Bill, recently introduced by the Secretary for Scotland, it is proposed to allocate a portion of the limited funds of the Board for work outside the present powers of the Board, will he consider the practicability of placing further funds at the disposal of the Board.

I can make no definite statement. No doubt more funds are desirable and could be usefully employed.

† See Debates, cxli., 324.

Do not allow the defeat in Buteshire to prejudicially affect your decision.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury were His Majesty's Government consulted in respect of, and did they agree to, the Supplementary Decree of September 1st, 1903, relative to the Turkish Debt; why has no correspondence and no copy of the Decree in question yet been laid upon the Table of the House; and, in view of the fact that on April 23rd, 1903, His Majesty's Government had withdrawn their countenance from the Bagdad railway scheme, and had declined to give the assurances required for that scheme as to the appropriation of a part of the Turkish Customs revenue in aid of the contemplated guarantee, can he explain whether any change of policy has since been adopted by His Majesty's Government; and whether the extra payment out of Customs receipts provided for by the Decree of September, 1903, will be available in aid of a Bagdad railway guarantee.

1. The Supplementary Decree of September 1st, 1903, was the result of negotiations between the Porte and the representatives of the bond-holders on the Council of the Ottoman Public Debt. His Majesty's Government were not parties to these negotiations, but the Decree was subsequently communicated to them by the Turkish Government and by the British Council of Foreign Bond-holders, with a request that they would take note of it; 2. The Decree was published in the Stock Exchange Official Intelligence. There is no objection to laying a copy on the Table of the House; 3. There has been no change of policy on the part of His Majesty's Government; 4. The extra revenue now derived by the Turkish Government under the above-mentioned arrangement will form part of the ordinary Customs receipts, and can presumably be applied to such purposes as the Turkish Government may think fit. The case would of course be different in the event of an increase of the Turkish Customs Tariff, which could not take place except with the consent of the Powers and on such conditions as they might think necessary to impose.

Do I understand that the Government was not consulted before the Decree was issued?

I should like notice of that Question. My impression is that they may have been informed, but were not officially consulted. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will inquire.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in recommending Lord Selborne to the Crown for the appointment of High Commissioner of South Africa, he had regard to the circumstance of Lord Selborne having filled the office of Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1895 till 1900, the period of the Jameson Raid, and of friction between the Colonial Office and the South African Republic, and to the effects calculated to be produced by such an appointment in South Africa.

The only circumstance which I took into account in recommending Lord Selborne for the office he is about to take up was his fitness for the post.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, what was the salary of Lord Rosmead when Lord Commissioner of South Africa; what is the salary, with allowances, of Lord Milner while holding that position; what is to be the salary of Lord Selborne as Commissioner of South Africa, and from what fund is it to be drawn.

The salary of Lord Rosmead when High Commissioner was £3,000 a year from Colonial funds, and £1,000 a year from Imperial funds, A salary of £3,000 a year from Imperial funds has been drawn by Lord Milner and will be drawn by Lord Selborne. There will be paid to Lord Selborne from Colonial funds the same sum as was paid to Lord Milner, namely, £8,000.

£11,000 in all.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Lord Selborne, First Lord of the Admiralty, has accepted the office of High Commissioner in South Africa on the understanding that the appointment can be cancelled and revoked absolutely by any succeeding Government holding views different from those of His Majesty's present advisers.

The appointment of Lord Selborne in this and in all other respects follows the customary precedent in such cases.

There is nothing in the appointment which will preclude a Minister giving such advice with regard to the revocation of such an appointment as he may think fit?

I do not believe it is in the power of any authority short of Parliament itself to put any limits to the advice a Minister may give to the Sovereign.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the number of Ministers of the Crown who are public company directors, he will place the gentlemen whom he may recommend to the Crown for the Ministerial offices now vacant under any, and, if so, what conditions with reference to the holding during their tenure of Ministerial office of directorship in public companies.

The only condition that ought to regulate a Minister of the Crown in regard to company directorships is the common-sense one that no Minister of the Crown ought to hold any office which interferes with the proper discharge of his duties as a Minister of the Crown.

In that case will Lord Cawdor, at the head of a great spending Department, continue to be chairman of the Great Western Railway Company?

Of course not.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the general expressions of opinion in the House, he can see his way to reconsider his decision, and revert to the former practice of permitting Members who have been successful in the ballot of bring on their Motions before Ministers explain the Estimates on going into Committee of Supply.

I cannot concur in the statement of fact or the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member in his Question. I do not admit that the general expression of opinion in the House is as indicated. It seems to me that it is really an unbusinesslike plan for the House to discuss a policy or the details of a policy before they know what that policy is.

But as this is an immemorial ancient privilege of private Members, will not the First Lord leave it to the judgment of the House?

It cannot be a privilege of hon. Members to discuss a thing with which they are imperfectly acquainted. In reply to a further Question by Mr. GIBSON BOWLES, Mr. A. J. BALFOUR said hon. Members could better by far discuss the Estimates when they knew the policy of the Government, and therefore the course he proposed was one dictated by sound reason.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Bill dealing with the question of the unemployed will be introduced.

I do not think the Bill ought to be long delayed, but I cannot give a specific reply to the Question of the hon. Member opposite.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make with regard to public business?

On Tuesday I propose to put down the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, Class 5, Somaliland, and the remaining Votes in the Army Supplementary Estimates. On Wednesday I shall proceed with the Supplementary Estimates if they are not finished on Tuesday, and on Thursday I shall take the Navy Votes.

asked if the Navy Votes could not be put off till next week, as they really had no information before them.

I do not think there is need for any long delay. Hon. Gentlemen inform me that they are already in possession of very full information.

I asked for certain information at Question time to-day, which I considered very material, and was told it would not be ready for a fortnight.

I understand that that information is germane to Vote 8 rather than to the debate on Vote A and Vote 1.

Vote 8 should be discussed with Vote A.

asked in what order the Estimates would be taken on Wednesday? Would the Army or Civil Service come first.

It depends very much on the progress we make to-morrow. Perhaps the hon. Member will ask at the conclusion of that sitting.

said it was desired to have a general discussion on Somaliland dealing with both the military and the civil administration. Would it not, therefore, be better to put the Army Estimates down first.

I think the course I suggest would be the most convenient to the House.

It is with the deepest regret that I have to inform the House that I have not found myself any longer able to resist the appeals made to me by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover that he might be permitted to resign his office. The ground of his resignation is not ill-health, though I frankly admit that I do not believe that he would be at present able to support all the labours and all the anxieties of a great administrative office. His principal reason is that he is of opinion that the controversy which has recently taken place both within and outside these walls has greatly impaired, if not wholly destroyed, the value of the work which he could do in the office he has so long held. On the merits of that controversy I propose to say nothing, though there are parts of it on which I retain a very strong opinion. But with regard to the effect it has had upon my right hon. friend's usefulness he, and he alone, must be the judge; and, reluctant as I am to yield to his desires, I feel that when they are pressed on such grounds as these it is impossible for me longer to resist them. I ought, perhaps, to add that my right hon. friend is not able to be present to do what is usual on these occasions—to make his own statement in explanation to the House, and I earnestly trust—and I am sure hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House will agree with me in wishing—he may soon be sufficiently restored to give fully that explanation which I have I only imperfectly outlined.

Member for South Donegal, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the appointment of Lord Selborne to the High Commissionership of South Africa, having regard to the circumstance of his having filled the office of Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1895 till 1900, the period of the Jameson raid, and of friction between the Colonial Office and the South African Republic which led to the Boer War;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen:— The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until the Evening Sitting, this day.

Order, order! Mr. Pretyman is in possession of the House.

asked leave to submit a point of order and to conclude with a Motion. He said it was in accordance with precedent, and it was also a long-established practice of the House that a private Member who had secured a place by ballot for a Motion on going into Supply should be called on first. The practice had only gained ground in the last few years of giving the Minister precedence, and in order to test the point he was going to submit a Motion—of course, not out of any discourtesy to the Secretary to the Admiralty, but the House, he submitted, ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on this grave alteration of the established practice. In 1881 a Motion of Mr. Gladstone's that Mr. F. H. O'Donnell should no longer be heard was accepted and met with no opposition from the other side of the House or indeed from the Irish Members, some of whom were still Members of the House of Commons; but rather than make that Motion he would submit it in an older form, for which there was precedent:—"That Mr. McCrae be now heard."

I cannot accept that Motion. No doubt there are instances—if the hon. Member goes back for 200 to 250 years he will find them to be quite common—of a Motion being put exactly in the terms he has put before the House. But it has long been the practice for the Speaker to call upon the Member who had caught his eye and that no dispute is allowed as to who was the person who ought to have caught his eye. That is the rule now. The case referred to in 1881 was not one involving the question which of the two hon. Members should be heard; it was a case where an hon. Member was rising for the purpose of raising a question of extreme delicacy relating to foreign affairs. It was then thought proper by the Prime Minister to move that he be not heard. It was somewhat in the nature of moving the previous Question rather than a selection between two hon. Members. I think it would be an extremely mischievous departure if a now long obsolete practice should be revived, and if whenever the Speaker called on an hon. Member who caught his eye there should be a debate possible on the question that someone else should be heard. I would add, further, that in the present case it would be an extremely irregular Motion, because the hon. Member on the Treasury Bench has risen to move an order of the day. He has a perfect right to move an order of the day, when it is called, and if he chooses to preface the moving of that order by observations it is not out of order that he should do so.

asked if there was no way in which the opinion of the House could be taken on a change of the almost immemorial practice.

said there was hardly any question on which it was not possible to obtain the opinion of the House, but the proper method was by notice of Motion.