To ask the President of the Board of Trade under which Class and Vote of the Estimates has provision been made for the allowance granted to shipowners for carrying boy sailors under Clause 6 of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898; and will any arrangement be made, on the cessation of these allowances, to meet the case of boys who have enrolled themselves in the Royal Naval Reserve but are liable to be thrown out of employment and so unable to fulfil their obligations owing to the withdrawal of the grant for their maintenance on board ship. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Provision is made in Sub-head A of Vote 7, Royal Naval Reserves, of the Navy Estimates, for the allowances to shipowners in respect of boy sailors carried under Section 6 of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898. The sum provided in the Estimates for 1905–6 is £6,500. On the termination of the statutory limit on March 31st next, the power to pay the allowances in relief of light dues will come to an end, but boys entered under the Act in the "Probationer" class of the Royal Naval Reserve, who comply with the conditions laid down in the regulations, will be eligible for transfer to the "Seaman" class of the Reserve, in accordance with the arrangement with the Admiralty.

To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the grounds upon which Private John Hanley, No. 2153, of the Leinster Regiment, was discharged the service; and whether, in view of his conduct on and up to discharge and of the fact that this man is now unable to work and subject to periodic attacks of illness contracted whilst serving with the regiment, some bounty or pension will be accorded to him. (Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.) This man caught cold about fourteen years ago at Aldershot while on guard in wet weather, and pleurisy and palpitation supervened, which led to his discharge as medically unfit for the service. He had only served three years and 128 days, all at Home, and was therefore awarded a pension of three months for each year's service at sixpence a day, the rate for which he was eligible under the Royal Warrant then in force.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of English, Scotch, and Welshmen who have been appointed postmasters in Ireland within the last five years; what are their religious denominations; how many Irishmen have been appointed postmasters in England in the same period: and what are their religious denominations. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) In most cases I have no information as to the nationality of officers in the Post Office, and I consider that it would be undesirable to make inquiry as to their religious denomination. I am unable, therefore, to give the information for which the hon. Member asks.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the necessity that exists for the establishing of a sub post office at the village of Glastrigan, in the parish of Kilcommon, North Tipperary, a populous district some six or seven Irish miles distant from a post office or even pillar-box; is he aware that in Glastrigan there is a creamery with two auxiliary depôts, the letters to which establishment alone average eighty weekly; and that there are also three business houses in the village with two schoolhouses adjacent; and, if so, seeing no letter can be despatched from there after 10.15 a.m. each day, he will consider the necessity for providing the locality with better postal arrangements. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have no information at present as regards the postal requirements of the village of Glastrigan, but I will have inquiry made.

To ask the Postmaster-General under what regulation or Act of Parliament he exercises the right to dismiss an established officer of long service, entitled to the benefits of the Superannuation Acts, 1884 and 1887, and against whom no direct charge of misconduct is made or proved. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Under my patent of appointment I have full power and authority to appoint and remove such officers as I may think necessary.

To ask the Postmaster-General if the rule under which postmen may regain forfeited good-conduct stripes by two years unblemished service is still in operation; and, if not, when it was cancelled, and what are the conditions now obtaining under which lost stripes can be recovered. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The rule is still in operation.

To ask the Postmaster-General if officers of the Department belonging to Volunteer regiments are allowed any special privilege in signing for their period of annual leave over an officer who may have a prior claim by seniority or otherwise to a particular period of the year. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) There is no general rule on the subject, but it appears to me reasonable that the periods of leave should be arranged, as far as possible, so as to permit Volunteers to attend camp.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telegraphist named Emberson, at the Central Telegraph Office, London, was attended by the official medical adviser at varying periods during October, November, and December of last year; that it became necessary for him to be sent home before his duty expired on occasions during this period; that, upon resuming after absence from an attack of illness, having been sent off by an official doctor, the chief medical officer sent for him, and reprimanded him for keeping away from work; and that this official stated that no reason existed for his absence, and in consequence a day's pay was deducted; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the chief medical officer had not attended Emberson previously, and made no examination of him at the time, he will investigate the circumstances of the case. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Mr. Emberson was seen on November 30th by a medical officer of the headquarter staff who reported that Mr. Emberson was suffering from headache, and that he should either resume duty on the following day or obtain a renewal of the sick certificate. Mr. Emberson did neither, but absented himself without leave on December 1st and his pay for the day was rightly stopped, as the chief medical officer was satisfied that he was able to have visited the medical officer on that date.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he say when the Reports of the District Commissioners, Parts II.—VIII., of the Royal Commission on Coal Supplies will be issued. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) It is hoped that these Reports will be ready for issue about the end of this month.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what is the percentage of aliens who receive Poor Law relief other than medical relief, and what is the percentage of the population as a whole receiving such relief. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The latest figures I have on this subject, so far as aliens are concerned, relate to July 1st, 1903. On that date the proportion which the number of aliens receiving relief other than medical relief only, bore to the total alien population according to the Census of 1901 was ·63 per cent. The percentage of the total population in receipt of such relief on the same date was 2·4.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the names of the ships ordered to be built since 1887 which are now reckoned as non-effective; how these ships are to be dealt with immediately; and in what way are they ultimately to be disposed of. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) I must refer the hon. Member to the Returns which have been moved for by the hon. Member for Dundee.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether attention has been called to a recent correspondence between Mr. Michael M'Aleer, of Newtown Stewart, county Tyrone, and the Local Government Board, relative to the representation for a scheme under the Labourers Cottages Acts, rejected on January 5th last, although a similar scheme had been approved of on a former occasion but had not been proceeded with; if so, whether he can state for what reason the Local Government Board have not, pursuant to the said Acts, directed a local inquiry to be held, and report made, as to the said representations. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The consideration of the representations was adjourned by the council on January 5th as some of the representations were not accompanied by the requisite certificates of the medical officer of health. The Board are at present in correspondence with the council relative to the pending scheme, but as the council have not made default under the Labourers Acts they have no grounds for ordering an inquiry under Section 4 of the Act of 1891. I may add that the councils of the two Strabane Rural Districts have authorised the building of 173 cottages.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board, at their meeting in last November, passed a vote for a timberpile extension of the pier at Darby's Point, Achill Island, and instructed their engineer to draw up plans and submit an estimate; have those plans and the estimate been yet submitted to the Board; if not, will he explain why; and whether, in view of the distress prevailing in Achill Island at present, he will urge on the Board to commence this useful work at once. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) The engineering survey has been made and the matter will be further considered by the Board at its next meeting. Employment on this work will consist mainly of skilled labour.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty can he explain how it is that the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" has been taken over from the builders although the last instalment of her cost has not been paid; has this been done with the consent of the builder; when is it proposed to pay that last instalment; what has been the average annual cost of coal for the Admiralty yacht during the past three years; and how many days in each of those three years has the Admiralty yacht, whether the "Enchantress" or one of her predecessors, been used by the Lords of the Admiralty.

This is the procedure adopted in the case of all ships for the Navy. It is not possible to make the final payments until the charges for works left to be done until the ships reach a dockyard have been agreed to. With regard to the second part of the Question: this has been done with the consent of the builder. It is hoped that the last instalment will be paid before the end of this month. The average annual cost of coal for the last three years has been £1,112 Omitting the year 1903, when the old "Enchantress" owing to its condition was not used, the yacht has been used by the Board as follows: 1904, twenty-four days (during the seven months she was available); 1902, thirty-four days; 1901, twenty-nine days.

Is the sum of £1,112 included in or in addition to the cost of stores?

asked for notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under his new scheme for the redistribution of depôts in Scotland, he will group the Highland Light Infantry, the second senior Highland regiment, with the other Highland regiments at Perth Depot.

The grouping has been carefully arranged to avoid as far as possible any territorial displacement. The Highland Light Infantry have now been at Hamilton since 1881, and it would not, therefore, appear practicable to adopt the action suggested in the Question.

Do I understand that the territorial system has been abandoned by the War Office and that Highland regiments and Lowlanders are to be mingled together?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state how many of the natives recruited from the British Central Africa Protectorate for labour in the Transvaal have arrived at the mines, how many have succumbed to disease, and how many have returned home.

The latest information I have received states that 1,385 have gone to the mines, that 134 have succumbed to disease, and that 709 have returned home, the rest not having completed their period of work. I have recently informed Lord Milner that he will no doubt agree with me that if this rate of mortality continues the experiment must cease. I believe the mortality has recently not been so heavy.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information relating to the reported arrest of thirty-two Chinamen on the Simmer and Jack Mine on the charge of forming a secret society; whether the society was in the nature of a trade union; and what punishment was inflicted.

The hon. Member promised to furnish me with the report on which he bases his Question, but has not done so. I have not yet received the information from Lord Milner, but will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I receive it.

I regret that I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman; I thought he was going to cable for information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies will he say the number of white and coloured men working on the Transvaal gold mines in the month of August before the war and the value of gold produced; and will he state the figures for the month of December, 1904.

The figures for July, 1899, which will no doubt equally satisfy the hon. Member, are given at page 110 of Cd. 2104. White men employed on the Witwatersrand Mines, 12,330; coloured men employed, 107,482; gold output for the Transvaal, £1,737,861. The figures for December, 1904, are:—Whites in employ on the last day of the month, 15,023; coloured labourers and Chinese, 104,524; gold output, £1,538,377; representing an increase in white labour of nearly 2,500, whilst coloured and Chinese labour was still nearly 3,000 behind the figure given for 1899.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether those figures of white labour include the men engaged in building compounds?

I have answered that Question before. They are inclusive of those men.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing the Mining Returns of the late Boer Government showed the average wage paid to white men on the gold mines was over £1 per day, he can say what is the present average wage; and whether since the war there has been any reduction in the standard rates of wages of white men; and can he say the approximate amount of wages at present monthly paid to white men on the gold mines over and above what was paid before the war.

The Government mining engineer in his report for the year 1902–3 states that the rate of wages paid to skilled white workmen remained practically at the same level as obtained before the war: and in his report for 1903–4 he says that the rate of pay earned by European mine employees practically remains unchanged. For the year, June, 1903, to June, 1904, I find that the average wage comes to very nearly £1. The increased numbers of white men now employed on the Rand as compared with July, 1899, amounting to over 2,500, represents approximately a monthly sum of over £60,000 in excess of the amount previously paid to white labour.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Milner has forwarded him a report of the speeches of Generals Botha, De la Rey, and Mr. Esselen, delivered at Pretoria on January 28th and at Heidelberg on February 1st, calling his attention to the statements of those speakers that the Boers declined to take any part in the government of the Transvaal till full self-government had been granted to the colony in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Vereeniging, and that if His Majesty's Government were of opinion that the time was not ready for granting this, the Boers would prefer the existing form of government should be maintained to any form of part self-government; and will he say what reply has been given to the representations of the Boer leaders on this subject.

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. I have deferred making a reply to the representations of the Boer leaders for the present. But I would point out that Article 7 of the Terms of Surrender runs as follows:— "Military administration in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony will, at the earliest possible date, be succeeded by civil government, and, as soon as circumstances permit, representative institutions leading up to self-government will be introduced."

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had any information from South Africa as to whether the country was ready for responsible government.

replied that he had a great deal of information on the subject.

asked how long it would be before an opportunity would be given to discuss this question.

said that on the Colonial Vote, which under the exigencies of Supply must be taken before March 31st, he would be able to meet that demand.

Will the Government last so long?

If they do not last so long the arrangement will fall to the ground.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that five Chinese coolies have each been sentenced to six months hard labour and eleven others each to three months hard labour in connection with a riot at the Simmer and Jack Mine on January 21st; whether the prisoners were represented at the trial by counsel or in any other way; and whether the proceedings were explained to them by interpreter; and, if he has no information on these matters, whether he will obtain the same from Lord Milner.

I have telegraphed to Lord Milner for the information, but have not yet received the reply.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the steady decline in the proportion of white labour as compared with the proportion of coloured labour employed in the Transvaal mining industry, he will continue the warning issued in the January Circular of the Emigration Office against white miners going to the Transvaal at the present time in search of work, and advise the Government to institute a Parliamentary inquiry into the results of the introduction of Chinese labour upon white labour in the Transvaal mining industry.

The decline in the proportion of white to coloured labour in the Transvaal mining industry cannot be described as steady, inasmuch as during 1904 it varied considerably from month to month, and I understand that it will continue to vary as different stages of development are reached. The Emigrants Information Office will continue to warn intending emigrants, so long as the supply of white labour in the Transvaal is in excess of the demand. I see no reason for instituting the Parliamentary enquiry proposed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the total amount voted for compensation for damages sustained during the war in South Africa; how much of this amount has already been paid away; what is the amount of claims still to be dealt with; and who in South Africa is responsible for attending to these matters in the Transvaal, Orange River State, the Cape Colony, and Natal.

In amplification of the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on March 29th† last session, I would refer him for an explanation of what has been devoted to compensation to the despatch from Sir Arthur Lawley, printed in Cd. 2104, pages 11 and 12; and I would add that up to November 30th, a sum of £1,564,367 had been spent out of Head I. C. of the Guaranteed Loan, and £5,490,905 under Head III. I am not in a position to say what is the number of claims in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony which remain to be finally dealt with. As I stated in March last, the claims have been assessed in the Cape

† See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 976.

Colony and Natal by Commissions appointed locally, and in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony by a Central Judicial Commission.

How long will it be before these claims are finally disposed of.

I am afraid I cannot give a very accurate answer. I hope, however, in two or three months.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received any reply to the inquiry he addressed to the High Commissioner for Rhodesia regarding a sum of £25 odd left by the late James Murray, alias M'Gavan, and which sum has never been accounted for by the administrator dative of his estate.

The hon. Member was informed in a letter dated June 7th last that no mention of the sum in question could be traced in the records of the hospital where the man died, but that the Master of the High Court was ready to make a further search if the relatives would state on what ground their inquiry was based. The mother of the deceased was so informed in a letter dated November 6th last, to which she has not replied.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will inform the House what preferential reduction of Customs Duties is allowed upon British, goods compared to foreign goods imported into the Dominion of Canada. Cape Colony and Natal, the Transvaal, the Orange State and Rhodesia, and New Zealand; and if he has any official information to the effect that a like preferential advantage to British goods will be adopted by the Commonwealth of Australia.

The amount of the preferential reduction varies on different classes of articles under the three tariffs of Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand to such an extent that it could not be set forth in an oral reply to a Question, but full information will be found in the latest Return of Colonial Import Duties (Cd. 2185). No official information has been received as to the intention of the Commonwealth of Australia to adopt a tariff giving a similar preferential advantage to British goods.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Lagos has recently issued a notice warning native workmen against going to the Congo Free State in search of employment on account of the low level of wages and the treatment to which they may be subjected in the interior; and, if so, whether he will draw the attention of the Governments of the other West African Colonies to this notice.

Yes, and I will draw the attention of the Governments to the notice.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the sum of £E8,000 was this year stolen from the Mahmal Escort before the pilgrimage started from Abbassyeh (Cairo); will he state whether this money formed part of the sum placed at the disposal of the Mahmal Escort by the Government of Egypt for charitable gifts to the poor of Mecca and Medina; and what is the entire amount thus allocated.

His Majesty's Government have no information on the subject.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer under which Finance Act provision is made for a realised deficit, or part thereof, being carried forward into the accounts of the succeeding year; and whether it is proposed to lay Supplementary Estimates to provide for the balance of last year's deficit amounting to £1,500,000.

If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at my Budget Statement of last year he will see how I proposed to deal with the draft made upon balances. Neither a Supplementary Estimate, nor any provision in the Finance Act, is required to carry out those proposals. The Sinking Fund Act of 1875 gives the Treasury standing powers to apply any surplus revenue in strengthening balances.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any precedent for not meeting a deficit by taxation?

Oh yes, Sir, there are plenty of precedents, and I quoted some in the course of the Budget discussion last year. I should be inclined to think the course I have pursued is the more usual one.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the lateness of Easter this year, it is his intention to bring in his Budget before the Easter holidays; and, if so, whether he can yet fix the date.

I am not yet able to fix a date for the Budget Statement.

Will it be before Easter?

I think so.

I will put the Question again on Monday.

I cannot promise to state definitely on Monday.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the accounts of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank are subject to inspection by the public; and, further, if the depositor is liable to be called upon by the secretary of friendly societies to account for how he came by money lodged to credit.

The accounts of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank are not subject to inspection by the public, and the strictest secrecy is observed in regard to them. The Registrar of Friendly Societies (to whom I assume the hon. Member to refer) is the authority constituted by Parliament to settle all questions arising between the Postmaster-General and depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank; and in fulfilment of this duty it is open to him to make such inquiries as he thinks necessary.

Is the Registrar of Friendly Societies allowed to inspect confidential accounts?

Yes, Sir, if he thinks it necessary. He is constituted by Act of Parliament to settle any question arising between the Postmaster-General and depositors.

Is there any statutory authority for this violation of secrecy?

I believe so.

:Will the noble Lord ascertain?

Yes, Sir.

Is it competent for the Registrar to call upon depositors to come before him and explain the origin of their deposits, and has he to pay their expenses if he finds they are legitimate and bonâ fide?

asked for notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on April 5th last, Mr. Philip J. Cook applied before Mr. Fordham at the North London Police Court for a certificate of exemption from vaccination for his infant child, and that, although he explained that a certificate had been granted to him at that Court on a former occasion for another child, the magistrate declined to grant a certificate, that application was renewed a few days later before Mr. Cluer, who refused on the ground that it was extremely undesirable that he should overrule his colleague's ruling, and as an appeal at the Thames Police Court before Mr. Dickenson, who had granted the first certificate, failed on account of the applicant not being resident within the district of the Court, will the Secretary of State consider the advisability of directing the attention of Metropolitan Police Magistrates to the remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice on July 27th last when addressing the Grand Jury at Birmingham relative to the principle on which the Act ought to be administered, especially having regard to the fact that in the present instance the applicant was eventually forced to have his second child vaccinated under the pressure of a summons, although he still persisted in the same conscientious objections which secured him a certificate of exemption for his first child.

Mr. Cook wrote to me on February 9th and requested my intervention in this matter. The granting of certificates of exemption from vaccination is, however, placed by the statute within the discretion of the magistrates, and I have no authority to interfere with that discretion. The attention of all the Metropolitan Police Magistrates was called, by a circular issued in September last, to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice at the Birmingham Summer Assizes.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table a copy of the Memorandum issued by the Home Office?

I see no objection to that.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the poor dependents of the five men who sacrificed their lives in attempting the rescue of the sailors in danger of shipwreck at Holyhead on Sunday the 26th ultimo; and whether he can do anything towards assisting them.

My attention has been drawn to the case, which was one in which great courage appears to have been shown by the unfortunate men who lost their lives, and I will consider the question whether anything can be done for the dependents whom they have left behind them. I fear that in any event the utmost the Board of Trade could do would be to give a small gratuity.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the representations of the Incorporated Federated Associations of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland on the subject of differential shipping rates to South African ports, whereby shipping companies charge a rate per ton for the carriage of boots and shoes from British ports which is more than double the rate charged for the carriage of the same class of goods from New York direct to South Africa; and whether he will investigate the matter and take any action to redress the inequality complained of.

I have received a copy of a resolution passed by the Incorporated Federated Associations of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland. The whole subject of freight charges to and from South Africa, including differential charges made from competing ports, has for some time past engaged the attention of the Government at home. A Conference of the Colonial Governments was recently held to consider what steps should be taken to deal effectively with the question, and the Conference has not yet finally concluded its deliberations. The resolutions already adopted at the Conference are receiving the consideration of the authorities.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if there was any reduction in 1904 in the exports of wheat and flour from the United States of America to the United Kingdom compared to the previous year; and whether the deficiency was made up from Canada, India, and Australia.

There was a large reduction in the imports of wheat and flour from the United States into the United Kingdom in 1904 as compared with the previous year. The deficiency was mainly made up by increased imports from Australia, India, Argentine, and Russia. The imports from Canada, however, showed a decline.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what was the average price of the quartern loaf of the quality usually consumed by the working classes in London and Manchester in March, 1902, March, 1903, March, 1904, and February, 1905; and what were the receipts from the registration fee upon imported wheat, meal, and flour in March, 1903.

There is some difficulty in stating figures which shall be strictly comparable over the whole period, but so far as can be ascertained the prices required were approximately as follows:—

	London.	Manchester.
March, 1902	4d. & 4½d.	4d.
March, 1903	4½d & 5d.	4d.
March, 1904	5d. & 5½d.	4½d.
February,1905	5d.	4½d.

The receipts from the duty on imported wheat, wheat meal, and flour in March, 1903, amounted to £127,062.

Can we have the comparative prices of sugar for the same period?

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of undischarged bankrupts promoting companies and trading in the names of their wives; and will he introduce legislation to prevent this evasion of the criminal law.

The practice to which the Question refers, so far as it exists, has been made possible by the Married Women's Property Acts. I do not understand the statement in the Question that the practice constitutes an evasion of the criminal law, but it is, in my opinion, highly objectionable. There would, however, be great difficulty in amending the law in the sense of the Question, but any suggestion which the hon. Member has to offer will be fully considered.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman institute an inquiry into the widespread evils arising, especially among the working classes, from this practice?

Any information the hon. Gentleman can give me on the subject will be carefully considered.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General will he say why he decided not to commence criminal proceedings against Mr. Hooley, arising out of the case of "Bradshaw versus Kelly," seeing that Mr. Justice Darling, who tried this case, stated Mr. Hooley had committed fraud; will he say the costs the Treasury has incurred in the recent criminal proceedings against Mr. Hooley, and who was responsible for instituting this particular prosecution.

The case of "Bradshaw versus Kelly" led to inquiries being made by the Director of Public Prosecutions as to that case, and inquiry was also made as to other transactions which came to his knowledge. It was found after full inquiry and careful consideration that the facts and evidence available did not justify the institution by him of any criminal proceedings in respect of those transactions. The recent prosecution of Mr. Hooley and Mr. Lawson was instituted by my directions. The costs of that prosecution, in which Mr. Hooley was acquitted and H. J. Lawson convicted, were £3,529 13s. 4d.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction with the action of the Gloucestershire Local Education Committee in its treatment of St. Joseph's Catholic School, Nymphsfield: and whether, in view of the representations made to the Board of Education on the subject, he will state what action he proposes to take.

The Board have carefully considered this case and given their decision. The matter is not at present before them.

Has the Department inquired into this matter or upon what inquiry was the decision come to?

The local authority conducted a very careful public inquiry, and on the result of that inquiry we came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to hold another inquiry.

Has any inquiry been conducted by the Board of Education or has it come purely from the local authorities?

The Board of Education had access to all the documents, and they were satisfied with the decision of the local authorities.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state how many foreign trawlers have been observed fishing in the Moray Firth during the year ending December 31st, 1904, and their respective nationalities.

The total number of foreign trawlers which were observed fishing in the Moray Firth in 1904 were: Norwegian, 25; Belgian, 4; Dutch,2; Swedish,1; making a total of 32.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that H.M.S. "Jackal," though lent by the Board of Admiralty for the purpose of protecting the interests of the line fishermen, was engaged last year on International North Sea Investigations, will he explain in what respect the steam trawler "Goldseeker," which was specially hired by the Fishery Board to assist in these investigations, failed to meet the requirements of the Board; and will he state her tonnage and speed.

The "Gold-seeker," whose tonnage is 199 tons gross, and speed 9 knots, was hired to conduct the trawling and biological experiments in connection with the North Sea Investigations and is well-fitted for that purpose. For the short periodical cruises necessary for the hydrographical survey of the stormy seas north of the Shetlands, which is equally part of the investigations, her size and power are insufficient.

Then why was the "Jackal" put on the survey instead of the "Goldseeker?"

I presume she was better fitted for it.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, as representing the Irish Office, whether any action has been taken by the Estates Commissioners for the restoration to his holding of Terence Reilly, of Springtown Granard, who is in a condition of destitution, and for whom there are vacant lands adjoining if the Commissioners will purchase them.

The former holding of this evicted tenant is in the occupation of a new tenant. Reilly was informed that the Commissioners could not interfere with the new tenant, but that when un-tenanted lands are acquired in the neighbourhood his case will be considered. No such lands have yet been acquired.

Have the Estates Commissioners approached the new tenant to see if he is willing to surrender the holding for reasonable compensation?

asked for notice.

If I find out will the right hon. Gentleman request the Estates Commissioners to take the case into consideration?

I am sure any information given by the hon. Gentleman will be carefully considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the sub-organisers in elementary science have, with one exception, been notified that their work shall cease on March 31st, in view of the feeling in favour of education in elementary science since that subject was introduced, and of the fact that the training courses for teachers and the whole organising work is now virtually and suddenly stopped.

The services of the Head Organiser of elementary science and of two of his assistants, have been retained permanently, and the grants for science apparatus have also been continued. I beg to refer to my reply to the Question on this subject addressed to me yesterday † by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division, in which I entered into the matter at some length.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the injury done to the roads between Newcastle, county Down, and Newry by traction engines, and to the inconvenience caused to residents by the working of those engines at night; and whether steps will be taken to limit the hours of working and to compel the owners of the traction engines to contribute to the upkeep of the roads.

The Local Government Board have been informed that the road between Newcastle and Newry has been injured by traction-engine traffic. Under Section 6 of the Public Health (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1879, local authorities have power to make by-laws limiting the hours during which traction engines may pass over roads or highways in their districts. Section 23 of the Highways and Locomotives Act, 1878, empowers road authorities in England to recover the expenses caused by extraordinary traffic, which, it has been decided, includes the use of roads by traction engines. But this Act does not apply to Ireland, and the question of assimilating the law in the two countries would be a proper matter for consideration should a suitable opportunity present itself.

Do the Government propose to make any effort to assimilate the law in England and Ireland?

That is a different Question altogether.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he

† See page 588.

is aware that several communications have passed between the tenants on the Dennehy Estate, Glencar, county Kerry, and the Congested Districts Board since the early part of the summer of 1904; and that the inspector of the Board visited the district on January 7th last; and, if so, can he state what decision has been arrived at, in view of the fact that processes have been issued against several of the tenants, and that the hanging gale has been included in all cases at the sessions held in Cahirciveen.

The Board are in correspondence with the owner, through his agent, of this estate with respect to the question of its purchase.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Government has received resolutions calling upon them to make inquiry in reference to distress in the congested districts of Sligo, and to take steps to avert suffering and starvation in those districts; and, if so, will he say what has been done in those districts in response to the representations made by local bodies and meetings.

:Representations to this effect have been received. The condition of the districts in question has received the careful attention of the Local Government Board, whose inspectors have made personal investigations in the localities where exceptional distress is apprehended. The inspectors are satisfied that no distress exists of a character which cannot be dealt with by the resources of the ordinary Poor Laws. They will continue, however, to give the matter their close attention.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any portion of the money voted under the Marine Works Act has been spent in the county of Sligo; and, if so, how much; can he say whether there is any money now available under the Marine Works Act or any other for the construction and improvement of fishing piers and harbours in Ireland.

The reply to the first inquiry is in the negative. There is a small balance amounting to about £4,000 on foot of the funds provided under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883.

Why is it Sligo has received no grant, although the necessity for public works has been urged upon the Government over and over again by public bodies of the county?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a memorial has been received by the Congested Districts Board praying for the assistance of that Board in lowering the water level of Lough Melvin; and, if so, has the Board considered the memorial and can he state what action the Board proposes to take in reference to it.

The Board will consider the memorial at its next meeting.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in response to his suggestion made on February 24th, 1904, recommendations by way of memorials signed by the principal lay Catholic inhabitants of Pettigo were made to the Duke of Abercorn as Lord-Lieutenant of the county of Donegal for the appointment of two Catholic gentlemen, fully qualified for the position, to the magisterial bench of Pettigo where one only of the seven magistrates is a Catholic, the majority of the population of the district being Catholics; whether he is aware that the Duke of Abercorn did not acknowledge the receipt of this memorial; and, if so, whether he will inquire whether the Duke of Abercorn forwarded the memorial to the Lord Chancellor of Ire-and; and whether any, and, if so, what steps will be taken by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to make the bench more representative of the religion of the majority of the people in this district.

My right hon. friend the Member for Dover stated on February 24th,† 1904, that recommendations for the appointment of gentlemen to the Commission of the Peace are made to the Lord Chancellor or the Lieutenant of the County, and that any such recommendations, if made, would be duly considered, I understand that the petty sessions at Pettigo are held once a month and that they are well attended by the local justices, one of whom is believed to be a Catholic. The question of the sufficiency of the local Bench is entirely one for the Lord Chancellor and the Lieutenant of the County, and the matter is not one calling for the intervention of the Executive.

Did the Duke of Abercorn get the memorial and did he forward it to the Lord Chancellor? Why did he not reply to it?

I cannot say what memorials the Duke of Abercorn receives.

Is it true or not that out of seven magistrates, appointed only one is a Catholic?

Order, order!

Now, Sir, I want to ask a Question which distinctly arises out of the Answer the right hon. Gentleman has not given.

The Question on the Paper has been answered.

The right hon. Gentleman has not given the Answer he ought to have given.

The time for Questions is limited. Notice should be given of any further Questions.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the representatives of the Arnott Estate at Bandon, in the county of Cork, are breaking up the

† See (4) Debates, cxxx., 851.

estate into parcels for the purpose of sale; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Act, that estates shall be sold as a whole, the Commissioners will refuse to sanction such sales.

No proceedings for the sale of the Arnott Estate, county Cork, have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners.

Would such an apportionment be approved by the Commissioners?

The Commissioners must first be informed of the circumstances.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the De Freyne Estate has been sold to the Congested Districts Board; and if he can state the number of tenants on the estate.

No, Sir. The negotiations with the Board are still proceeding.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board has considered the suggestion of the Downpatrick Union that the numerous Rules and Orders issued prior to and since the passing of the Local Government Act, 1898, should be issued in volume form, and indexed, and circulated amongst public boards in Ireland.

On Thursday last † I referred the hon. Gentleman to three sets of Parliamentary Papers containing the Rules and Orders issued by the Board since the passing of the Act of 1898. These volumes, which are carefully indexed, are on sale and may be purchased by any local authority requiring them. The Government has no funds at its disposal for circulating the volumes amongst public boards free of cost.

† See page 188.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General for what term is the contract for the conveyance by road of the mails from Virginia Road to Drogheda; when does it terminate; how much per annum does this service cost; and whether, seeing that this road route is almost parallel to and near the railway at every point, will he say at what time are the morning mails from Dublin delivered in Oldcastle, Kells, and Navan, and what would be the difference of cost to have these mails conveyed by a train timed to run from Drogheda on the arrival of the morning mail train from Dublin, with the transference of the carriage of the night mails from Virginia to the railway company, as compared with the present service; and whether he can see his way to examine the subject carefully with the view to a reform of the present system.

The contracts for the conveyance of the night mails by road between Drogheda and Virginia Road are all terminable at three months notice. The payments to the contractors amount to £821 a year. The morning mails from Dublin are delivered at Navan at 11.20 a.m.; Kells at 11.30 a.m.; Old-castle at 12 noon. I do not know what would be the additional cost of the acceleration desired by the hon. Member, but it would be considerable. As the cost of the postal service in the district is already very high as compared with the revenue from the correspondence, I regret that I am unable to effect the desired improvement.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether a memorial has been received at the General Post Office, Dublin, praying for the establishment of a postal telegraph office at Aughacashel, county Leitrim; if so, has the memorial been brought under his notice; and whether, in view of the need of a telegraph office in the district named, he would have further inquiry made with a view to complying with the request of memorialists.

A memorial has been received, but I regret to say that I should not be warranted in establishing a telegraph office at Aughacashel. I understand there is no village there and that there would be practically no telegraph revenue, while on the other hand the line would cost £237, and the annual expense would be heavy.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state when the regulations found in paragraph 7, page 8, of the Post Office Guide were substituted for those previously in existence with reference to the address of parcels; whether such change was made in consequence of the number of parcels, addressed in Irish, which were despatched through post offices in Ireland; and whether steps will be taken to revise the regulations in consonance with the wishes of the Irish people.

The regulations referred to were altered in October last as a result of a question raised respecting the treatment of a registered letter addressed in Irish, but they extend, of course, to parcels addressed in other languages. It may be explained that registered letters and parcels have to be handed in at a post office, and it is reasonable that the opportunity should be taken of requiring the senders to give a translation of the address in English. I see no ground for altering the rule in question.

If the noble Lord is prepared to enter into a fight with the Gaelic League he will be defeated.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in paragraph 4, page 442, of the Post Office Guide, with reference to letters addressed in the Russian language, it is stated that the name of the town and of the province should also be added in English, French, or German; and whether, in view of the fact that German characters, which are admittedly different from English, are recommended in the case of letters addressed from England to Russia, he will state why Irish characters cannot be used in addressing letters and parcels in Ireland.

Letters from the United Kingdom for Russia centralise in London, where the French and German forms of the names of towns and provinces are sufficiently known for sorting purposes. I may point out to the hon. Member that the use of German characters is not recommended in the paragraph of the Post Office Guide to which he refers, but simply that of the German names of towns and provinces which may be, and quite commonly are, written in the same characters as English and French.

But if there is nothing in the regulation to say that German characters must not be used, how does the noble Lord say they are not recommended?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to take any steps to prevent such miscarriages of justice as have lately occurred in the cases of Adolf Beck and of Underwood; and whether, having regard to the frequency of cases of hardship in the administration of the criminal law, he would think it desirable to institute inquiries, by the appointment of a Royal Commission or otherwise, into the circumstances under which arrests on suspicion are made, the conditions and periods of detention before trial of prisoners, and the best method of adequately compensating innocent persons wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.

The case of Mr. Adolf Beck has been the subject of exhaustive inquiry by a Committee, presided over by the Master of the Rolls, and in accordance with the recommendations of that committee a Bill has been drafted and introduced in another place to effect a change in the law which, in the opinion of the committee, will prevent miscarriages of justice such as that which occurred in the Beck case. Certain administrative improvements have also been made in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee. Cases of hardship in the administration of the criminal law must occasionally occur; but hardships such as those in the Beck and Underwood cases are so rare that I do not think they call for any further inquiry.

In connection with the Beck case and the proposals of the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of establishing a Court of Criminal Appeal in this country, such as exists in other countries?

I am not qualified to give an Answer without notice upon a matter of such importance, nor would my opinion be worth much if I gave it; but I have always understood that expert opinion in this country was against a Court of Criminal Appeal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman order a Return to be given of the cases of hardship brought before the Government in recent years? I think they are very numerous.

I hope the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. Perhaps he will put the Question to the Home Office and my right hon. friend will answer it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the provision of free meals for destitute school children in Manchester came to an end on Friday last for lack of funds; and whether, as the distress is still acute in parts of the city, he proposes taking any action for enabling the educational authority to continue the provision of such meals at the cost of the community.

I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that in Leeds, where distress due to bad trade is very acute, the Lord Mayor has intimated that after next week the free meals to destitute school children will require to be stopped owing to lack of funds; and whether, in view of the hardship which this will impose on several hundreds of children, he will reconsider his decision not to introduce a Bill this session to empower educational authorities to provide meals for destitute children at the cost of the public.

May I at the same time ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the failure of voluntary effort in several parts of the country to cope with the needs of hungry children, he will now reconsider his decision not to introduce legislation this session to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the Physical Deterioration (1904) Committee, to the effect that local education authorities should be empowered, out of the funds at their disposal, to provide meals for hungry children.

I have received no information confirming the hon. Member's statement that provision of free meals for destitute school children in Manchester came to an end last Friday from lack of funds. I am advised that it applies to only one, and not to all sources of charitable supply. I am informed, with regard to Leeds, that the Lord Mayor's Fund for free meals was raised to meet exceptional distress, and when that fund was exhausted a fortnight ago the situation was considered by a committee representative of all parts of the city, and the Lord Mayor decided, after careful consideration by the committee, that the distress was no longer exceptional, but that the existing distress was chronic, and could be met by the ordinary charitable agencies. It was resolved to discontinue the fund, and not to try to raise more money. I am informed that no member of the committee demurred to this decision.

May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that my information is official, and free meals were stopped at Manchester last Friday. Will he not reconsider his decision not to introduce a Bill empowering the authorities to provide free meals out of the rates?

The hon. Member for North Camberwell has a Question on the same subject. I am not prepared to give any such pledge.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive representations from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and myself as to the extreme urgency of the question of hungry children, with a view to a reconsideration of the decision not to introduce legislation?

The last thing I should refuse to do is to receive information on so important a subject from any Gentleman who is a Member of this House, but I will suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his representations should be primarily addressed to the Board of Education or the Local Government Board.

But the Board of Education have refused to adopt the recommendations of the Physical Deterioration Committee.

I said I could not give any pledge that we should deal with this matter in the manner which the Committee proposed. I do not think anything that the hon. Gentleman can say will reverse that decision, but I shall be glad to hear him.

Could not the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee be considered by a Select Committee of this House?

I will consider that Question, but cannot give a definite Answer at the present time. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put the Question again in a week.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the interest taken in the question by chambers of commerce of the country, he is able to say when the Bill for establishing a Minister of Commerce and Industry will be introduced.

I am afraid that the amount of work we have to get through as regards Supply makes it impossible for me to give a definite Answer to my hon. friend.

I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has any objection to putting off the next stage of the Navy Estimates till Monday.

The hon. Gentleman made an appeal to me two days ago not to take the Navy Estimates on Thursday. At that time I hoped the information he was asking for would be available in time to make the request for postponement somewhat unreasonable in its character. My hopes, however, have been disappointed, and I acknowledge that under the circumstances there is a claim for postponement. I shall therefore take Supplementary Estimates to-morrow and defer the Navy Estimates till Monday.

Sir, in rising to introduce the Scotch Education Bill I make no apology for doing so under what is generally known as the Ten Minutes Rule, because the result is no doubt that the Bill is enabled to be introduced at an earlier date in the session than otherwise, and we thereby hope the House and public will be put in possession of the special details of the measure earlier, and also that by this earlier introduction we may be more certain that the Bill will ultimately find its place upon the Statute-book. As the House will also be aware from the King's Speech, the main features of the Bill are practically the same as those considered in this House last session, and accordingly my duty in introducing it will be amply discharged by explaining the principal points in which there is any difference from the Bill before the House last session. I am sure the House will pardon me for a moment if I say that while I quite recognise that upon these grounds no apology is necessary to the House, I cannot but recall to myself that, in this session, the Bill will no longer be under the guidance of my right hon. friend the late Secretary for Scotland, and I am sure it will not be regarded as affectation or modesty on my part if I say no one recognises more to the full than I do that the absence of his great Parliamentary skill and experience and his other abilities will make it necessary for me, not only at this stage, but in all the stages of the Bill, to make larger demands upon the indulgence of the House on both sides than he would have found it necessary to do. At the same time I am encouraged to think that that demand will meet with a ready response, because, Sir, I feel sure that on both sides of the House it is recognised that the time has come when we should do our best to give to Scottish education a large and wide measure of reform. While we quite understand that questions of considerable importance will require to be discussed in this Bill, they are not, I venture to think, questions which will give rise to keen Party feeling or increase political bias. I am sure that all Members of the House on both sides are anxious to do their best for Scottish education, and they will give me credit for being actuated by a similar desire. It is in that view, I think, I shall get a generous indulgence so far as it is necessary in every stage of this Bill through the House. The House will remember that in the course of last session about half of the clauses of the Bill then before it passed through Committee, and so far as the present Bill is concerned it practically takes up the Bill as it then stood, and so far as it had then been considered. The districts will remain the same as before; but it will be in the recollection of those Members of the House who interested themselves in the matter that in the clauses dealing with the districts there were introduced in Committee various provisions giving elasticity and power to the Secretary for Scotland to divide counties and districts, and in the present Bill these powers will be further extended and enlarged. Then in the first part of the Bill—this Bill practically corresponds with that part of the Bill of last session—the only other change really is a subsidiary one as to the mode of election in burghs. We have at the request of the burghs provided in the present Bill that burghs and counties shall, instead of being treated as electoral divisions of the counties, conduct their school board elections as other burghs do, that is to say on the same day as the ordinary municipal elections, and of course on the municipal franchise. That will apply to all burghs with the exception of a few police burghs which have been called into existence since the 1899 Act, and where there would have been a good deal of complication, if we had adopted that course, in respect of their area not coinciding with the electoral division of the county. Practically the result is that at the request of the burghs we have given that concession to them. The clauses as to managers remain the same as in the Committee stage of the Bill of last year: managers will be optional in enumerated districts and compulsory in others, but with a perfectly free hand for school boards to elect managers as they think proper. With regard to the second part of the Bill which deals with the powers of the school board, the House will remember that nearly the whole, I think the whole, of that was dealt with by the Committee last session. As to the clause as to rating, the House will recollect that a proposal was introduced in an Amendment by Mr. Murray proposing to have rating partly by population and partly by valuation. The final opinion of the Committee as to that was that the clause was passed on a pledge that the Bill should be recommitted as to that clause with a view to its reconsideration. Subsequent consideration of the point satisfied my right hon. friend that the proposal which he had submitted in this Amendment was not one which he should adhere to, and accordingly we propose in this Bill—and this really is substantially the most important modification as compared with last year—so far as the rating clause is concerned important modification as compared with last year—so far as the rating clause is controversy, the House will remember, between the outlying country parishes and the burghs as to pooling the debts, and, as the country parishes said, making them pay for the higher elementary schools in the burghs, the answer from the burgh side being, "Yes, but you are getting the benefit of the secondary education schools." After full consideration they thought that answer was not perfectly accurate, and I do not know indeed that any proposal will preserve altogether the minute equilibrium between the claims of the counties and burghs, but giving the best consideration to the matter we could, and after hearing the views of all parties, what we propose to do is this. As to existing debt, so far as it represents capital expenditure, which I suppose will practically be expenditure on buildings and sites, we propose to divide that into two, or rather that the school board shall divide it into two portions—so far as it represents expenditure on higher-class public schools, using the words in the sense of the, 1872 Act, it shall be a charge upon the whole district, and so far as it represents expenditure on buildings and sites other than higher-class public schools—if I may be allowed to use the term expenditure on primary and ebmentary schools—it shall be treated as local and remain on the parishes which those elementary or local schools represent. The result is that debt representing charges in respect of higher-class or secondary schools will be placed upon the whole district, and the debt representing charges for elementary or primary schools or schools other than higher-class schools will remain parochial, as it is at present. The maintenance, of course, of both will be a charge upon the whole district. That is what we propose to do in regard to existing debt, and we propose also that with regard to future expenditure the same allocation shall be followed out. The result, the House will observe, is that so far as elementary or primary school capital charges are concerned they will remain parochial, but so far as higher-class school capital expenditure is concerned it will remain general over the district, and the maintenance charges with regard to both will be general. I quite appreciate, of course, that there are instances where that may work one way or the other differently from what it does at the present time, but upon the whole, and after consultation with the various parties interested, the proposal which we submit to the House seems to us the fairest which we can put before it, having regard to the competing interests of both sections of the community. Then as to the deficiency, we adhere to our original proposal in the Bill that the deficiency shall be rated upon the parishes according to their valuation, that is to say, the parishes of each district shall have allocated to them a proportion of the deficiency corresponding to their valuation. We propose, however, to collect that deficiency as was done in the Bill of last year according to the several regulations observed in each parish, the several classifications and deductions; and, in fact, to continue to collect the school board rate as it is collected at present on the same terms as the Poor Law rate. I quite appreciate again that that is a point on which different views are held, and much is to be said on both sides, but, having given the best consideration to it we could, it seemed on the whole that that was the proper proposal which would meet with the most general acceptance.

Order, order! The Standing Order requires that the right hon. Gentleman's statement should only be a brief one.

I shall only be a few minutes more. That is the main point. We propose also to give special powers, as promised last year, to school boards to provide books, and we also propose to give the provincial councils somewhat larger powers than they have to-day. The education fund will remain practically the same as before, except that the local authorities will get £100,000 which the Act of 1902 originally gave them and we shall take the surplus; otherwise that proposal remains exactly as it was. The only other matter is that we propose to put the sanitary inspection of the schools under the ordinary local sanitary authorities, the medical officers of health, and the sanitary inspector; and we propose to introduce a clause dealing with school boards raising up a large debit in view of the Bill. I think I have explained in the main the immediate changes between this and the Bill of last session, and I beg leave to move it.

endorsed the Lord-Advocate's remarks with respect to the late Secretary for Scotland. He remarked that the Bill imported new topics and new methods of handling those topics which he thought provided elements of considerable danger as to its future. Still the general features remained the same. They were on the whole to retain their Scotch system; they were still to have universal school boards; they were still to have sole control of the taxpayer's money by representatives of the taxpayer, and they were still to have no embargo put upon the right of representatives to appoint teachers irrespective of creed or denomination. He thought it would have been a much wiser course for the Government to have accepted the lessons inflicted upon them last year and to have adhered to the text of their original Bill. All that had happened with reference to the new proposal was a complete justification of the criticisms offered. With regard to the new change as to the incidence of rating, he rejoiced that reward had been given to their efforts by the original proposals of the Bill having been gone back upon, but he confessed that when the Lord-Advocate went further he had very considerable doubt as to the setting up of new districts and as to their having constant trouble with regard to the incidence within those districts of certain classes of expenditure. It would have been far simpler and better to have taken the districts as they were now situated, giving them over to authorities united by freedom, united by interest, and united by responsibility. They would watch the text of the Bill with very great interest and they would not commit themselves as to its further progress. He asked that the Bill should be printed at an early date and circulated in Scotland in time for feeling in Scotland to ripen and mould itself, and that there should be no attempt suddenly to ask for a Second Reading until Scotland itself had been consulted. He remarked that the Government would have to have regard to the opinion of Scotch representatives with reference to the important matter of feeding children and also with reference to gipsy or tinker children, and concluded by stating that on the whole those representatives would not be adverse to a good and true measure adhering to the main lines of popular representative control such as they found embodied in the Bill.

I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.

said that when the debate closed on the preceding evening he was making an attempt to discover the Mullah somewhere in the recesses of Somaliland. He was also trying to obtain information from the noble Lord who represented the Foreign Office as to the political and military position of the Mullah and the whereabouts of his following. The action of the Foreign Office had been very severely criticised by the hon. Member who moved the reduction, and the criticisms had been addressed to various points of view. The Foreign Office had been criticised first for plunging into the war; next for not starting the war soon enough; again, for starting it too soon; then for under-estimating the cost; and finally, for sending too small a force into the country. It was quite true that since the year 1886, when we first took up the responsibility for protecting the tribes of Somaliland, we had gained very wide experience of the nature of the Hinterlands, and we were now realising the responsibility thus thrown upon us. It was quite possible that had we at that time possessed the knowledge we had since obtained our attitude on this question might have been considerably altered. He would be very glad to know from the noble Lord what was the nature and extent, in point of time, of the responsibilities we had taken up towards these friendly tribes. When the matter was discussed a year ago there was some difference of opinion on the subject. The Secretary for War had practically declared that we had given them an absolute guarantee of security, but that statement was, to some extent, controverted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, who said it was putting our obligation towards the tribes too high. He believed he was right in saying that since we undertook the responsibility some of the tribes had been placed under the protection of Abyssinia; so that it was clear that if we had an absolute duty to look after them, we still had power to delegate that duty to others. The hon. Member also criticised, he thought rather severely, at any rate in the case of a friendly Power, the action of the Italians. He said they had a very large protectorate, and he asked why they should not look after the Mullah and the tribes? He seemed to suggest that we were doing dirty work for the Italians, work the responsibility for which should have fallen upon them, instead of upon ourselves. There again he did not think the hone Member had given sufficient consideration to the difficulties of the situation. The boundaries between the Italian, and British, and the Abyssinian protectorates were non-existent; they were imaginary lines of demarcation, and it was absolutely impossible to stand upon some line, as could be done if they were dealing with a country whose boundaries were clearly demarcated. Moreover our obligations with regard to the tribes were so strong that they could not be discharged by our saying, "You have been raided by the Mullah, who has driven your flocks away, but he has now gone into Italian territory, and you must look to the Italians for protection." He did not profess to know to what extent the Italians were in a position to give us assistance as regarded money and men. The hon. Member seemed to think that they ought to have done more, but he ought not to have forgotten that General Egerton, in his despatches, gave the highest praise to the Italian admiral for the assistance he had given our troops in stores and otherwise. He also intimated that he had had very valuable assistance from the Abyssinians, and his despatches showed that the Abyssinian expedition had had very considerable effect in restraining the operations of the Mullah. Short of capturing the Mullah himself a great deal had been done to diminish his power inasmuch as he had been defeated, and so had lost men, prestige, chattels, and stores. That, with a religious reformer of this kind, was almost better than if he had been killed outright, because the idea might then have arisen that he had become a sacred personage, and a series of myths might have grown up around his tomb. But he was now discredited, and in these cases an extinct volcano like the Mullah would be a lesson to other volcanoes not yet in eruption. The question was, what should be done with Somaliland in the future? He was not certain that it would not be advantageous to hand the country back to the Indian Government. In many ways the Indian Government were able to deal with such a protectorate far better than the Foreign Office. They had considerable experiencee of such military operations as had lately been carried out, and they possessed a great number of officers with full knowledge of the manner in which all these tribes should be dealt with. The hon. Member for East Bristol had suggested that a Sandeman should be sent to Somaliland to exercise over the tribes there the same sort of control as had been exercised on the North-West Frontier of India and in Baluchistan. It was not easy to find such men, and there was also the difficulty that in India they had behind them the whole of the force concentrated in that peninsula, whereas the Somali tribes had no knowledge of British power, so that the exercise of moral force, partly from geographical considerations, would be far more difficult in Somaliland than on the North-West Frontier. Under Foreign Office control, officers had to be collected from all quarters of the British Empire, with the result that the force was of a very composite character, consisting of officers of all descriptions, who were extremely unlikely to be able to work together.

asked who would pay the cost, if the administration was transferred to the Indian Government.

said that when India controlled Somaliland previously, the protectorate not only paid its way, but made a contribution to the finances of India. It should be remembered, also, that this protectorate was maintained largely with a view to the question of Aden, and Aden itself was controlled by India. Therefore, on almost every ground, Somaliland would be more naturally managed by India than by the Foreign Office. Much had been said with regard to the obligations we had taken up towards these tribes, but there were reciprocal obligations on the part of the tribes towards us. But more than once in the recent war it had happened that the tribes we had undertaken to protect against the Mullah and similar persons had had considerable sympathy with these religious reformers; in fact, the Mullah might have been captured if these friendly tribes had given assistance at the right time. If, therefore, the very stringent obligations towards these tribes were being renewed, an investigation should be made as to whether these tribes had been faithful to us and had given all the assistance they could. He asked what were the arrangements now being made with regard to patrolling the coast, and how far the Italians were assisting us, because, if the smuggling in of arms and ammunition could be prevented, it would enormously lighten any future difficulty. He also asked what arrangements were being made for the future management and administration of Somaliland, what civil and military officers were to be kept there, what was the size and composition of the force to be maintained, where it was to be stationed, and what were the characters of the officers and their experience of the country. After the three expeditions which had been sent it might well be that, without being able to send a Sandeman, we might be able to get men who would exercise such an influence over these tribes as, if not to prevent religious reformers rising up, which perhaps was impossible, at any rate, to secure such early information as would enable us to know when troubles were brewing, the forces which might be necessary to cope with them, and the methods by which such eruptions should be met. He did not see how the late war could have been avoided; but it had been a very expensive business, and the country desired to be satisfied that, as a result, we had at least discharged our obligations to the tribes, broken the Mullah, settled the country, and obtained the likelihood of a long period of security.

pointed out that these War Office Estimates covered the expenses only of that portion of the war which had taken place within the last two years, during which period the conduct of operations had not been under the control of the Office with which he was connected. The hon. Member for East Bristol was under a misapprehension as to the character of the Estimate. It was concerned solely with expenditure on warlike operations and the winding up of those operations, and had nothing whatever to do with the expenses of the future administration of the country, for which a separate Vote was being asked in the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates. The hon. Member was also in error in estimating the cost of the war to the British Exchequer at £3,500,000; the actual total cost did not exceed £2,500,000. The total war expenditure for which the Foreign Office was responsible was £73,640, while the war expenditure incurred by the War Office since they had had control of the operations was £252,000 in 1902–3, £1,618,000 in 1903–4, and £550,000 in 1904–5, or a total of £2,420,000.

asked whether that was inclusive or exclusive of the appropriations-in-aid.

said that amount included the whole of the military expenditure, but it did not include the expenditure under the head of grants-in-aid which had been asked for year by year.

said the question of the hon. Member opposite was not as to grants-in-aid, but appropriations-in-aid.

said he had answered that question by saying that the figures he had given represented the total expenditure on military operations. An hon. Member pointed out that on April 23rd, 1903, the present Marquess of Salisbury stated that the expenditure of the Foreign Office on military operations was £89,000, not £73,000.

said the figure given him was £73,000. But even taking the higher sum the total would not be much more than £2,500,000. But the hon. Member had not confined himself to the policy of the War Office; he had roamed at large over the policy which led to the war, and the policy of the Government now that it was over. Those who had listened to this and recent debates would naturally infer that His Majesty's Government had been the first Government to set foot in Somaliland, and that they were actuated in that policy either by a desire for military adventure or by quixotic philanthropy. The hon. Member for South Manchester, who had made one of the most useful contributions to the debate, pointed out that two totally inconsistent arguments had been advanced by the mover and the seconder of the Amendment, and the same inconsistency had run through many of the speeches delivered from that side of the House in the course of past discussions. The Opposition had two favourite theories in regard to this matter. One was that the Mullah was a harmless fanatic who might very well have been left to his own devices, and who would have given no trouble if he had not been interfered with. At the time the campaign against him was undertaken, he was actually in occupation of the whole of the eastern portion of the British protectorate, and was seizing all the property of the agents of the Administration. The wife of one of our agents was divorced from her husband by the Mullah, and appropriated to himself. Hon. gentlemen could not find language strong enough to denounce the conduct of Mahomedan peoples in parts of the world for which we had no direct responsibility, but when outrages were inflicted upon people who were under our protection they described them as the methods of a revivalist and temperance reformer. The second theory was that the Foreign Office was mainly to blame for the extent to which we had become involved by not taking the advice of their military advisers soon enough. There was no foundation for that suggestion. An expedition was first recommended by Consul Sadler in 1899, and preparations were at once made, but the Mullah withdrew. On his reappearance in 1900 the force was again collected, and with this force Colonel Swayne advanced in 1901 and inflicted three signal defeats on the Mullah at Ferdiddin, Sanala, and M'Neill's Zariba. It was withdrawn because the Mullah had retired to Muduc in Italian territory, where we had not then permission from the Italian Government to follow him. In 1902 be resumed the offensive, and the Expedition, under Colonel Swayne, met with a severe check at Erigo, where complete disaster was only averted by the pluck and gallantry of the Yao troops. The conduct of the operations then passed from the Foreign Office to the War Office. He did not therefore feel called upon to discuss the strategic policy adopted in the later stages of the campaign. The hon. Member made it a special ground of censure that the Government had invited the co-operation of the Italian Government instead of calling upon them to keep their own tribes in order; but his facts were inaccurate and his proposals impracticable. The Mullah's following, including as it did the Dolbahanta and Aligheri, was not derived wholly from the tribes in the Italian sphere; and the Italian Government had never professed to exercise administrative control over the Hinterland of their own territory. They had not undertaken the same obligations to the tribes in their Protectorate as we had to the tribes in ours. We only invited Italian co-operation because, the Mullah having retreated into their territory, it was necessary to prevent him from escaping southward and menacing our Protectorate in East Africa. The object being to hem in the Mullah, we attempted to achieve that result by a simultaneous advance from Obbia and Bohotle in co-operation with an Abyssinian advance from the West. It was quite true that this attempt was not completely successful, in the sense that it did not result in the capture of the Mullah, but it enabled us to inflict the crushing defeat at Jidballi, which finally destroyed his effective power, dispersed the great majority of his followers, and has secured, the Protectorate from attack ever since. He would only say one word more upon the question of policy. It seemed to be imagined by some hon. Members, and was actually stated by the hon. Member for the Elland Division, that the whole of this forward policy on our part might have been avoided if we had been content with more modest measures of a purely defensive character upon our own frontier. That policy was tried in 1901 and reconsidered in 1902, but was abandoned because it would have involved the occupation of a stretch of country 500 miles in length, and the establishment of a permanent garrison of 10,000 men. Now that the Mullah's power had been destroyed the defensive policy had been partially adopted. As to the objects of the war, we had not desired to acquire territory. We had gained nothing in that way; but we had kept something, which, if we lost, we might say "Good-bye" to the idea of governing native tribes at all—the reputation of being faithful to our engagements. Supposing that the Government had made the original miscalculation alleged by the hon. Member, what had that to do with this Vote? The hon. Member for Bristol said that the Government had spoken of this as a military promenade, but he did not recollect any one making use of an expression of that kind.

I quoted that expression from the first White Paper presented to the House, and it was used by the Consul-General.

said he was under the impression that the hon Member was quoting from a speech made by the Prime Minister, and he concluded that he meant to imply that the Government had misled the House.

But I gave the name.

said he apologised to the hon. Member, if he had misunderstood him. Admitting that the Government, acting on the advice of their local officers, who were best able to form a judgment upon the matter, had made a miscalculation, if this were a just, necessary, and inevitable war, then the fact that His Majesty's Government did not know how much it would cost had nothing to do with the matter. If it were an inevitable war the Government was bound to spend the necessary money to see it through, whether they underestimated the total cost in the initial stages or not. Was it a necessary war? The war was mainly undertaken to defend the tribes in our own Protectorate with whom this country had entered into distinct treaty engagements. Some hon. Members had discussed the origin of these treaties, and assumed that they were made by the Foreign Office—another instance of that peculiar administrative incompetence which was supposed to characterise the Department he represented, a Department which seemed to him to have been most unjustly and most unfairly criticized in the past. The Foreign Office was not originally intended or framed for the purpose of undertaking administrative duties of this kind, but as a matter of fact he doubted very much whether any Department could have so rapidly improved the financial status of any one of the Protectorates under the charge of the Foreign Office as that Department had done. It was assumed that these treaties were made by the Foreign Office and by a Conservative Administration. Neither of those hypotheses had the slightest foundation in fact. Not one of the treaties with the tribes in Somaliland had been made by the Foreign Office. Every one was made by the India Office, and out of the nine, six had been made by the Party opposite, and he thought the majority of them when Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister.

The conditions have been entirely altered by the extension of the protectorate.

said the whole of these treaties had practically the same character; they were general treaties extending to the tribes the protection of His Majesty's Government. He did not know that it was necessary or very relevant to this discussion to enter upon a defence of the original policy of these treaties. Everybody knew that they were the consequence of our occupation of Somaliland and that occupation was dictated by various considerations of the intimate connection at that time between Somaliland and Abyssinia on the one hand, and on the other the Upper Nile Valley where we had not yet established our position—and the importance of Berbera, both from its situation on the high road to India, and from its convenience as a provisioning basis for the garrison at Aden. The value of Berbera from that point of view depended entirely on our being able to keep open the trade routes to the Hinterland. There were three ways in which that object might be achieved. We might have undertaken the whole expense and responsibility of administering the inferior ourselves. No one had suggested that we ought to have adopted this course. We might have armed the tribes so as to enable them to defend themselves against the Mullah, or we might have adopted the policy, which the Government did adopt, of restricting the area of our administrative responsibilities, and whenever it became necessary to undertake the defence of the tribes to do so by means of punitive expeditions. The Government may have been right or wrong to fall back on the third policy, but they adopted it on grounds of economy. But whether it was right or wrong, there can be no doubt whatever that, having adopted that policy, and having entered into engagements with the tribes, we were bound to carry them out, and all the more bound for two reasons. In the first place, it was largely owing to the fact that we had made these treaties, and that the tribes relied upon us to protect them against attacks by the Mullah, that they had refused to make common cause with him. Another and even more cogent reason for our intervention was that we had deliberately disarmed all the tribes under our protection, and had therefore left them defenceless against the neighbouring tribes who were in possession of arms. In the opinion of the Government no other course was open to them than that which they had adopted unless they were prepared to plead force majeure. To admit that they were unable to carry out their treaty engagements would have been a confession humiliating in itself and would have had a most disastrous effect on the neighbouring tribes. It was a confession which the Government were not prepared to make; and he did not believe that in this matter hon. Members opposite would have followed a different course themselves. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had never associated himself with the attacks which came from hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the debate on April 30th, 1903, the right hon. Gentleman said—

"It is perfectly true that the undertakings deliberately given by this country to savage or semi-savage tribes under our protection must be rigidly, honourably, and even scrupulously observed, and it is immaterial what Government is in office at the time."

He turned now to the question of our policy in the future. No doubt the situation had changed. In performance of our treaty obligations we had incurred great expenditure both of money and life; and it was open to us, he thought, now to reconsider our position. He had already briefly outlined to the House the three main policies open to the Government originally. They chose the one which they thought would involve the least expense. As a matter of fact, the policy of punitive expeditions had proved in this case, as it had proved over and over again on the Indian frontier, the most extravagant policy which we could possibly pursue. It was not recognised when the treaties were concluded in 1886; but the Government had now come to the conclusion—a conclusion which he thought had been pressed upon them by all sections of the House—that the wisest and most prudent policy to pursue in the future was to limit our administrative responsibility as far as we possibly could to the coast line. But there was a corollary to that policy, and that was that we should arm the tribes and organise them so as to be in a position to defend themselves in the event of any future emergency such as that with which they had been recently confronted.

Do you adhere your obligations?

said there was no question of repudiating our obligations; it was only a question of devising means to carry them out.

Does the noble Lord mean that in future this country is both to undertake their protection and to defend the tribes by arms, or are they to defend themselves?

replied that he could not say what action in each individual case future governments might think it advisable to adopt, but the Government did not repudiate the general obligations into which they had entered with the tribes in Somaliland. This policy, however, of arming and organising the tribes so as to enable them to stand alone was obviously one which would take a little time, at all events, to carry out. They could not expect tribes never armed and never organised before to be in a fit position to defend themselves at once. Besides, therefore, lending the assistance of political officers for the purpose of controlling the organisation, the Government proposed to provide the requisite stiffening of Regular troops during the interval. They intended, in the first place, to bring the 6th battalion King's African Rifles, which had been seriously depleted, up to its full strength, and to transform it from an infantry into a mounted regiment. In future it would consist of 200 mounted Somalis and a camel corps of 300; and it would represent the permanent garrison of the protectorate. It was further proposed temporarily to locate in the protectorate the 33rd Regiment Punjabis for one year, after which it was hoped that the tribes would be in a position to resist any attack brought against them with the support of the permanent garrison. There was one other measure they thought it necessary to adopt. It was desirable to strengthen our administrative hold on the coast and to take fresh measures for the control and suppression of the arms traffic which had been responsible for much of the difficulty we had had to encounter in the past. Some hon. Members who had spoken in previous debates had rather implied that the dangers of this traffic had entirely escaped the attention of the Government. That was not the case. During the whole of these operations the Government had devoted the most anxious consideration to every possible method for suppressing it. There were three different sources from which a supply of arms could enter that region—from the coast line under British or Italian influence; from the East African Protectorate where it bordered on the Yuba River; and on the North-West across the Abyssinian frontier, from Harrar or Jibuti in the French sphere of influence. The Government of Zanzibar had since the commencement of the operations kept a very close scrutiny on the importation of arms, the German and Italian Consuls had agreed to exercise strict supervision over their own vessels, and the Governor of German East Africa also issued special instructions on the subject. Between Lamu and Kismayu there was an armed dhow patrolling the coast and a road patrol on the main routes from Yuba to the Hinterland. On the North-West the French Government had given orders that no arms were to be issued to natives under French protection. In Abyssinia, the Emperor Menelik very soon after the war commenced issued special regulations in regard to the sale of arms, having already, under the new regulations, seized a large consignment. No dealer was to be at liberty to sell arms, except under special licence, and no native might carry them without the permission of the Court. The British coast did not present so much difficulty as the Italian—it was so mountainous for 120 out of the 240 miles that, practically, the importation of arms across that barrier was impossible, and off the remainder of the coast we had four British men-of-war. The Italians had employed one man-of-war and one torpedo vessel. The had also established at Bundin Kassim one additional Custom-House station for the control of the traffic. In addition, the Italian Government had allowed us to search suspected vessels in Italian territorial waters, and we had also obtained the consent of the Sultan of Muscat, from which much of the arms traffic came, to search ships flying his flag, not only in Muscat territorial waters, but also on the high seas. We proposed in future to strengthen our administration of the coast-line and Somaliland by placing there two additional coast stations at Hais and Las Khorai, and also an armed steamer, the initial expense of which would be £9,000, part of which would be recouped to us by our being able to dispense with a dhow. He could not give any precise information as to where the Mullah was at the present moment; he thought it was some where near Illig. In conclusion; he hoped the measures now contemplated would commend themselves to the House as measures which would effectively carry out the declared policy of the Government to restrict the responsibilities of this country in future within the narrowest limits, and that in their effort to suppress the arms traffic they would continue to have the support and assistance of all the neighbouring Powers in Africa, to whose rule, no less than to our own, this traffic was a constant and dangerous menace

said that the defence of the policy of the Government in Somaliland just made by the noble Lord was very characteristic of all the previous defences of the same policy and of the same Government. The latter part of the speech of the noble Lord gave away the first part; but that was also characteristic of deliverances from the front bench opposite. In the first part the noble Lord stated that the Government had embarked on this expedition in Somaliland because they wanted to prove to everybody that they were a Government that kept their pledges. He did not say it was not necessary for this Government to give some such demonstration; but they might have done it in much better and less expensive ways and without spending two and a half millions of money.

How?

said that there was the hon. Member for King's Lynn behind them; they might have kept their pledges to him, and no one thought that that would have cost —2,500,000. But having sworn to their own virtue, and having entered into treaties with the Dolbahantas and all these tribes, saying, "We will protect you at any cost," they now declared, "We have come to the conclusion that it is too expensive to keep our word." The hon. Member for King's Lynn would have this satisfaction, that he was no worse off than the Dolbahantas tribes, except in one respect, that the Government were going to arm the Dolbahantas. What an extraordinary position

The Dolbahantas are not one of the tribes under our protection.

said it did not matter; the Government were going to arm other tribes then. There were as many of these tribes as there were section amongst His Majesty's Government's supporters. The noble Lord entered into a very elaborate argument to prove how very important it was to prevent the importation of any arms into that part of Africa, and then he said how very difficult it was; how there were mountain barriers along the Somaliland coast, how the Italian frontier was quite impossible, how the French were defending Jibuti, and how the Abyssinians were making arrangements to prohibit the entry of arms in some other part. In fact the difficulties were insuperable. But then the noble Lord went on to say that the Government were going to solve these difficulties. They were going themselves to supply the tribes with arms! The fiscal policy of the Government was difficult enough to understand, but their policy in regard to these tribes was still more difficult. First of all, their policy was to exclude arms, and they entered into engagements with the European Powers and with the Sultan of Muscat to stop all traffic in arms; and then, having broken their word to the Somali tribes, except the Dolbahantas, they proceeded to break their word with all the European Powers. Really the policy of the Government was becoming more and more perplexing from day to day. The noble Lord said that the cost of this war so far was only £2,500,000. Millions were nothing to the Government; they just flung them away, and on a policy too which they themselves now acknowledged to be a failure. How did they start?—£80,000. The noble Lord said the war was inevitable. All the wars of this Government were inevitable. But not only the wars, but the miscalculations were inevitable. They had heard something of the sort before. £10,000,000 for a cheap trip for the army to Pretoria; £80,000 for an excursion to Somaliland, now run up to £2,500,000. It was the same thing in Tibet— just a few thousand pounds to leave the right hon. Gentleman's card on the Dalai Lama Instead of that it was converted into a great military expedition. This was part of the policy of the Government; the only difference being that at last they had a Minister who said that the whole thing was a mistake and a miscalculation. He was glad that someone had acknowledged that. But what a position it was. They were dealing with a gentleman—a Mullah—he did not know what he was—he might be a revivalist,—but they did not send a military expedition to put down revivalists in this country. Why should they do it in another country? The Mullah was one day an Italian, the next day an Abyssinian, and another day a true Briton. He was just as elusive as the Prime Minister. But why should it be our job to deal with him at all? The noble Lord did not give the slightest indication of what he was going to do. Last year they were told that there was not going to be any more expenditure on this job; that the Government were simply going to negotiate with the Mullah. What had become of the negotiations? Why not send out the hon. Member for Central Bradford as a sort of envoy extraordinary to deal with the situation? It would be just as sensible a policy as that now being pursued. They had gone on year by year piling up expense; starting one policy, departing from it; entering on another, and departing from that. If the Government would only follow some definite line of action and put it through it would not be so bad; but they were simply doing nothing. There was one point referred to by his hon. friend the Member for East Bristol which was not dealt with by the noble Lord. His hon. friend quoted from The Times newspaper a statement that the Mullah, at the present moment, had more soldiers with him than when he started.