laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 63 has been complied with, viz.:—London United Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill.

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—Malvern Water.

reported from the Committee on Group No. 5 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of Parties, they had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if the light at Oyster Island, Sligo, is in the position described in the Admiralty List of Lights for 1905; and, if not, will he state the error, how long the position has been incorrectly described, and if he will cause the error to be rectified immediately. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the lighthouse in question is in the position described in the Admiralty List of Lights for 1905.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if the Irish lights tender "Princess Alexandra" has fulfilled all the conditions of the specification; if this vessel is now in the builders' hands; and, if so, for what purpose, and for how long. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that their new tender the "Alexandra," not "Princess Alexandra," has been in the builders' hands since December for some alterations to enable her to fulfil speed conditions, and that she will probably be ready by the end of the present month, or the middle of April at latest.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if the sectoring of the light at Roancarrig now agrees with that described on the Admiralty charts. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the sectoring of this light is in agreement with that described on the Admiralty charts.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will furnish the names, particulars of service, and amounts received by the pensioners of the three Lighthouse Boards as included under the heading of superannuation allowances in the lighthouse accounts. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with the information as soon as I receive it from the lighthouse authorities.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state how many sailors and firemen were engaged on British ships at the following ports on the Continent of Europe during the year 1904, namely:—Bordeaux,

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state how many sailors and firemen were discharged from British ships at the following ports on the Continent of Europe during the year 1904, namely:—Bordeaux, Havre, Dunkirk, Antwerp, Rotterdam, Bremen, and Hamburg; and whether he will also state the number of sailors and firemen discharged at the above-mentioned ports from British ships during the same period, and how many nationalities they include. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I propose to answer these two Questions, put by the hon. Member, together. The engagements and discharges were as follows at Havre, Dunkirk, Antwerp, and Rotterdam:—

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state if any report was made to the Board of Trade by the master of the British steamship "Spheroid," as provided by Section 425 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, respecting the accident which occurred on this steamer on September 16th, 1904, whereby a seaman named Bodtman was severely scalded in consequence of the defective condition of the ship's boiler; and, if not, whether the President of the Board of Trade will cause inquiry to be made. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) No report under Section 425 of the Merchant

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state the amount of money paid to seamen on their discharge from British ships at the following ports, namely, Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg, during the year 1904; and whether ho can state the amount of money transmitted by the Board of Trade to this country from the ports named during the same period. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The amount of money paid to seamen on their discharge from British ships at the ports referred to during the year 1904 was: at Rotterdam, £62,421; at Antwerp, £104,099; at Hamburg, £56,139; and the amounts received by the British Consuls for transmission to this country during the same period were: Rotterdam, £19,387; Antwerp, £30,368; and Hamburg, £20,233.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamship "Ovingdean Grange" engaged a crew at Cardiff on May 20th, 1904, and, after making a voyage to the River Plate and other places, discharged part cargo at London and Hull and the remainder at Newcastle, and then proceeded to Tyne Dock and loaded bunker coal for Antwerp, where the crew was paid off and foreigners shipped in their places; and whether, in view of the effect of this practice in displacing British labour by foreigners, he intends to take any steps to prevent, as far as possible, the engagement of foreign crews for British ships at Continental ports. (Answered by Mr. Honor Law.) The movements of the "Ovingdean Grange" are correctly stated in the Question. The Board of Trade have no information as to the discharge of part of the cargo at London or Hull. The crew for the first voyage consisted of twenty-one British and nine foreign seamen, for the second of thirteen British and nineteen foreign seamen. We have no power to take any steps such as are indicated in the last Question.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury how much of the woodland south of Claygate, near Esher, in Surrey, belongs to the Crown, to what use the woods are at present put, and why the public are refused access to them. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Some 800 acres of enclosed woodland south of Claygate form part of a larger estate belonging to the Crown. The woods are at present appropriated for the growth of timber and underwood, and the shooting over them is let. The admission of the public to the woods would involve damage to the timber and underwood and a consequent loss of revenue to the Crown.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that limited liability companies are not amenable to the Poison Regulations prescribed by the Pharmacy Act, 1868, and approved by the Privy Council, and to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that the question of amending the law to remedy this evil would not be germane to a Companies Bill, he will take into consideration the expediency of recommending that facilities be given during the present session for the passing of the Pharmacy Acts Amendment Bill, which is designed to place companies in the same position as individuals in regard to the sale of poisons. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I regret that I cannot promise facilities to the Bill referred to by the hon. Member. I am not in a position to add anything to the Answer which I gave on March 14th † to the hon. Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken with regard to the proposed new post office at Dewsbury, and how far the present premises are suitable, and what increased accommodation it is proposed to provide in the near future. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) A site has been acquired for a new post office at Dewsbury; the plans are practically settled, and though financial exigencies will, it is feared, not permit of the building being begun this year, there is every hope that it will be found possible to begin it next year. The present office is no longer large enough and it cannot be satisfactorily extended.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to introduce the Bill consolidating the various Acts relating to naval prizes of war.

† See (4) Debates, exlii., 133.

This Bill has already been introduced in another place.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give any information as to the stranding of H.M.S. "Kent" in the Firth of Forth.

The "Kent" dragged her anchors during a heavy gale and grounded off St. Margaret's Hope. She was refloated without damage and has returned to her service. The usual official inquiry will follow in due course, when the circumstances will be fully investigated according to the custom of the service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the circumstances attaching to the destruction of emergency rations and meat and vegetable rations in South Africa, as stated at page 257 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, were such as to have called in any instance or instances for the striking off the War Office contractors' lists of any one or more of the firms supplying the rations in question; and, if so, will he give the names of such firm or firms, with the reason for removal.

As regards emergency rations, it is not proposed to order any more rations of the same description. As regards meat and vegetable rations, the treatment to which they were subjected, which was exceptional and, owing to war conditions, unavoidable, rendered it impossible to prove that the contractors were in any way responsible for the deterioration of the supplies. The rations were put up in this country under the supervision of the Quartermaster-General and satisfactorily passed inspection before shipment. Under these circumstances the question of the removal of the firms from the list does not arise.

Am I to understand that no contractors' names have been removed from the list on account of the condition of the rations sent to South Africa?

No. I am informed that is the case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now say whether it will be possible to lay Papers showing the instances in which rations, stores, and supplies generally despatched to South Africa during 1899, 1900, and 1901 were destroyed or returned as unfit in quality or short in amount, with the reason for their destruction or return, and the names of the contractors supplying such stores in each case in which the loss involved was £1,000 or upwards.

I have given directions for the preparation of the Return giving the details asked for, so far as the information in our possession admits, but I am not sure that in all cases the particulars asked for were placed on record by the military boards who condemned the supplies.

Will the Return be laid in the terms of the Question?

Yes, if the hon. Member will move for it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has asked for the details and two vouchers referred to at page xiii. of the Third Report (1904) of the Committee of Public Accounts as not being forthcoming in respect of a sum of £460,000 out of the total sum granted, £1,265,000, to the Imperial Yeomanry Committee; if so, what reply has been received; and, if not, whether application will now be made for these details and vouchers.

The statement in question would appear to be based on replies given by the late Comptroller and Auditor-General. I understand that vouchers are, as a matter of fact, in existence, although they have not been rendered to the War Office. The arrangement with the Imperial Yeomany Committee was the issue to them of the Capitation Grant for each. Yeoman raised and equipped, the administration of the Capitation Grant being left to the Imperial Yeomanry Committee. Following the practice in regard to the Volunteer Capitation Grant, no vouchers would be called for to show in detail how the Committee in their discretion expended the grant.

Will application now be made for these details?

No, Sir The transaction has been long closed and the ordinary procedure followed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any attempt has been made to trace the origin of manufacture of the 50,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition returned from South Africa at the close of the war as unfit; and whether it is proposed to recover the £1,200 per million rounds which is estimated as the cost of remaking the 30,000,000 rounds of this ammunition still in existence.

This ammunition was recovered from the field after issue; it was therefore regarded as unfit, not from any inherent defect in manufacture, but owing to suspicion of possible damage having occurred in course of the operations. No question, therefore, arises of tracing the origin of manufacture. Indeed, it may be assumed that the rounds referred to came from all the various sources of manufacture, Government factories and trade alike.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the number of infantry now quartered in the British Isles, India, South Africa, Egypt, and other stations.

It is not usual to publish details of the actual strengths of the troops quartered at home and abroad, and I am not prepared in the present instance to depart from this practice. The general Annual Report, which will be issued in a few days, gives the numbers asked for by the hon. Member on October 1st, 1904.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to proceed with the formation, of a home-service Army, together with a reduction of the Volunteers.

With respect to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have nothing at present to add to the statements made by me in the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates. It is proposed to effect a reduction in the strength of the Volunteer force.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a reduction in actual numbers or in establishment, or in both?

It is in both; it must take place very gradually.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any commission or remuneration was paid or agreed to be paid to the Agents-General of the Colonies or other and what persons, in respect of orders for the supply of stores to the War Office for South Africa; and, if so, what are the particulars.

No commission or remuneration of any sort was paid by the War Office to the Agents-General or any persons in respect of orders placed with the Colonies by the War Office for supplies to South Africa.

Was any commission paid by the contractors to the Agents-General?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the names of the firms referred to in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, under the heading "Sales of Surplus Supplies, as A, B, and C, respectively."

The names of the firms are as follow:—A, Messrs. E. Stepney; B, Messrs. Meyer & Co.; C, Messrs. Wilson and Worthington. This is the order in which they have been given on each former occasion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the name of a captain, late of the Royal Scots Regiment, appears in the Army List in the Reserve of Officers, although he has been dead more than nine years; and whether any, and what, steps are taken to keep the list of Reserve of Officers up to date.

The list of the Reserve of Officers is carefully revised and checked once a quarter, but it is impossible to keep in touch with officers who retire "receiving a gratuity," unless they report themselves each year in accordance with the provisions of Article 662, Royal Warrant. The officer referred to retired "receiving a gratuity" on the 26th April, 1893, but failed to report himself to the War Office after that date. This "gratuity" class of retired officer will cease to exist during 1906.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the cottages at the back of Whitchurch Range, which preclude rifle practice there, were in existence at the time of the construction of the range, and what was the date of that construction; if so, whether the officer responsible for the plan has been censured or his promotion retarded.

The cottages alluded to were known by the officers responsible to be in existence at the time of the construction of the range, but they were not considered to be within the danger area. The range was constructed in June, 1902. Recent experiments with the Lee-Metford rifle have given a greater knowledge of the powers and extent of ricochet shots than was possessed at the time this range was constructed. Further inquiry will be made as to the degree of responsibility attaching to the officers concerned in the selection of the range.

May I ask whether the name of the officer who constructed this range at a cost of £5,000 is known? When I last put the Question the right hon. Gentleman promised to make inquiry.

Of course the name is known, but I am very loth to mention the names of officers.

Do I understand that inquiry will be made as to whether this officer is blameworthy?

I have said that inquiry will be made.

Then I will put the Question again.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can explain why 980,186 lbs. of tobacco, sent home from South Africa, was disposed of at 2d. per lb., seeing that it was bought at 9½d. per lb., and that 3,000,000 lbs. of similar tobacco was sold to the troops in South Africa at Is. to Is. 6d. per lb., as set forth in the last Report from the Committee of Public Accounts.

The tobacco sent home consisted of such surplus tobacco, some of it partially damaged, as could not be sold to the troops and for which no offer could be obtained in South Africa. I am informed that every endeavour was made to secure the widest competition in this country, and the prices realised were the best obtainable.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the notice posted on March 16th at the Enfield Small Arms Factory that all men of less than seven years service would be discharged on March 31st, he would consider as an alternative the propriety of reducing the working time in the factory by twelve hours per week, pending the settlement of the larger question as stated by the Prime Minister.

I am afraid that in the case of the 403 men now under notice at Enfield it is not possible to obviate the discharges by working short time, as it will be necessary to make still further reductions. The question of working short time as an alternative to further discharges will be considered so long as there is any prospect of reversion to full time within a reasonable period.

Do I understand that does not affect the 403 men?

That is so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the difference between the contract price for the 1905–6 rifle at he Enfield Small Arms Factory and the private manufacturer.

The exact difference between the contract and Ordnance Factory price for the manufacture of the new short rifle in 1905–6 cannot at present be accurately calculated. For the current year the contract price is £4 11s. 8d. and the Ordnance Factory price is estimated at £3 17s.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the proposed discharge of men in large numbers from the Enfield Small Arms Factory will disorganise the scheme for manufacturing the new rifle.

The reply is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of the service rifles, Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield, were made at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, during the years 1889–90,1890–91,1891–92,;1892–93, 1893–94; what was the cost per rifle each year; what number of Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield rifles were made at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Birmingham, during the same period, and what was the cost per rifle for each year; what was the number of these rifles made at the Birmingham Small Arms Factory during the same period and the cost per rifle each year; what was the number of these rifles made at the London Small Arms Factory, Old Ford, during the same period, and what was the cost per rifle each year respectively; if the cost of establishment, depreciation of plant, and machinery are included in the cast of the rifle at Enfield; whether he is aware that wages at Enfield are admittedly higher than at any other small arms factory; and that a large amount of sub-contracting exists at the present time at the private firms resulting in the employment of a number of men by sub-contractors at low wages?

If my hon. and gallant friend will allow me, I propose to give the statistics for which he asks in a general Return. This Return will, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham consents, include the Return which he has been promised, and the information which my hon. friend the Member for the Hertford Division of Hertfordshire is desirous of obtaining, if he also concurs. As regards the last part of the Question, I have no recent information as to the rate of wages paid by the trade, nor am I aware of any sub-contracting other than that which is customary in the trade.

When is there a likelihood of the Return being published?

I believe in a very few days.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the distress existing in the locality of the Enfield Small Arms Factory owing to the shortage of work for the last two years, he will reconsider the proposed reduction of the staff with a view to preventing the accentuation of the distress.

The programme for the manufacture of small arms next year will not provide sufficient work for the existing staff in the Government Small Arms Factories. It is, therefore, regretted that reduction in the staff will be absolutely necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many gauge makers are at present employed at the Enfield Factory on the work of the new rifle; and how many would be employed if the proposed, reduction were carried out.

Ninety-six gauge makers are at present employed at Enfield. It is not proposed to reduce this number at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the cost of the new machinery laid down at the Enfield Small Arms Factory during the last three years; what percentage of the plant at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, is now lying idle; what percentage will be idle if the discharges now contemplated by the Government are carried out; and what is the estimated cost of the electrical plant now being laid down at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield.

The figures of the cost of the new machinery are as follows:—1902–3, £39,966; 1903–4, £48,527; 1904–5, £8,500. About 20 percent, of the plant is now lying idle and about 75 per cent, will be lying idle if the discharges now contemplated are carried out. The cost of the electric plant now being laid down is estimated at £6,679.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will allow the men employed at Enfield, who may be able to find employment elsewhere, to receive the gratuity and be discharged on reduction.

Every consideration will be given to individual cases, but no general undertaking can be given in the sense suggested by the Question. It must be remembered that seven years service is required to entitle a man to a gratuity when discharged on reduction.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what numbers of swords, bayonets, and sword bayonets have been made at the Enfield Small Arms Factory during the years 1888–9, 1889–90, 1890–91, 1891–2, 1892–3, 1893–4, 1894–5, 1895–6, 1896–7, 1897–8, 1898–9, 1899–1900, 1900–1, 1901–2, 1902–3, and the cost each year respectively; what numbers have been given to the trade each year of each arm, and what is the cost each year respectively; what are the numbers given to the Enfield Small Arms Factory and the trade respectively for the coming year.

If my hon. and gallant friend will permit me, I will include the statistics for which he asks in the general Return which I propose to give, and which I alluded to in my reply to a previous Question. In regard to the last part of the Question, the allocation for the coming year has not yet been settled.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a South African mining company has erected a barbed wire fence round its compound, and has covered the whole of the open space in the center of the compound overhead with wire netting; and whether he will give instructions for this form of confinement to be discontinued.

If the hon. Member will communicate to me the name of the company to which he refers, I will consider whether it is necessary to inquire into the matter.

The Frank Smith Diamond Mining Company.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any communication from the Government of any of the self-governing Colonies urging that marriages which have been lawfully contracted in other parts of the Empire should be legalised in this country.

Nothing has been received since the Answer given to the similar Question asked by the hon. and gallant Member on March 13th,† to which I would refer him.

I never received that Answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information not yet disclosed to the House which would explain Lord Milner's statement that the promised contribution of the Transvaal to the cost of the war is an obligation of honour only; whether he can state upon whose honour the obligation is founded; whether the obligation is less binding upon the Government of the Transvaal than is the obligation upon other British Colonies to pay their debts; and whether he Las any reason to suppose that the Government of the Transvaal do not admit the obligation as binding upon them.

† See (4) Debates, cxlii., 1182.

I believe the hon. Gentleman was fortunate enough not to hear my speech yesterday,† but I must refer him to it. He will there find that I dealt fully with the subject of this Question.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give me a shorter Answer?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India I whether his attention has been drawn to the Burma Excise Administration Report for 1904, in which the Deputy Commissioner for Tharrawaddy and others allude to the great increase in the habit of drinking to excess among the Burmese, and to the difficulties experienced by the Excise officers in Burma in suppressing illicit distillation; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.

The Report to which the hon. Member refers shows that the local authorities are fully alive to the evil, which mainly results from the increasing wealth of the population. In Lower Burma, in order to restrict facilities for obtaining liquor, the number of shop licences has been reduced in the current year by twelve per cent. The local Government has further directed a systematic scrutiny of shop licences in every district with a view to securing, if possible, still further reductions. Measures are being taken to deal with illicit distillation of country spirits, which is confined to the wilder and more inaccessible tracts. I do not consider that any action on my part is called for.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what provision has been made, by the local Governments or otherwise, for conserving and extending the water supply in Guzerat, the Central Provinces, and the Deccan, since the investigations made four years ago by the Scott-Moncrieff Commission in those districts.

†See page 554.

The following is the latest information in my possession:— In Gujerat attention has chiefly been devoted to the inspection and repair of small tanks. The work of restoring 532 of these tanks which were out of repair is in progress. In the northern part of the Deccan a number of minor irrigation works of the nature of masonry works across streams have been inspected and repaired; four small tanks have been constructed, and projects for twelve others are under investigation. In the southern portion of the Deccan the engineering staff is occupied principally in the repair of minor irrigation works. In addition, estimates have been prepared for two larger projects, one to cost forty-one lakhs in the Poona district, and another in Belgaum costing thirty-three lakhs. In the Central Provinces the construction of twelve tanks, the aggregate cost of which is estimated at over twenty-one lakhs, has been sanctioned for protective purposes; in four of the tanks work is already well advanced. A number of minor tanks have been surveyed, and in the past year thirty-six tanks were begun under the grant-in-aid system.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received representations from the Government of India on behalf of the Indian Tea Association, intimating that the present import duty on tea has imposed a serious burden on the tea industry in India, and urging the necessity for a substantial reduction of the duty in the forthcoming Budget; and whether these representations have been communicated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The answer to both Questions is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the limitations of British Somaliland within which effective protection is now given to the native population; and whether natives are now armed to protect themselves in the whole of the area in British Somaliland outside such limitations. Perhaps, having regard to the statement of the noble Lord last night on the rising of the House, he will inform the House whether the Government is likely to be induced to modify or vary in any way the policy recently announced owing to arrangements having been made with the Mullah.

I am not aware that it is the intention of the Government to modify their policy. The right to British protection is limited to the country inhabited by the tribes with whom His Majesty's Government have treaty engagements. The Answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer at what date the collection of the income-tax was first added to the other duties of the officers of Inland Revenue (Excisemen) in Scotland.

The collection of incometax in Scotland through "Excise officials" of the Inland Revenue was first made in 1854. But the particular officers who may be taken to fall under the term "Excisemen" were not so employed until 1879.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a labourer named Harrison was recently refused a certificate of exemption from vaccination for his child by the magistates sitting at Spilsby and Boston; that he was subsequently summoned, and in default of payment of the fine of £1 and £1 2s. 6d. costs, was sent to prison for one month; and that since this man's release he was, on the 27th February, again summoned for not obeying the vaccination order; and, in view of the fact that he has repeatedly endeavoured to make clear that he conscientiously believes that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of his child, will the Secretary of State consider the expediency of directing the attention of the magistrates at Spilsby and Boston to the remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice at Birmingham, on the 27th July last, in regard to the principles on which the Act ought to be administered.

I have made inquiries into this case, and I learn that the remarks on the subject of conscientious objection to vaccination, made by the Lord Chief Justice at the Birmingham Summer Assizes, were brought to the notice of the Spilsby magistrates before they convicted Harrison. The question whether the circumstances justify the issue of a certificate of exemption is in each case one for the discretion of the magistrates, with which I have no power to interfere.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the trade union representing the operatives affected by the issue of Order No. 1,696 was consulted before such issue, or in what way was the opinion of the workpeople concerned ascertained.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative; and to the second part is that, as I have already explained to the hon. Member, His Majesty's Inspector for the district reported to me that the operatives concerned would strongly object to the abolition of overtime in the making up of the articles named.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what way he ascertained that opinion?

I will make inquiry. I cannot say at present, but the report I have is amply confirmed by the fact that since the publication of the Draft Order no objection at all has been brought to my notice.

Has the right hon. Gentleman not received repeated objections from people in Belfast?

Not that I am aware of, but I will inquire and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Will the report of the inspector be laid on the Table?

I will consider that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give instructions that, in connection with the appeals in the cases of ex-Constable Rolls, of the Metropolitan Constabulary, and George Edalji, all the documents in the possession of the prosecution and the reports presented to the Home Secretary which have induced him to reject petitions for their release may be inspected by the representatives of Rolls and Edalji, respectively, so as to enable them to give such further information and explanation to the Home Secretary as may be deemed vital to a further consideration of these cases.

The reply is in the negative. In the cases referred to I have given the fullest consideration to any and every representation on behalf of the prisoners which has been submitted to me by their friends or otherwise, and I have taken every available means to obtain information before arriving at a decision. It would be inconsistent with my duty as the adviser of the Crown in the exercise of the prerogative of mercy to allow prisoners or their friends to have access to documents in my possession which are always of a confidential nature. I am always ready to consider any further representations which may be made to me on behalf of a prisoner.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can say when the Royal Commission on London Traffic is expected to issue its Report.

The Royal Commission on London Traffic are now considering their Report, but they are unable at present to state at what date it will be possible for the Report to be presented to Parliament.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the transfer of military prisoners to military prisons has been completed; and, if not, can he state the number of soldiers now in convict and local prisons.

The transfer of military prisoners to military prisons, and of the administration of these prisons to the War Office, was completed in the course of last year. Only those soldiers who are sentenced to penal servitude, or who are convicted of criminal offences, are now committed to civil prisons. On December 31st, 1904, there were sixty-six soldiers in convict prisons, and 157 soldiers in local prisons.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can inform the House when the Royal Commission on Trades Disputes is expected to present its Report; and whether, in view of the fact that the Trades Union and Trades Disputes Bill will be shortly considered by the Standing Committee on Law, it is possible for the Commission to issue their Report without delay.

The Royal Commission on Trade Disputes are engaged in the consideration of their Report, but they are unable to name any definite date for its issue. I hope it will he before the Report stage of the Bill.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of pauper alien lunatics and imbeciles maintained in lunatic asylums and public institutions in the United Kingdom; and whether any means exist of ascertaining the country of origin of such lunatics and imbeciles.

The number of pauper alien lunatics maintained in county and borough asylums in England and Wales was, in 1903, 817, as is shown in Table XIV. A. on page 146 of the last Report of the Lunacy Commissioners. The same table gives the countries of origin, information as to which is obtained from the medical officers of asylums. I regret I am unable to give the number of alien imbeciles maintained in public institutions other than asylums, and also that, without longer notice. I cannot give the number of alien lunatics for the whole of the United Kingdom.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the by-laws made by the London County Council under the Employment of Children Act have yet been approved by the Home Office; and, if not, what has been the cause of the delay in settling these rules.

No, Sir. These by-laws were formally made by the Council and submitted to me only a few days ago. The delay has been due, I understand, to the fact that the by-laws were referred by the Council to the education committee for their consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to a Return of the by-laws issued under this Act?

Does the hon. Gentleman mean for the whole of England?

Yes.

Yes, it might be useful, but perhaps it would be better to wait for a time, as many by-laws are in process of completion.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can and will arrange in the Agreement with the National Telephone Company that until the transfer to the Government the requirements and plant shall be purchased exclusively from British manufacturers so far as British manufacturers are able to supply the same, these requirements being upwards of £250,000 per annum.

It is not open to me now to modify in any respect the Agreement which has been signed subject to the veto of Parliament.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the desirability of readjusting the boundaries of the districts served by the various I head offices and sub-offices in London in such manner that the whole of each metropolitan borough may be served from the same head office, and from such number of sub-offices dealing only with that metropolitan borough as its size may require.

I regret that it would not be practicable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, as it would necessitate a complete remodelling of the whole postal organisation of London without procuring any acceleration in the delivery of letters. The question was raised in 1903 by the Council of Metropolitan Mayors, and was fully considered by my predecessor, who arrived at the same conclusion.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state the number of level crossings on the electrified portion of the Lancashire and Yorkshire and North Eastern Railways, and the nature of the steps taken to warn and protect the public from accidents through contact with the electrically charged rail.

On the electrically equipped portion of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway there are nineteen public and thirty-three private level crossings, and on the similar portion of the North Eastern Railway the numbers are eighteen and twenty-nine. Both railway companies have informed me that the electric current is not carried over the crossings by means of a charged rail but by a cable connecting with the live rail on either side of the crossing, and the ends of the rail are protected with non-conducting material. The companies also state that Warning boards are fixed at the crossings.

Does this apply to both public and private crossings?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether arrangements are yet completed for connecting the six specified lightships with the shore by wireless telegraphy for life-saving purposes.

No, Sir, but I am glad to say that the agreement with the Marconi Company, which has involved the consideration of many difficult points of principle and detail, is nearing completion.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the effect of the regulations under the Sugar Convention and sugar duties has been to drive out of business as sugar refiners comparatively small works which cannot afford to pay for at least two Customs officers to attend at their works, and that Messrs.Criddle & Co., of Liverpool, have closed their refinery; will he say whether similar regulations are now about to come into force with respect to the golden syrup business; and, if so, whether the Department will favourably consider some alteration of the regulations referred to.

Sugar refineries are supervised by the Crown free of charge, and no refiner can therefore have been driven out of business because of the expense entailed by the attendance of Customs officers. No regulations are about to come into force with respect to the syrup business.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the irregularities in the municipal government of the metropolitan borough of Holborn, and whether, although a committee of inquiry has been appointed by the borough council, the Local Government Board will be prepared to investigate and conduct a public inquiry into a matter of such great and general public interest.

I am aware of the irregularities in the accounts of some of the officers of the borough council, and I have seen the reports of the district auditor on the subject. The audit is still proceeding, and at the present time I have no authority to direct an inquiry in relation to the irregularities referred to.

Is it possible to arrange that two or three representatives of the Local Government Board should take part in the inquiry now proceeding?

If the borough council make application to that effect I shall be glad to consider it.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when the new works for improving the ventilation of the House of Commons are likely to be completed.

It is anticipated that the works recommended by the Select Committee will be completed by Easter; but experimental tests which are being continued may possibly necessitate further minor improvements.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will explain the proposed purchase of a house in Abingdon Street for £10,000, as provided in the Estimates for 1905–6.

The arrangement with the County Council will be understood if my hon. friend will refer to Section 8, Sub-sections 9 to 12, of the London County Council Improvements Act, 1900, together with the deposited signed plan referred to in the section. For the widening of Abingdon Street at its northern end, the front portions, at least, of the five houses at the top of the street have to be removed; No. 29 is the fourth of these, and the only one not already belonging to Government. The acquisition of the site, minus the small part thrown into the street, will complete a valuable block of property.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a notice issued by the West Riding County Council to the managers of non-provided schools within their jurisdiction to the effect that, as from the 1st of May, they will deduct from the salaries of teachers in those schools such a proportionate sum as represents the time occupied by such teachers in giving denominational religious instruction; and, if so, whether the Board of Education will take steps to protect the managers and teachers of such schools against this action.

I have seen the notice in question. The Board have been in communication with the local authority and with managers of voluntary schools on the subject of this notice, and have informed them that the Board are advised that the action contemplated by the local education authority contravenes the provisions of the Education Act, 1902, and that managers are not bound to comply with the instructions conveyed in the notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can see his way to transferring from Somerset House to the Public Record Office all wills proved before 1700, to enable students to refer to them without fee; if not, whether he will make arrangements at Somerset House, so that those early wills can be consulted under rules, as at the Record Office, by all students free of charge.

I would refer my hon. and gallant friend to the Answer given on this subject by my predecessor on June 18th, 1903.† I understand that visitors are allowed without fee to search the calendars of the wills proved at a time not less than 100 years prior to the search being made.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether the invitation of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland to assist in the maintenance of twenty boys from congested districts desirous of being apprenticed to trades has been responded to; and, if so, will he state from what parishes applications have been received, and the number from each parish.

Applications have been received as follows:—from the parishes of Barra, 13; South Uist, 3; North Uist, 3; Harris, 2; Stornoway, 8; Lochs, 8; Barvas, 4; Portree, 4; Bracadale, 1; Applecross, 8; Gairloch, 2; Assynt, 1; Lairg, 1; South Ronaldshay, 1; Bressay, 1. Total, 60 for boys.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether, in the event of a medical officer of health being appointed

† See (4) Debates, cxxiii., 1295.

This matter is engaging the attention of the Secretary for Scotland, but he cannot undertake to give any definite promise on the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the practice all over the country—in both England and Wales—that no medical officer shall engage in either private or consultative practice?

I am not.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state when he proposes to introduce the Congested Districts (Scotland) Amendment Bill.

I propose to introduce this Bill without delay.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of an evicted tenant restored to his farm in which he made an application to the Estates Commissioners for a grant of money to restock his land and rebuild his houses, which was refused because the arrangement for reinstatement and sale was made between the landlord and tenant and carried out by the Land Commission rather than through the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, whether he will take steps to secure that advances shall be made for this purpose.

This case cannot be identified upon the information given. If the hon. Member will supply me with the name of the evicted tenant and date of his application I shall be pleased to make further inquiry.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that the recent revaluation of Belfast does not include that of a number of hereditaments estimated at a value of so much as £100,000; whether he informed a deputation from Belfast City Council some time since, that a Bill to repair the effects of this omission had been drafted by direction of the Commissioner of Valuation; and, if so, what are the intentions of the Government in regard to that measure; and whether, pending the rectification of the omission referred to, if such omission has occurred, he will take steps to prevent the partial revaluation of Belfast becoming operative.

A draft Bill has been prepared by the Commissioner of Valuation, and will immediately receive the attention of my right hon. friend. I cannot state the precise day on which it will be introduced. I see no reason at present to suspend the coming into force of the general revaluation pending the passing of the Bill, but I will communicate with the Commissioner on the subject.

Does not the intention to introduce the Bill prove the existing injustice. Ought not the partial revaluation to be suspended?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the necessity for an improvement of the facilities for landing fishing boats at Cooscroum, county Kerry, the Congested Districts Board will agree to act in accordance with the suggestions unanimously put forward by the local authorities, pending the provision of a permanent slip.

The question of effecting further improvements at this place will be considered by the Board at their meeting next month.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the practice in the Irish Constabulary to permit a married constable to remain in the district to which his wife belongs; whether he is aware that Sergeant Sullivan, of Dunshaughlen, married some months ago the daughter of a publican in Skryne, which is in Sullivan's district; and whether, in the interest of the due observance of the licence laws, Sullivan will be removed to another county.

The reply to the first inquiry is in the negative. The sergeant was necessarily retained at his present station on special duty which is about to terminate, when he will be removed to another county.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of teachers at present employed in the national schools who have received no training in elementary science either from the Board's organisers or in the training colleges; the number who have not been trained in the full course of instruction laid down by the Commissioners for the pupils in the schools; the number of schools which have not yet received equipment grants of apparatus and in which therefore no science teaching has yet been commenced; a list of suitable centres in which no organisers' classes for teachers have yet been held, and in which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of National Education and their expert advisers, it is desirable to have continuation or revision courses of instruction.

I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the teachers trained in the organisers' preliminary courses have not been given as extensive a knowledge of the subject as is, according to the Board's official programme, expected from their sixth and seventh-standard pupils; and that only the 500 teachers admitted to the Part II. course have yet been given such knowledge; and, seeing that it was the intention of the Commissioners that the vast majority of the teachers should be admitted to this Part II. course, whether provision will be made for having this intention carried into effect as well as for training the teachers who have not yet been admitted to any course and have already been through the training colleges.

The number of teachers employed in national schools is about 12,000, and, of these, 5,829 have not received any training in elementary science, and 1,897 have been trained in part of the coarse only. 7,195 schools have not yet received equipment grants of scientific apparatus but, as stated by me yesterday, † provision has been made in the Estimates for the continuance of these grants. The Commissioners have arranged with the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for the training of teachers in elementary science at local technical schools, and the necessary financial provision has been made for the travelling expenses of the teachers who may receive such training during the coming year.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the opinion of the Commissioners of National Education that there is no reason to anticipate that the progress of science teaching in the schools will diminish owing to the reduction in numbers of the organising staff; and whether he will lay before the House the last (1904) Report of the Inspector and Head Organiser of Science Instruction, who is immediately responsible for the progress of science teaching in the schools; whether he will state the approximate annual sum, over and above that already placed upon the Estimates, which would be necessary to permit of the organisers' classes being continued as heretofore; and whether, in order that the organising work which has been

† See page 461.

The Report of the Head Organiser for 1904 will be published with the Board's Annual Report for that year. There is no intention of continuing the employment of sub-organisers after the 31st instant, which would involve an additional expenditure of £4,500 a year.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the regulations re extra subjects included in the circular to inspectors, and to which attention was drawn last year, have since been withdrawn; whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that has been created throughout Ireland by the system of calculating attendances for extra subjects followed by some of the National Board inspectors; and, if so, whether the National Board intend to take up the matter and have it settled at once.

Neither of the circulars referred to has been withdrawn. In some few cases managers of schools have objected to the methods adopted in the calculation of attendances at extra subject classes. In such cases explanations were sent to the managers. No further action is contemplated by the National Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the survey for the extension of Darby's Point Pier at Achill Island, county Mayo, for which the Board passed a vote at their meeting in November last, was made on various dates between January 23rd and February 7th, he will explain why the Secretary of the Congested Districts Board (Ireland) in a letter dated March 2nd and addressed to the hon. Member for Mayo West, stated that the survey was not yet made

The Secretary to the Board was not in possession of the information mentioned in the first part of the Question until the 8th instant, when the engineer's report was received. Hence his letter of the 2nd instant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the recent revaluation of Belfast, public-houses have been valued on a different principle from that adopted in the case of other business establishments, the value of the licences being taken into account in the one case and the volume of business done not being taken into account in the other; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland in the case of Armstrong v. the Commissioner of Valuation was to the effect that the volume of business should in all cases be taken into account, the revaluation of Belfast will be allowed to become operative till all business houses are valued on the same principle.

My right hon. and learned friend replied to a precisely similar Question on the 7th instant.†

No, Sir, the Question was not identical to this.

I understand it was to the same effect and that my right hon. friend's Answer covered the whole ground. If the hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise and will put down another Question I shall be happy to consider if I can give any further Answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the chief clerk of the Agricultural Department acted wholly on his own initiative in sending for one of the Catholic clerks of the veterinary branch and suggesting to him that he should withdraw from the written representations which that clerk and other Catholic

† See (4) Debates, cxlii., 586.

The first part of this Question was answered by my right hon. friend on the 1st instant.‡

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a petition was forwarded from Clonaslee, Queen's County, to Mr. Pirrie, asking that the Iveagh-Pirrie motor scheme should be put into operation in the district; and whether he can say what is the reason of the delay in acceding to this.‡

I have no information as to the petition in question, which is one entirely for the promoters of the scheme to deal with. The suggested service is not one of those originally contemplated.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any instructions have been given to the architects to provide for the use of Irish materials in the construction of the new College of Science in Dublin; whether, if such instructions have been issued, it has been intimated therein, or in any other document, by those in authority, that full opportunity of tendering should be given to all Irish quarry owners; and, in view of the fact that Portland stone used only a few years ago in parts of the museum buildings in Dublin has weathered badly, and has already shown symptons of premature decay, any precaution has been taken against the use of that material in the proposed building in the same locality.

I do not consider it will be advisable to place restrictions upon the contractor as to the source of his supply of materials, but the utmost care will be taken that whatever stone is selected shall be of the best quality.

‡See (4) Debates, cxlii., 27.

Then am I to understand that the promise made last year that Irish materials should be used as far as possible is to be broken?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of proposing an addition to the Imperial Committee of Defence, in equal numbers to political members now of it, of members of the Opposition who have held office in the Departments of the Admiralty, War Office, Colonies, or India, with a view to non-Party union in laying down and carrying out continuous principles of defence by sea and land.

In answer to my hon. and gallant friend, I must say that in my judgment no mechanical arrangement will secure the absence of Party in dealing with any great question. There are questions which are dealt with without partisanship, but that is due to the good feeling and patriotism of hon. Members on both sides of the House. But there is no way of securing that, and it would not be secured by the particular machinery which my hon. friend's Question provides. There is another point to which I would call attention. It is this. Continuity of foreign policy has intrinsic advantages altogether apart from the nature of the policy which is continuous. I mean it is a positive, though sometimes a necessary, evil for one Government to reverse the foreign policy of its predecessors. I do not think that is the case with regard to defence. I think each Government, during the course of its tenure of office, has nothing whatever to think of except the actual merits of the case before it. The only way to secure continuity is that there should be a common view as to what the merits of the particular question are. We have secured that, as far as it can be secured, under the existing system of the Committee of Defence by keeping records fairly ample of the conclusions at which we have arrived, and the grounds on which we arrived at them. These records will be in the hands of our successors, and if they are convincing we shall have continuity of policy; if they are not convincing no arrangement of membership of the nature proposed will produce that result. On the whole, therefore, I do not think it would be desirable to introduce so anomalous an addition, so strange to the ordinary arrangement of a body more or less responsible for giving advice to the Cabinet, which would contain not only members of the Cabinet, but members violently opposed to it. I am not disposed in these circumstances to accede to my hon. and gallant friend's suggestion.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Imperial Committee of Defence has modified, and, if so, by what numbers, the estimate dated May 11th, 1903, laid before the Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteers by the War Office, that the total number of troops required for Home defence is, Defensive Garrisons, 150,000; Mobile Force, England, 120,000; Mobile Force, Ireland, 30,000; Cadres of Depôts and Training Units, 30,000; Total, 330,000.

The figures to which my hon. friend refers, and which were supplied to the Royal Commission, were not authoritative, and the Commission were informed that they were not authoritative. Personally I should myself dissent from them.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, for the convenience of Members generally, His Majesty's Government will propose an Amendment of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) that will provide that the House shall meet at 2.30 o'clock, and that Questions shall begin at 2.45 o'clock.

The change in our rules which my hon. friend, following the example of many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, has from time to time suggested, would be, I believe, a convenience to a large number of Members, and certainly a very great convenience to His Majesty's Government. I suppose there are no Members to whom the present rule is more inconvenient. I do not, however, propose to make any suggestions at the present time for the alteration of the rule. The disadvantage of making an alteration is clear. You will diminish by an appreciable fraction the most important period for our discussions. It is the afternoon sitting which is the most important portion of the day. I think it would be a serious thing to diminish that by the amount of time suggested by my hon. friend; and though, on full consideration, the House might come to a decision that a change should be made, and though I do not oppose it on principle, I do not intend at present to put any suggestion on the Paper to carry it out.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it, is proposed, and, if so, when, to complete the terms of the Standing Order (Older in the House), and to resume the discussion of that Order which was adjourned on 13th February, 1902.

I should be glad to have an opportunity to resume and complete the consideration of the rules, but my hon. friend will readily understand that there is more important business before the House at present, and I am hardly in a position to state when it will be possible to take up this half accomplished task.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed this session with the Bill for removing the necessity for re-election in the case of acceptance of office by Members of the House of Commons.

The Bill to which my hon. friend refers is ready. Notice of it appeared in the King's Speech of last year. I adhere to the strong view which I have held for many years that the present rule as to re-election is inimical to the best interests of the country; and if I had any chance of passing the Bill without discussion I should be glad to do so, if not for our benefit, at all events for the benefit of our successors. I myself believe it is one of the most antiquated prejudices which induces us to stick to this rule, and I am convinced many years will not elapse before, by common consent, it is abolished.

reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas, Mr. Solicitor-General, and Sir James Heath; and had appointed in substitution, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Bonar Law, and Mr. Morrison.

was surprised that the hon. Member had given no explanation of the object of the Amendment.

I gave it on the last occasion.

said it did not follow that hon. Members now present were in the House when the question was last discussed, and they ought not to be asked to vote without being informed of the reasons why the reduction was proposed. He assumed that it was in connection with the Whitaker Wright prosecution. Now he was one of those who did not agree with the view of the Attorney-General in the matter of that prosecution, but in the end it turned out that he was right, for Whitaker Wright was convicted. But all men, even the Attorney-General, were liable to make mistakes, and because one might have been made in this case, he did not consider it a sufficient reason for moving a reduction of the hon. and learned Gentleman's salary. The point at issue between them, it would be in the recollection of the House, was as to the object of the issue of false balance-sheets, their contention being that by such issue money was obtained by false pretences and great misery caused. Therefore, that was an offence punishable by law. But the Attorney-General took the view that there was no evidence to prove that the publication of the false balance-sheets enabled Whitaker Wright to obtain money or caused any one to lose it, and it was on that ground that the hon. and learned Gentleman based his opinion that the Government ought not to prosecute. That, he believed, was the wrong view. But then the hon. and learned Gentleman was not perhaps aware that numerous people would have sold their shares had it not been for the issue of the balance-sheets, and others bought shares on the strength of them, thus being undoubtedly defrauded of their money by a false pretence. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman was animated by the desire, which so often animated lawyers and other people, to be certain of success before taking action, and there was something to be said for that point of view. It was suggested that those who suffered by reason of the failure of the London and Globe Finance Corporation should themselves have taken action. As a matter of fact they did so and events justified their policy. But that was no ground for suggesting that the Attorney-General was not capable of fulfilling the duties of his office, which, he assumed, was the object of the Motion. As he understood it the Government had done the right thing, and paid the costs of those who instituted the prosecution. When one once got in the hands of the law there was no telling what might happen.

I rise to a point of order. The Motion before the House is for the reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member does not seem to be speaking to that question or to be making any remarks bearing upon the reduction.

There are two questions really before the Committee, the reduction of the Vote and the payment of the whole sum. The remarks of the hon. Member related to the payment of these prosecution expenses. I think that is relevant; it is the line on which the debate proceeded the other night.