To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the publication and free circulation of a work called the "New Ireland Review" by the Department of Agriculture; if he can state the entire cost of this work to the public; and whether, in view of the statements on page 13, he will explain why it should be circulated at the public expense. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) My hon. friend has been misinformed. The "New Ireland Review" is neither published nor circulated by the Department.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland has refused to sanction the appointment made by the County Monaghan Committee of Technical Instruction of Miss Brigid Duffy, as crochet lace teacher, in view of the fact that Miss Duffy held a similar position with the approval of the Department under the County Galway Committee of Technical Instruction from 1901 till 1903. (Answered by Mr. Water Long.) The Department refused to approve of the appointment of Miss Duffy because she was not qualified for teaching fine Clones crochet, which is an essential for county Monaghan. The work upon which Miss Duffy was engaged in county Galway was chiefly raised crochet.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have got un-tenanted land on hand in any part of the country; and, if so, whether they are prepared to provide for Thomas M'Cormack, Timahoe, Queen's County, an evicted tenant, who has already notified his willingness to accept an equivalent farm elsewhere. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No, Sir, but if the Commissioners should acquire untenanted land in this county the claims of evicted tenants will be considered.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any communications have passed between the Estates Commissioners and Lord Lansdowne relative to the reinstatement of his evicted tenants at Luggacurran, Queen's County; and, if so, whether he can state what is the result of those negotiations, and also the number of evicted tenants who remain unreinstated on the Luggacurran Estate of Lord Lansdowne. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) An inspection of this estate is proceeding, and the inspector has been instructed to inquire and report as to the reinstatement of evicted tenants. I have no information as to the number of the latter.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the actual number of persons who have purchased their farms in county Longford under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, and whose agreements have been sanctioned by the Estates Commissioners. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Advances have been sanctioned to 313 persons.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any Part II. organisers science classes, which deal with the programme for sixth and seventh standard pupils in boys' schools, or any courses for training female teachers in the special programme in elementary science in girls' schools have been held in the counties of Mayo or Galway; whether the Commissioners of National Education intend to make provision for the training in these programmes of the teachers of these counties, for the majority of whom no technical schools are available; and, if not, whether they will have these programmes withdrawn.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education intend that in districts generally where no technical schools are available for training the teachers any science instruction is to be given to the sixth and seventh standard pupils in boys' and girls' schools respectively; and, if so, what provision is to be made in these districts to give the teacher the necessary training to enable them to impart such instruction. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No such classes have been held in Mayo or Galway, but teachers from both counties have attended classes of the kind in Dublin. No special arrangements have been made for these counties, but, as I have already stated, the head organiser and two assistants have been permanently retained to continue the training of teachers in science. It is not intended to withdraw the programmes for the sixth and seventh standards. These programmes were promulgated tentatively, and managers are strongly urged to submit for approval syllabuses to suit the particular requirements of their localities. Object-lessons on suitable subjects are considered sufficient in all standards in schools having only one teacher, or not having teachers specially qualified in science.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience the small occupiers of land in the Castle-town Berehaven district have been subjected to by the action of the Sub-Land Commissioners, who recently held a sitting of their Court at Bantry, thereby causing some of the occupiers referred to to travel forty miles to have their cases heard; whether he has received a resolution from the Castletown Berehaven District Council in connection with this matter; and whether in future he will take steps to have a sitting of the Land Commission Court held at Castletown Berehaven. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The sittings of the Sub-Commissioners are fixed by the Land Commission, with due regard to the general convenience of all the parties interested, and the time at the disposal of the Sub-Commissioners. No complaint was made at the recent sittings at Bantry of the nature referred to in the Question, and I have no power to intervene in the matter as suggested. The Land Commission, however, are always prepared to meet, as far as is possible, the expressed desire of the various parties, and I have communicated to them the resolution of the district council.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table copies of the communications received from the Governments of the self-governing Colonies relative to the legalising in this country of marriages lawfully contracted in other parts of the Empire. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The communication on the subject which I have received is a despatch from the Government of the Australian Commonwealth, and I will lay that despatch upon the Table of the House.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table further correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Transvaal Government as to the issue of the Transvaal Loan; and whether he will include the draft Ordinance forwarded to the Transvaal on August 22nd, 1903, for sanction by the Legislative Council. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) All the material correspondence up to January, 1904, on this subject has been published in Cd. 1895. I do not propose to publish that which has taken place since, as it was of a strictly confidential character. The publication of the draft Ordinance would not, in my opinion, add any material information, but I shall be happy to send a copy to the hon. Member if he desires to see it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are any records in the Colonial Office of negotiations with the Colonial Ministers on the subject of retaliation and colonial preference previous to the Colonial Conference of 1902. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I refer the hon. Baronet to the Prime Minister's Answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Kincardineshire.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the fact that out of 27,994 dogs removed by the Metropolitan Police from the streets of the Metropolis, 23,261 were taken to the Dogs Home, Battersea, and 4,181 restored to their owners by the police, will he state in what districts the 552 dogs which have not been accounted for were captured, and whether it is to be assumed that they were destroyed by the police. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I fear I cannot undertake to inform the hon. Member in what districts these 552 dogs were captured, but they are accounted for as follows:—505 of them escaped from the police, thirty-five were destroyed by the police, and twelve died while in their hands.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the British Colonies and on the Continent, Members of Parliament have free passes on the railways; whether he will approach the carrying corporations with a view to arrange that Irish Members shall have free passes to and from the House of Commons to Ireland during the session. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The Board of Trade are aware that in some countries free passes over the railways are given to Members of the Legislature. It is not proposed to take any action in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that an accident to live stock occurred on the Midland Great Western Railway Company's line in November, 1903; and whether he will find out the reason given or explanation for the omission of holding the usual Board of Trade inquiry. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am not aware of any accident of the nature described on the Midland Great Western Railway in November, 1903, but the hon. Member is perhaps referring to an accident on the 6th of that month to a cattle train on the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway, as he recently

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state what are the results of the Board of Trade's action in issuing the Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 616, on August 8th, 1902, pursuant to the Railways Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900; how many places where tow-roping and propping were practised have been prohibited under Section 2 of the above rules; how many engines and tenders have been fitted with power brakes under Section 3; how many stations and sidings, where shunting operations are carried on, have been lighted as per Section 4; how many places where point rods and signal wires have been covered over or removed under Section 5; how many engines have been provided with convenient places for tool

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state the value of the imports into the United Kingdom from Canada and New Zealand in 1896 and 1904 respectively; and of the exports of British goods to those Colonies in the same years. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The declared values of the imports into the United Kingdom from Canada and New Zealand respectively, and of the exports thereto of British and Irish produce from the United Kingdom in 1896 and 1904 were as follows:—

To ask the Lord-Advocate on what ground the village of Bridge of Earn was omitted by the Secretary for Scotland from the scheduled areas in the recent Motor-Car Order for Perthshire; whether he has received memorials on the subject from the parish council and school board showing that the road through the village is one much frequented by motors, and that considerable danger is apprehended from the absence of any limitation on the speed of motors passing through the village; whether a limitation of speed is imposed in other and smaller villages on the same and similar roads in Perthshire; and, if so, whether, in view of the feeling in the locality, he will amend the Order accordingly and impose a maximum rate of speed within the village. (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The memorials referred to are received at the Scottish Office. The question of restricting speed at Bridge of Earn, among other places, was considered by the late Secretary for Scotland, who had a personal conference with the road authority of Perthshire before issuing the order limiting speed at various points in the county, and whose decision was that sufficient ground was not made out for including the road at Bridge of Earn in the restricting order. The present Secretary for Scotland sees no reason for departing from that decision, which was reached after careful and repeated consideration, and with an intimate knowledge of the county. I may remind the hon. Member that the road authority are entitled to erect warning signposts at points where no speed limit is imposed if they think it necessary.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent inquest held before Dr. Waldo concerning the death of a young woman who lost her life through falling down a lift in a City hotel; and, in view of the recommendation of the jury that all lifts should be provided with locking gates, and in the case of the Metropolis be subject to inspection by the London County Council, will he communicate with that body on the subject, or take such other steps as he may consider prudent in the interest of the public safety. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have not received any report of the inquest referred to in the Question. The safe construction, arrangement, and fencing of lifts is a matter which is carefully attended to in factories, warehouses, and other places coming under the Factory Act; but there are no powers, so far as I am aware, to deal with the matter in other places such as hotels and offices. Legislation would be required for the purpose, which I am afraid I cannot promise to undertake; but any proposals for giving local authorities the power of dealing with the matter would receive my careful consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the wording of Section 3 (4) of the Motor-Car Act, 1903, will he state whether any persons holding a licence for driving a motor-car have been summoned for not producing such licence when demanded by the police; and, if so, will he state the number of prosecutions, and the number of convictions obtained; and, to meet the case of motor driver licence-holders who do not happen to have the licence in their personal possession at the time it is demanded, will he consider the expediency of instructing the police to enter prosecutions in those cases only in which the motor driver's assertion that he has taken out a licence has proved on inquiry to be false. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My information extends to the Metropolitan Police District only. In that district, between the 1st January, 1904, and the 28th February, 1905, 230 summonses were taken out by the Metropolitan Police against drivers for failing to produce their licences, and these resulted in 216 convictions. The hon. Member will hardly expect me to issue instructions to the police which would be in contravention of the plain words of Section 3 of the Motor-Car Act, 1903, which makes it an offence to fail to produce the licence on the demand of a constable.

To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the attention of the Office of Works has been called to the unsatisfactory state of the roads in Regent's Park, the roughness of whose surface has been long complained of by cyclists and by persons driving in the park; and whether steps will be forthwith taken to bring them into a better condition. (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The state of these roads has been engaging the attention of the First Commissioner for some time past. He hopes to be able to effect some improvement.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has yet formulated any definite scheme to give effect to any of the recommendations of the Bradford Report; and, if so, will he state the particulars or say when they will be furnished to the House. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The Memorandum which is in the hands of hon. Members to-day gives the desired particulars.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture have appointed an expert to inquire into and report upon the electro peat-coal manufacture; and whether it can be successfully carried out in Ireland. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department have inquired into certain processes for the manufacture of peat fuel by electricity, but, in the absence of information as to the particular process referred to in the Question, they are not prepared to express any opinion as to whether it could be successfully carried out in Ireland.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what the Government propose doing to carry into effect the Resolution recently unanimously passed by the House to amend, modify, and cheapen transit conditions in Ireland. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the Resolution, and I am unable to give an undertaking that the Government will introduce such legislation.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the results accruing to German agriculturists from the cultivation of sugar beet, he will advise the Department of Agriculture to establish an experimental farm for the purpose of testing beet sugar culture and manufacture in Ireland. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The reply to this Question is in the negative, for the reasons stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 23rd instant.†

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what portion of the fines for offences of drunkenness imposed at petty sessions, Mountmelliok, go to the Town Commissioners; and whether he will instruct the police to prosecute all charges of drunkenness

†See page 940.

committed within the township in the town Court instead of at petty sessions. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In the case of fines imposed at petty sessions for drunkenness committed within the town one-half of the penalty goes to the Town Commissioners and the other half to the police. The police, however, prosecute at the town Court in all cases of offences of drunkenness committed by residents of the town, in which case the entire penalty goes to the Commissioners, and they prosecute at petty sessions in those cases only in which the offender resides outside the town or his residence is not known. This arrangement, which has been in operation for the past twenty years, is regarded as equitable, in view of the concurrent jurisdiction in respect of the offence of drunkenness which exists between the town Court and petty sessions Court.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the minute made by the magistrates at Belmullet Petty Sessions on February 27th, recording their decision in the case of the Police v. John Munnelly, and in the case of John Munnelly v. the Police. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In each of the three cases referred to in my Answer to the hon. Member's Question of the 27th instant,† the order of the magistrates, as recorded in the Order Book, is "Dismissed on merits." In a fourth case, in which the police prosecuted Mr. Munnelly for using threatening language to one Michael Maguire, the order, similarly recorded, is "Munnelly ordered to enter into recognisances to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for twelve months, himself in £20 (Twenty pounds)."

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received any communication from the evicted tenants on the Coyne Estate, Belmullet Union, county Mayo,

†See page 1182.

on the subject of their reinstatement on the purchase of the estate; and whether the Commissioners have taken any steps to ascertain if the landlord is willing to sell; if not, whether they propose to do so in order that these evicted tenants may be restored to their former holdings or to new and enlarged holdings. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners do not propose to take any special steps with respect to this estate, which has not yet been brought before them for sale, but the applications of the evicted tenants will not be lost sight of, and will be duly considered when a suitable opportunity presents itself.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to what funds, being the total amounts unexpended of their several annual grants since 1900, is the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland at present entitled. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is assumed that this Question relates to the Department's endowment fund which, however, is made up of capital sums as well as of annual receipts under Section 15 of The Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act, 1899. The unexpended balances of the Department's annual income at present amount to, approximately, £177,000, of which £115,000 is already earmarked for technical instruction in county boroughs and county and urban districts, for sea fisheries, and for buildings at the Royal Veterinary College and at the Munster Institute, in accordance with Section 16 of the Act.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what were the local differences which led the National Board to refuse to appoint a local manager, as requested in the memorial of the parents of children attending the Lislea No. 1 National School, county Armagh, instead of the present temporary manager, who resides twenty miles distant from the school; and whether he is aware that the lessee of the school is Mr. R. R. Murphy, J.P. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The local difference referred to was a difference of opinion as to the most fitting appointment to be made. No memorial was received from the parents of the children until after the appointment of the present temporary manager, and the Commissioners saw no sufficient reason to vary that appointment. The case will come up for review within the next three months. Mr. R. R. Murphy is not the lessee of the school. The Commissioners, in whom the school is vested, are themselves the lessees.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the annual amount realised since the outbreak of the South African War from the sale of soldiers' effects under the Regimental Debts Act. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The amounts realised by the sale of soldiers' kits, etc., are not recorded separately from other credits due to their estates, and could not be ascertained without examining each account; this would involve an amount of labour which cannot be undertaken.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a strike is in progress of boot and shoe operatives employed by Government contractors in Raunds in consequence of the employers' violation of the Fair Wages Clause governing contracts; and if he will inquire the cause and insist upon the Fair Wages Clause being observed in all contracts for boots for the use of His Majesty's Army. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I am aware of a strike amongst some of the workpeople at Raunds. I do not understand that the strike is in consequence of any violation of the Wages Clause of the War Department contracts. I understand that the strike is caused by the refusal of certain manufacturers to adopt a schedule of prices which has been agreed to by some other manufacturers. Every endeavour is made to secure the strict observance of the Wages Clause in all War Department contracts. If and when I have reason to believe that the wages being paid are not those generally current in the district (as required by the Wages Clause), I will, in this as in all other cases, cause an inquiry to be instituted at once.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the statement of wages to be paid for Army boot work under Government contracts agreed on in June, 1904, at a meeting of Army contractors and workmen's representatives, signed in September, 1904, by the repressntatives on both sides, and accepted by the War Office at a deputation on 17th November as evidence of the current scale of wages, has been set aside by several contractors who have tendered for, and obtained, contracts, and are offering the work at prices lower than those agreed to, and even below those previously paid; and what steps he proposes to take to secure that the Fair or Current Wage Clause of Government contracts shall be observed. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) A statement was agreed to by certain of the contractors and signed by their representatives. It did not represent the whole of the contractors in the district, and it was afterwards partially repudiated. It was never accepted by this Department as a statement of wages to be paid. It was merely regarded as some evidence of a desire to arrive at a uniform scale. This was made quite clear at the time to the deputation. If, and when, the Department has reason to believe that the Wage Clause of War Department contracts is being infringed, steps will at once be taken to secure its due observance.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the amount spent under the Military Works Acts during the current year; and what is the estimated amount to be spent under these Acts for the ensuing year. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1905, will amount to about £3,370,000. The expenditure to be incurred in 1905–6 is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty authorities are now endeavouring to procure the services of boys and youths under eighteen who were formerly only enlisted as bluejackets for the engineering department of the Royal Navy; if so will those boys and youths be subject, as in the case of boys and youths who enlist as bluejackets in the Royal Navy, to floggings, according to the King's Regulations, and to canings for trivial offences, such punishments to be inflicted by the ship's police and in the presence of all the boys on board ship; and, if so, will the boys and youths thus invited to enlist and their parents and guardians be apprised of the conditions of service in the Royal Navy.

Boys are being entered for training for the artificer branch of the Royal Navy. They are subject to the general rules as regards discipline in force in the Royal Navy. The recruiting pamphlet states the general conditions of service, including the liability referred to in the second part of the hon. Member's Question.

Now I want to put this plain Question. Are these boys subject to flogging with the birch or cane as in the case of ordinary bluejackets, and is that fact made perfectly well known to parents before the boys are allowed to enter the engineering department? I want to advertise this.

I think the hon. Gentleman has already accomplished that, but it has not affected recruiting for the Navy.

Order, order! The hon. Member announced that he wanted to advertise something. This is not the time or place for that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the National Antarctic Expedition was supplied with Maconochie's vegetable rations; whether these rations, or the greater part of them, proved to be unfit for consumption; and whether the crew of the "Discovery" were in danger of an outbreak of scurvy from want of vegetables.

No rations were supplied by the Admiralty to the "Discovery." Some of the rations purchased by the Admiralty for the "Terra Nova" Relief Expedition were supplied by Messrs. Maconochie. But as regards that ship, there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question.

As this question affects me personally, may I be allowed to make a statement to the House. No meat and vegetable rations similar to those supplied to South Africa were supplied to the "Discovery." The company did supply a quantity of general stores. The balance not consumed arrived in London in perfect order, and was passed by the Medical Officer of Health. Samples have been exhibited at 165, Queen Victoria Street, for many weeks past, and the bulk may be seen by the hon. Member if he wishes. Independent expert declarations have been received by the company proving the high quality of the goods. No complaint has been received. The whole of the books connected with these particular transactions are open to the inspection of the hon. Member, and every assistance and information will be given to him.

Order, order! This is not a personal explanation.

I wish to point out that this persistent system of pursuing a firm—

Order, order! Sit down.

I must ask hon. Members to leave me to take care of the order of the House. The hon. Member is now going beyond a personal explanation. If he is not satisfied with the very complete Answer given to the Question, he may add anything relating to the Answer to the Question, but he is going beyond that.

I fully appreciate the concession made to me, and will only say that I am as anxious as hon. Members for an early discussion, and shall be only too glad if it comes speedily.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the grounds on which the application of Dr. MacHale, medical officer of Belmullet district, for the appointment of surgeon to the Admiralty in that place, was rejected, seeing that for fifty years the position was held by Dr. MacHale's predecessors as local medical officer; if he will state why, contrary to invariable practice, a doctor living in another part of the country was appointed to the vacancy; and if he will also state the fees now being paid to this doctor and the fees paid annually for the previous ten years; the number of coastguards to be attended; and whether, before appointing the present surgeon, the Admiralty made any effort to have the work done for less than what they are now paying.

The Admiralty did not consider that Dr. MacHale was the most suitable gentleman for the post, and it has never been the practice to appoint a man simply because his predecessor held the appointment of surgeon and agent. The present holder of the appointment is paid 10s. a visit. Previously the ordinary surgeon and agent's fees of 2s. 6d. per visit were allowed. It is not possible to state the precise amount paid in fees annually during the previous ten years without an elaborate investigation of records, which would involve considerable clerical labour and time. The number of coastguards to be attended at the five stations under the surgeon and agent's charge is thirty. The reply to the last part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the new pattern rifle is to be issued to mounted troops only, he can state what steps are being taken with reference to the re-armament of the infantry.

No steps are at present being taken to re-arm the infantry in the United Kingdom and the Colonies.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what replies, if any, have been furnished to the queries of the Comptroller-General respecting sale of buildings and other matters referred to on pages 21and 22, Military Works Account, 1903–1904.

In three cases replies have been sent in accordance with the requirements of the Auditor-General. In a fourth case the reply has been followed by a further query, which is now being dealt with. Replies to the remaining queries await the result of communications with South Africa.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, during the proposed visit of the Emperor of Germany and his staff to Gibraltar, only those parts of the fortress will be shown which are open to British subjects; and whether the same rules as to photographing the fortress or any parts of it will also be upheld which are rigidly enforced on British subjects.

Subject to the Regulations contained in Appendix V. of the King's Regulations, the responsibility rests with the General Officer Commanding concerned, with whose discretion it is not proposed in any way to interfere.

Am I to understand that greater facilities are to be given to an Emperor who is building a fleet that may be used against us than are given to loyal subjects of His Majesty?

I have nothing to add to the Answer I have given.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the cost of the Colonial troops, raised in South Africa for the defence of their own country, was borne by the Imperial Treasury; whether the normal expenses of the King's African Rifles, employed in Somaliland, were defrayed from the fund of the several Protectorates which were not concerned with the expedition on which their troops served; and what is the reason for the difference in policy in these two cases.

The cost of the Colonial troops, specially raised for the war, was borne by Imperial funds up to 31st October, 1901; after that date it was borne by Colonial funds. The normal cost of such colonial troops as existed before the war was borne by Colonial funds throughout, so long as the troops were employed within the borders of the colony. The normal cost of the King's African Rifles employed in Somaliland was borne by the funds of the Protectorates to which the several contingents belonged, except that of the 6th battalion, which was borne by the funds of the Somaliland Protectorate. As the Protectorates are not self-supporting, the ultimate incidence of the whole cost of the Somaliland operations was necessarily upon Imperial funds.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the total expenditure on buildings and all other works on Salisbury Plain since the land on which they stand was purchased by the War Office.

The capital expenditure is about £1,400,000.

On behalf of the hon. Member for West Denbighshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of state for India whether, in connection with the scientific expedition to be sent out to India to investigate the origin and causes of plague, the co-operation of those in the areas affected possessing a knowledge of the difficulties of the problem from an Indian standpoint will be sought; and whether he will consider the desirability of adding to the Committee an Indian member with special experience of plague.

There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the object and scope of the inquiry. The administrative aspects of plague were exhaustively dealt with by Sir Thomas Fraser's Commission of 1898–9, and the practical difficulties of combating the disease are familiar to the Indian Government and its officers. The present investigation will be confined to purely scientific problems, in the hope that, if these are solved, advance will be made in the practical treatment of the disease. The composition of the expedition has been settled on the advice of the two scientific societies which have undertaken to supervise the inquiry, and I do not propose to add another investigator to those already selected. The expedition will work in the plague-affected areas, and will naturally avail itself of local knowledge and co-operation in respect of matters within the scope of the inquiry.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount likely to be derived from the duty on publicans' licences in the current year; whether he is aware that the Treasury has estimated that the imposition of an ad valorem duty on all licensed houses equal to that now imposed upon the smallest houses would produce a revenue of £3,500,000 per annum; and whether, before asking the House to continue existing taxes on necessaries, he will consider the propriety of increasing these duties by making all houses pay at the rate now paid for the smallest houses.

The estimate of the amount likely to be derived from the duty on publicans' licences in the current year was about £1,750,000. The second paragraph of the Question is founded on a misapprehension of an Answer which I gave to the hon. Member last year.† I then stated that it was roughly estimated that the total annual value of public-houses, exclusive of hotels, in England and Wales, was about £7,000,000, and that 50 per cent, of £7,000,000 would amount to £3,500,000. This is a simple arithmetical fact, but it by no means follows that this amount of revenue could be obtained by imposing a 50 per cent, ad valorem licence duty on all such houses. Such a tax would, I conceive, certainly extinguish many of the houses, and no estimate has been made by the Treasury of the effect of its imposition on the total annual value of all public-houses.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of increasing the duties as suggested before he brings in his next Budget.

I consider all the suggestions made to me, but I cannot say that I derive great advantage from many of them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the

† See (4) Debates, cxxxix., 1562.

Home Department whether, in view of the number of cases that have recently been brought to his notice of persons being imprisoned against whom no charge was ultimately brought forward or substantiated, and of the increasing difficulty for guilty persons to make good their escape, he can see his way to issue general orders to the police to adopt a system of surveillance while inquiries are being made, and to refrain from indiscriminate arrests until some charge has been made good on reliable evidence.

; The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that many cases have recently been brought to my notice in which persons have been apprehended on insufficient grounds. On the contrary, considering that the annual number of apprehensions in England and Wales exceeds 350,000, the number of complaints I receive alleging arrest on insufficient grounds is extraordinarily small, and affords a striking testimony to the care and discretion with which the police exercise the powers which the law confers on them. A system of surveillance such as the hon. Member suggests would be quite impracticable.

But I know of cases that have been brought to the notice of the Home Secretary.

It is true that the hon. Member has written to me about four cases. Two were Irish—Irish cases are not dealt with by me, but by the Irish Government. One (the Harrods Stores Case) was that of Bradley and Gapp, who got heavy damages from the Stores, and this shows whose fault the arrest was. The other was the Beck case. In this Beck was given in charge by a woman, and the officer could not have refused to take him into custody.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether in framing new regulations for the Criminal Prosecutions and the Criminal Appeals Departments of the Home Office, as recommended by the Beck Committee of Inquiry, he will consider the desirability of discontinuing the practice of receiving secret and so-called confidential information adverse to the persons charged or convicted, and of withholding such information from the persons concerned.

There is no Criminal Prosecutions Department or Criminal Appeals Department in the Home Office. Those prosecutions which are undertaken on behalf of the Government are conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions; and criminal appeals, where the right of appeal exists, are matters for the Courts of Law. The hon. Member no doubt refers to the Department of the Home Office which has to deal with petitions which are addressed to the Secretary of State praying for the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy in criminal cases. I can only say that it is essential that, in considering such petitions, I should be able to communicate confidentially with Judges, magistrates, and the police. If I could not do so, the number of cases in which I can now advise the exercise of the Prerogative would be seriously restricted.

Have the recommendations of the Committee been carried out.

Yes, all the recommendations made by the Master of Rolls Committee have been carried out, or are on the eve of being earned out—except one, the reason for which was fully explained to the House.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state whether, in view of the returns of alleged swine fever in Ireland during the past seven weeks, he will remove the restrictions at present in force against the landing of Irish pigs in England.

My Answer must be in the negative, for the reasons which I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Queen's County on the 20th ult†. As I then explained, the recent action of the Board was founded upon the fact that in Ireland no precautionary measures are taken against the movement of diseased swine, or swine which may have been exposed to infection, from one part of Ireland to another, and the fact that five outbreaks of the disease have been reported during the present year shows that there would still be a danger of its introduction into Great Britain if the restrictions were withdrawn.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if, in view of the fact that the building by-laws are more stringent in certain rural districts than in the county of London, he will take steps to compel their withdrawal, and issue practically uniform reasonable building regulations.

The subject of building by-laws in rural districts is receiving my attention; but I am not empowered to compel the withdrawal of existing by-laws or to issue building regulations in their place.

I beg to ask the President of the Loc I Government Board whether, acting on the powers conferred upon his Department by Section 10 of the Act 42 and 43 Vic., c. 54, he will recommend that boards of guardians be authorised to vote the necessary funds to enable education authorities to undertake, subject to proper safeguards, the provision of meals to destitute children.

I am advised that boards of guardians would not be empowered by the section mentioned by this hon. Member to give effect to the arrangement to which he refers.

† See (4) Debates, exli., 585.

I will call attention to this matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, seeing that an Act of Parliament has been passed making March 17th a national holiday, which legalises the closing of banks and other public institutions in Ireland, he will consider the advisability of making an Order confining railway traffic in that country to the limits beyond which they do not go on Good Friday and Christmas Day in each year.

The Board of Trade have no power to make such an Order.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to furnish the amount of money requisite for the erection of annunciators in the dining-rooms and tea-rooms.

I beg also to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will have annunciators installed in the dining-rooms and tea-rooms for the convenience of Members.

No provision has been made in the Estimates for this service, and the First Commissioner is not therefore prepared to install annunciators in the rooms in question during the year 1905–6. The suggestion of the hon. Member will be favourably considered in framing the Estimates for 1906–7.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is yet able to make any announcement as to the removal of the plaster and wooden panelling placed at the back of the colonnade on the Whitehall front of the courtyard of the Admiralty.

The First Commissioner has personally examined the screen, and is quite willing to remove the sliding wooden doors referred to, but doubts the advantage of doing so. The screen wall at the back of the colonnade is built of stone repaired with plaster and painted; it forms an integral part of the structure designed by Robert Adam, and cannot be removed.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will endeavour to arrange that the operation of fixing a trial motor engine into a fishing boat at Aberdeen will take place during the Easter holidays, so that Members interested may be able to be present.

I am not able to promise that a vessel equipped with motor engines will be ready for inspection by the time mentioned by the hon. Member, but matters are being pushed forward as rapidly as possible.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if the regulations submitted by the Ayrshire County Council with reference to motor traffic have now been approved by the Secretary for Scotland.

The Secretary for Scotland hopes to be able to issue this Order in the course of next week.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland what official or department is responsible for authorising the statement of a case from the Lisbellaw Petty Sessions, in the matter of Inspector Murnane v. the Justices of Fermanagh, heard recently in the King's Bench, Dublin; whether he is aware that the Lord Chief Justice, when delivering judgment, stated that the matter before them was in itself of little or no importance; and if he will state the cost incurred by the Grown for witnesses and lawyers in this case.

The police were directed by the Executive to apply to have a case seated. I decline to state the names of the several officials before whom the matter came. The point involved in the case was most important, namely, whether, in the case of the sale of drink to a person who was at the time in fact drunk, knowledge of his condition on the part of the vendor was necessary to constitute an offence under the statute. The Court decided, according to the contention of the Crown, that such knowledge was not necessary. What the Chief Justice said was, that "it was really of very little importance what became of the particular case, but that it was of grave importance to the administration of the law that the point should be understood, and that it should be declared that it was not of the essence of the offence that the impeached publican should have knowledge of the state of the man who was alleged to have been drunk." A very grave charge, amounting in effect to collusion and conspiracy, was made against the police by the defendant, supported by the affidavit of the hon. Member, who was one of the presiding justices, and by the affidavits of others. It was therefore necessary to summon these persons to Dublin for examination if required. The Court decided that there was no foundation for this charge. The entire costs incurred in the case amounted to £45 9s.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I refused to sign a case because I thought it was vexatious litigation.

Yes, but unfortunately for the hon. Member the Bench entirely disagreed with him.

Was I not ready to give evidence, and did they not refuse to call me?

The hon. Gentleman made an affidavit and desired to be cross-examined on it, but it was not thought necessary.

Did not the magistrates at the rehearing again dismiss the case on its merits?

It may be so. If so, we shall probably hear of it again.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether any action has been taken by the Estates Commissioners to bring about the reinstatement of Mr. Thomas Kent in the holding on the Kingston Estate, from which he was evicted in 1887, having regard to the fact that the holding is vacant and in the possession of the vendor, and that the sale and purchase of the Kingston Estate is in process of being dealt with by the Commissioners.

Mr. Kent's application for reinstatement will be considered when the estate has been inspected.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the case of the Bangor (county Down) Improvement Bill, a petition has been presented against the Bill by a landowner of the district, and that such petition has been deposited by Mr. Tighe Macredy, solicitor, Dublin; and whether, seeing that Mr. Macredy is solicitor to the Local Government Board, by which body a report on the Bill must be sent to the Select Committee, he will say whether it is usual for the solicitor to the Local Government Board to act for opponents of a Bill upon which the Board has to advise.

Messrs. Macredy are employed by the Board when they require the services of a solicitor, but are not debarred from taking private practice. The Board have no occasion to employ their solicitors in connection with private Bills, and Messrs. Macredy are therefore not consulted in such matters, nor do they see the Board's reports before they are made public

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the creek, Kilrush Harbour, is Crown or Government property; if so, whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests or the Board of Trade Departments have power to transfer ownership or guardianship of the creek; and, if such power be vested in those offices, will they give a transfer of such powers to the Kilrush Urban Council, acting as local authority, for the purpose of making it available as required for commercial purposes.

The Master of the Rolls has, in the case of Vandeleur v. Glynn, judicially decided that the foreshore in this creek belongs to the plaintiff, Colonel Vandeleur. An appeal to the Court of Appeal against that decision is now pending, and until it has been decided the Question cannot be answered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the county of Sligo has received no grant under the Marine Works Act, the Government will now consider the advisability of allocating a portion of the balance of £4,000 remaining on foot of the funds provided under The Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, for the drainage of the Owenmore River in that county.

The funds provided under The Sea Fisheries Act are expressly limited in their application to the purposes of that Act. These purposes do not include drainage.

But will the Government make inquiry with a view to giving some assistance in this matter, seeing that the people have been ruined and are unable to carry out this necessary work?

It is impossible to answer a Question of that kind across the floor of the House, but if the hon. Gentleman has any facts to communicate to me, I will consider them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that sugar beetroot can be successfully and profitably grown in Ireland, even on land of inferior quality, the Irish Department of Agriculture will now take some practical steps towards encouraging the cultivation of that crop.

The hon. Member's attention does not appear to have been directed to my reply to the similar Question put to me on Thursday last† by the hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Rev. M. Keaneny, P.P., of Charlestown, county Mayo, copies of resolutions recently adopted by the clerical managers of national schools in the diocese of Achenry protesting against the issue by the Commissioners of National Education of Rule 127 (b); and whether, in view of the effect of this rule on Irish country school children and of the protests made against it, the rule will be withdrawn.

The rule has not yet come into operation. I have already stated the reasons for its adoption, and the extent to which the Commissioners have agreed to qualify its application. The rule was made solely in the interests of Irish school children under eight years of age.

How many assistant teachers will be thrown out of employment by enforcement of this rule?

I cannot answer that Question off-hand. The matter has, however, been carefully considered. The rule is in the interest of school children of a particular age, and the result on the teachers is a totally different question which does not arise here.

† See page 940.

But where the boys are removed an assistant teacher will of necessity lose his employment?

Obviously, in the adoption of any rules of this kind, whether in Ireland or in England, there must be some effect on the teacher, but the object is to benefit the children, and I am informed as a matter of fact that no injustice is done by this rule to the teachers.

If, as I understand, 600 men will be thrown out of employment, after they have given their lives to the service, what is to be done with them?

That is a hypothetical Question. First, it will be necessary to ascertain if it is a fact; and, if it be so, then will be the time to consider whether there is any remedy.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the position in regard to the purchase of the Cusack, county Longford, Estate by the Estates Commissioners; whether the negotiations have yet been concluded or not; and, if not, will he urge upon the Commissioners the necessity of closing this matter promptly.

The Commissioners are now about to send an inspector to examine and report upon this estate.

When will the inspector go there?

Really, it is impossible for me to answer as to every detail of the work of the Commissioners. The hon. Member may be certain that they will not unduly delay any work they have to perform, but I must leave these things to their discretion.

There has already been a delay of eighteen months.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many preliminary and Part II. organisers' science classes for national teachers have been held in county Meath, and how many teachers have attended these courses; whether any, and, if so, how many suitable technical schools are available in the county at which the remainder of the teachers can get trained, and at which those who attended the preliminary classes can complete their course, and what provision is made for the training of those for whom no technical schools are available; whether he can state the number of convents in Ireland in which preliminary science courses have been held, and what provision is made by the Commissioners of National Education to enable the nuns who attended the preliminary courses to complete their course; and whether any arrangements can be made for the training of nuns who have received no science instruction.

Part I. classes, in elementary science have been held at two places in the county, and attended by fifty-nine teachers. The head organiser and two assistants have been permanently retained for training teachers in science. Ninety classes have been held in convent schools, and the services of a lady assistant organiser are available for this and similar work in future. I am making inquiry as to the remaining point raised in the Question, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, since the framing of the rule by the Agricultural Department excluding the people of a county from appointments as instructors in their own county, the appointment for Donegal of Mr. J. D. Cassidy, a native of the county, with a permanent residence therein, as an instructor in bee-keeping was sanctioned by the Department; why may not the departure from the rule which has been sanctioned in this case be sanctioned in other cases; and whether, having regard to the deadlock in the administration of agricultural schemes in Donegal and the discontent produced by this rule, he will advise its withdrawal.

Yes, Sir, but the rule referred to was not made applicable to the bee-keeping scheme, as the instructor is employed for a short time only at two seasons of the year. It is not intended to modify the rule.

What is the foundation of the rule? Why should people with a special knowledge of the county be boycotted?

There is no justification for a charge of boycotting. I am informed that experience led those responsible to the conclusion that it was in the interest of the educated that the instructors should be chosen from another county. That practice has been adopted, theeffects of it are being carefully watched, and I am assured that those responsible attach great importance to it.

Is Sir Horace Plunkett responsible for this?

No, Sir, I am responsible.

Where does the Department get its knowledge as to the county from which these people come, seeing that they are not able to ascertain the nationality of other public officials?

I imagine that the ordinary sources of information are open to them.

Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered, and it cannot now be argued by means of further Questions and Answers. I hope hon. Members will have some regard to the claims of others who have Questions on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the practice with reference to the remission of sentences and the consideration of the propriety of the exercise by the Lord-Lieutenant of the Prerogative of Pardon in Ireland; are there, as in England, periodic reconsiderations of the sentences passed on prisoners; is there, as in England, any, and, if so, what staff of officials for the preliminary stages of this work; and, if so, what has been their training; in what respects does the Irish system differ from the Home Office system with respect to the remission of sentences and the exercise of the Prerogative of Pardon.

The remission of sentences, and the exercise of the Prerogative of Pardon in Ireland is vested in the Lord-Lieutenant. There are in Ireland, as in England, periodical reconsiderations of the sentences of all long-sentenced prisoners, in addition to the consideration of such cases on memorial. The preliminary stages of this work are carried out in the Chief Secretary's office, where all the available information is collected and summarised. It is not known that any substantial difference exists between the Irish and the English practices, but the former has remained unchanged for very many years.

; Did not the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor state that there was no periodical revision?

Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to refer to a previous Answer.

But they are so contradictory.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a complaint has been, received by District-Inspector Redmond, Maryborough, that on the evening of the 6th March Constable Reddy, without any provocation, used insulting expressions in the public street to respectable residents of the town; and whether he will state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

The Inspector-General is inquiring into this matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in October, 1902, a force of police was requisitioned for a prosecution, for which a sum of £5 6s. 7d. extra police charge was claimed, and that although this sum was charged in respect of an offence arising out of transactions in all parts of the county of Longford the sum itself was charged solely against the urban district of Longford; and whether, seeing that, notwithstanding the fact that the county council of Longford agreed to have it levied as a county-at-large charge, it is still charged against the urban district, will he direct that the wishes of the county council to have it levied as a county-at-large charge will be now given effect to.

The additional police were employed on the occasion mentioned in the town of Longford, and the charge in respect of their cost was properly levied on the urban district. This is in accordance with practice, and it is not proposed to re-open the matter, as suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Colonel W. H. King-Harman, of Newcastle, county Longford, has recently sold through the Estates Commission an evicted tenant's farm, at Keel, formerly in possession of Patrick Fox, who is now living in a labourer's cottage, to his own son, Captain A. W. King-Harman: whether this arrangement is yet before the Estates Commissioners or not; and, if so, will they sanction a sale of this kind in view of the purposes of the Land Act of 1903.

The Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion, and having made due inquiry, consider it is more to the advantage of the evicted tenant's family that the larger portion of the holding should be sold to the son of Patrick Fox. The remainder of the holding will be retained by Colonel King-Harman.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the sale of the King-Harman Estate in south Longford, in which the farm of Creagh, formerly occupied by Mr. Robert Armstrong, has been sold to a bailiff named Jones; whether he is aware that since his occupancy of this farm Jones has allowed the mansion and out-offices on it to fall into total ruin: and if, in these circumstances, this transaction will be sanctioned?

The sale in this case was completed on 6th October last.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps are being taken to provide untenanted lands in county Longford for the benefit of the evicted tenants there, eighty-six of whose applications are on file with the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, will he indicate the nature of the steps being taken to provide homes for these people under the Act of 1903.

Proceedings for the purchase of two estates are at present pending before the Commissioners. In the event of any untenanted lands being distributed in the county, the claims of evicted tenants will be considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any alteration has yet been agreed on in Plan No. VI. A for the building of national schools in Ireland; whether he is aware that, in consequence of the delay in extending the scope of this plan, the building of national schools in Ireland has been practically at a standstill for the past three years; and, if so, will he urge upon the Treasury the necessity for expediting this change.

The particular plan cannot be dealt with apart from the question of the revision of the plans and estimates generally. It is a large question, but, as I stated on 22nd February†, I will endeavour to expedite the settlement of it. It is not the case that the building of national schools in Ireland has been practically at a standstill for the past three years.

Can the hon. Gentleman say approximately when this matter will be settled?

I cannot.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state whether any, and, if so, what obligations are imposed on the Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees with regard to the publication and audit of their accounts; and whether these obligations have been discharged.

I am advised that there is no statutory obligation on the Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees to publish and audit their accounts. If the hon. Member will put down an unstarred Question I shall be glad to furnish him with information as to the Act under which the trustees were created.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any representations have been made to the Board of Works with reference to Port-rush Harbour, county Antrim; whether any representations have been made to the Public Works Loan Board; and whether the Board of Works has any, and, if so, what, jurisdiction over the Public Works Loan Board.

The Board of Works have received no representations

† See (4) Debates, exli.; 903.

on the subject of Portrush Harbour. I learn that the Public Works Loan Commissioners are now in communication with the Portrush Harbour Company. The Public Works Loan Board is an absolutely independent body. May I add that when I answered a Question on this matter the other day I was not aware that any representations had been made to the Public Works Loan Board, nor was I aware a report had appeared in an Irish paper that I was present at the deputation.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the change of policy recently announced as to secondary naval bases and military garrisons at strategic points of the Empire, on which money has lately been spent out of Military and Naval Loans Acts, he will give the House an early opportunity for the consideration of the question, other than that afforded by Estimates, upon which a portion only of the matter could be discussed; whether any intended military or naval loan proposals will be introduced early in the session; and when it may be possible to propose the Treasury Vote containing Item E, on which such matters could be raised.

I think the right hon. Baronet is under some misconception in regard to the places where money has been expended, and which come under the new scheme. If he will ask me a further Question I shall be glad to give him any information in order that he may be prepared to deal with the subject when we come to discuss Vote E. I shall be glad to put that Vote down at any time the House desires. I think it is an important subject, but it cannot be dealt with until we get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, now that financial business has been for the present disposed of, the Aliens Bill may be introduced on Monday and its stages advanced as rapidly as possible.

I cannot fix a date, but I am very anxious to proceed as fast as possible with the Bill.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will agree to a Royal Commission to inquire into the damage to the coast of Great Britain caused by the encroachment of the sea, and to suggest the best course to follow to reduce such damage.

As at present advised. I am not in a position to promise my hon. friend the Commission he desires. That Answer also applies to the Question of the hon. Member for Thanet.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps he is taking or proposes to take with reference to the representations that have been made to the Board of Trade on the subject of coast erosion; and whether it is proposed to institute an inquiry as to the steps that may be taken, so far as possible, to prevent such erosion.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state approximately when the Bill dealing with the unemployed, promised, in the King's Speech, is likely to be introduced.

At the same time, I may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to introduce the Bill, promised in His Majesty's Speech, providing for the establishment of authorities to deal with the question of the unemployed.

Unless the House will consent to the introduction of the Bill dealing with the unemployed, promised in the King's Speech, under the Ten Minutes Rule, I do not think there will be time for it before Easter. It is a measure that the Government are most anxious to proceed with.

Cannot the same pledge be given for this Bill as for the Aliens Bill—that it shall be pressed on as rapidly as possible?

It is a measure which the Government is most anxious, to proceed with.

Will there be a reasonable time-limit put on the everlasting anxiety of boards of guardians? The uncertainty is simply wearing people out.

Will the Bill deal with the case of Ireland's unemployed?

Order!

I do not know whether the Gentlemen who catechise me think the Bill ought to be introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule. That course would greatly facilitate business.

We shall be prepared to consider that suggestion.

Does the Prime Minister consider the Aliens Bill to be more important than the Unemployed Bill?

Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to put a Question of that nature.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Congested Districts Board Amendment Bill and the Whale Fisheries Bill will be brought forward for Second Reading.

I have no statement to make as to these Bills.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any negotiations as to colonial preference or retaliation took place between the Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Prime Ministers before the Coronation Conference of 1902; and, if so, whether he will lay the correspondence upon the Table of the House.

There were informal pourparlers upon the subject of colonial preference. But no record was kept, and therefore no record remains. There is no correspondence in existence which can be published.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to proceed with the Motion standing in his name respecting debate on Motions for Adjournment at Easter or Whitsuntide.

also had the following Question on the Paper—To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will fix a day before Easter for the discussion of the proposed Amendments to the rule with reference to Motions for the Adjournment of the House and the limitation of discussion in debate on such Motions.

I will have this Resolution moved some night after twelve o'clock if the House will accept it without discussion. I cannot find time before Easter, and I do not know whether I can find time after Easter for a discussion on the Resolution in view of the pressure of Government business. The Resolution was put down in deference to an appeal from hon. Gentlemen who are apparently discontented with my reply.

As one of those who have pressed for action in this matter, I do not remember that I ever said I would accept anything that the Government proposed.

I make no complaint, but do not let hon. Members complain of me. That is all I ask.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will grant facilities for the passage into law, this session, of a short measure empowering educational authorities to provide meals for destitute children.

May I ask whether, if those facilities are given, they will be granted for the first Bill introduced on the subject—namely, the Bill of the hon. Member for Hoxton.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a statement made by the President of the Local Government Board that boards of guardians have no legal power to deal with this pressing matter in any way whatever, and that neither the local education authorities nor—

Order, order! The Question on the Paper should first be answered.

I do not think it would be proper even to suggest that we should take any steps until we get the Report of this Committee now sitting and inquiring into the facts.

Now may I ask if the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland recommended in 1903 that there should be legislation

That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper, which has been fully answered.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Report of the Royal Commission on the affairs of the United Free Church and Free Church of Scotland has been received; whether he is aware of the anxiety in the public mind upon the subject and the general desire; to put an end to the uncertainties and litigation with regard to the numerous church fabrics and properties affected; and whether he can accordingly see his way to expedite the printing and issue of the Report.

I am desirous of having this Report in my own possession and in the possession of the whole House. Of course, it does not rest with me to take any steps in the matter, but I am sure the Commissioners will do all they can to hasten the proceedings. Every effort will be made to expedite the printing of the Report.

Cannot some power intervene to stop the game of grab now being carried on by the Free Church—in the name of the law—until Parliament is able to deal with the subject?

I wish to ask if the Prime Minister proposes to take any notice of the Resolution of the House passed unanimously last night.

That Question can be answered if it is put on the Paper. It can scarcely be treated as urgent within the meaning of the Standing Order.

It is generally regarded as urgent.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would consider the desirability of rearranging the order of Questions. This was the second occasion this week on which Questions to the Colonial Secretary had been put at the end of a long list, and there had been no opportunity of asking them.

I am anxious to arrange the Questions to meet the convenience of the House. Last session a complaint was properly made that Questions addressed to myself were sometimes cut out. I think that the arrangement which has now been made, by which those Questions always come on, is for the general convenience. Recently a request was made to me that while the Army debates were going on the Questions addressed to the Secretary of State for War should come on at a time when they could be answered orally, and I did my best to see that arrangement was carried out. Now hon. Gentlemen complain that the Colonial Secretary, who used to occupy the position now given to the Secretary of State for War, should be put back in his place. It is difficult to frame a scheme to meet everybody's wishes. On certain days we might have the Irish Questions put last.

Leave them out altogether. Tell us to stand aside.

They will all be answered on the Paper. The suggestion made to me will be considered. But it is obviously impossible, if as many Questions are put down as are at present being put down and as many supplementary Questions are asked, that every Question can be answered orally.

Extend the time.

asked whether the Prime Minister was not invading the province of Mr. Speaker. Were they to understand that the Government arranged the order of Questions?

The matter is arranged amongst the Ministers themselves, but if any complaint about it is brought to my notice I have authority over the list.

reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill:—Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. James Henry Campbell, Mr. Long, Mr. Field, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Waldron, Mr. Harrington, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Bond, Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Thomas Herbert Robertson, Mr. Thomas Lorimer Corbett, Mr. Charles Craig, and Mr. Lonsdale.

reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from serving on the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect of the Trades Unions and Trade Disputes Bill:—Mr. Attorney-General.