laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Dearne Valley Railway Bill [Lords]; Sheffield University Bill [Lords].

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (Gas) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the average cost of a 12-inch Mark IX. gun at the Ordnance Factory, exclusive of all parts not subject to great wear and tear from firing. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The cost of a 12-inch Mark IX. gun, complete in Ordnance Factories, is £9,800. The only part subject to great wear and tear from firing is the inner "A" tube, which costs £1,100.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the estimated cost of the battleship "King Edward VII." complete with stores, ammunition, coal and oil fuel, at recent prices; and what is the complement of H.M.S. "King Edward VII." (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The estimated cost of H.M.S. "King Edward VII.," complete with stores, ammunition, coal and oil fuel, is £1,568,650. It is not considered desirable to publish the information asked for in the last part of the Question.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number per 10,000 of population of paupers, of lunatics, of deaf and dumb supported by public institutions, and compare these figures with similar figures for other parts of the United Kingdom; whether he will supply a similar comparison in respect of births, deaths, and marriages per 10,000 of population; whether he will supply a similar comparison of labourers employed in industrial establishments per 10,000 of population. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The numbers, per 10,000 of the population, of persons maintained by boards of guardians in Ireland, on April 29th, 1905, were as follows—

Indoor.
No. per 10,000 of population.
In workhouse and district schools:—
Ordinary paupers	90·2
Lunatics and epileptics	8·8
In extern institutions:—
Deaf and dumb	1·0
Blind, imbeciles, and other persons sent to hospitals for special treatment	1·4
Outdoor.
Receiving ordinary relief	133·7
Receiving special relief under Section 13 of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898	27·9
Total	263·0

The number, per 10,000 of the population, of deaf and dumb persons in special institutions for such persons on Census night, 1901 (the latest date for which figures are available), was 1·2. The similar proportion of lunatics supported in public institutions (including hose in workhouses as above-mentioned) tn January 1st, 1904, the latest date for which figures are available, was 49·6. The numbers of births, deaths, and marriages, per 10,000 of the estimated population, for the year 1904, were:—Births, 236; Deaths, 181; Marriages, 52. No information is available upon which a reply can be given to the last inquiry. I am unable to furnish figures for other parts of the United Kingdom.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many agricultural inspectors are employed by the Irish Department of Agriculture, what are their names, what are the qualifications of those officials for their present duties, and what was their occupation before they received the appointment of agricultural inspectors. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The number of agricultural inspectors employed by the Department is eight. Their names, with particulars as to their previous employment and qualifications, are as follows:—J. G. Gordon, B.Sc.—Manager of his own farm in county Tyrone; Principal of Holmes Chapel School of Agriculture, Cheshire; B.S. in Agriculture, Edinburgh University. T. S. Porter—Superintendent of the Agricultural Department, Irish Land Commission, in which capacity he supervised the agricultural operations of the Congested Districts Board. Transferred to the Department of Agriculture in pursuance of Sections 2 and 22 of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act, 1899. J. Wood, M.A., B.Sc.—Assistant Lecturer in Agriculture at University College, North Wales; Assistant Lecturer in West of Scotland Agricultural College; B.Sc. in Agriculture, Durham University. T. Carroll, M.R.I.A.—Professor of Agriculture and Superintendent of the Albert Model Farm, Glasnevin, county Dublin; and Agricultural Inspector under the Board of National Education, Ireland. J. H. Hinchcliff, Ph.D.—Technical Assistant in Agricultural Department of Yorkshire College, Leeds; Gold Medallist, Royal Agricultural Society; Ph.D. of Leipsic University. A. R. Robertson, F.H.A.S.—Estate Agent's Assistant, and subsequently Technical Assistant in Agricultural Branch of Department; Fellow of the Highland Agricultural Society. E. Gallagher—Editor, Irish Farmers' Gazette; trained at Albert Model Farm, Glasnevin, county Dublin; Holder of Diploma and Medal of Royal Agricultural Society of Ireland. M. J. Cleary, M.R.C.V.S. (Inspector for live stock schemes)—Veterinary Surgeon in private practice; Member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would consent to the granting of a Return of the titled personages and Ministers of the Crown who have, during the last two years, been fined for the driving of motor-cars to the peril of the safety of the public. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am informed that this Return cannot be given without a great deal of trouble, even if it were not an invidious matter to single out a particular class of the community for criticism.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the shifting of motor-bicycle numbers, that the riders might escape in case of an accident, and to the evidence in the case of the King v. Flood, recently tried by the Recorder of Dublin, in which a boy was seriously injured by a motor-bicycle on which there was a fraudulent number; and whether he intends to initiate legislation to regulate defects in the numbering and registration of motors calculated to conduce to the escape of persons whose furious driving causes loss of life or limb. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The case, so far as appears from the Question, seems fairly covered by Section 5 of the Motor-Car Act of 1903. I am informed that the Department has no information as to the shifting of motor-bicycle numbers generally. The Metropolitan Police have taken action in a considerable number of cases in which various frauds have been perpetrated in the use of motor-car numbers, but they are unable apparently to distinguish which of these, if any, are motor-bicycle cases. The Departments are not of opinion that legislation is desirable, at any rate until the Act comes up for review next session. It expires on December 31st, 1906.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the fines inflicted for the furious driving of motor-cars are, having regard to the fact that the owners of these cars are necessarily in easy circumstances, so small as to be ineffective as deterrents to the commission of such offences; and whether he proposes to initiate any legislation to secure adequate punishment for these offenders. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am advised that in the opinion of the Department concerned there is no reason to think that the fines are inadequate. The Act enables substantial fines to be exacted, viz.: £20 for the first offence, £50 for the second or imprisonment not exceeding three months. In addition to this the driver's licence may be suspended, the holder being thus disqualified from driving a motor-car for such period as the Court thinks fit. The Act further provides that nothing in it shall affect any liability of the driver or owner of a motor-car by virtue of any statute or at common law. The motorist is thus liable to all civil and criminal consequences of his acts.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the number of troops necessary for home defence based on the scheme agreed to by the Committee of Imperial Defence.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state what will be the position assigned to the Volunteers in the scheme of national defence considered necessary by the Committee of Imperial Defence to repel invasion; and whether he will give an early day for the discussion of Vote 5, Army Estimates (Volunteers). (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am afraid, owing to other claims on the Committee of Supply, I cannot fix the date for this particular Vote. With all respect, I do not think that the matter raised in these Questions by the hon. Gentleman can be usefully dealt with in the form of Question and Answer.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what were the four cases in which increased fees above the ordinary professional scales were sanctioned for payment to the Law Officers, and what amount was paid in each case; and if he can state the amounts paid in other cases where they exceeded £200 in any individual case. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) None of the fees in the cases to which the Question appears to refer were above the ordinary professional scales. The fees were as follows:—Attorney-General: Venezuelan Claims Arbitration—In all 1,050 guineas, for preparing case and two counter cases, and for brief; refreshers, 50 guineas a day, and fees for consultations. British Guiana Arbitration—Preparing written argument, 500 guineas, and fees for consultations. Solicitor-General: Rex v. Osborn and others—200 guineas; refreshers, 30 guineas a day, and fees for consultations. Rex v. Hooley and Lawson—250 guineas; refreshers, 30 guineas a day, and fees for consultations. It would require a considerable time to furnish an Answer to the last part of the Question, and without going into the particulars of each case in which the total amount may have reached as much as 200 guineas it would afford no useful information. It is believed that there would be very few of such cases.

To ask the Lord-Advocate, in regard to Section 55 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, whether he will give instructions to the procurators-fiscal that, for the purposes of this section, any registered medical practitioner is to be regarded as a medical officer. (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

To ask the Lord Advocate how much money out of public funds has been spent respectively on the harbours of Wick, Fraserburgh, and Peterhead. (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Public Works Loan Commissioners have advanced to the Wick and Pulteney Town Harbour Trustees £125,000 (of which sum, however, a large amount was expended on the breakwater which was totally destroyed by storms, and was remitted by The Public Works Loans Act, 1902); the Fraserburgh Harbour Commissioners, £195,000; the Peterhead Harbour Trustees, £72,000. A grant of £11,745 has also been paid to the Fraserburgh Hariour Commissioners.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what was the total cost of maintaining the non-provided schools in England and Wales during the educational year 1904–5, distinguishing the amounts received from Government grants, local taxation, voluntary contributions, endowments, and any other sources of revenue; and what during the same period was the annual value of the school buildings of such schools. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I am afraid that the Board do not possess any of the information asked for in the Question.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that conflicting orders have been given to school managers by His Majesty's inspectors and those appointed by education committees of county councils with reference to structural alterations; and if he will consider the desirability of issuing a circular strictly defining the duties of His Majesty's inspectors in such cases. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) His Majesty's inspectors have no power to give orders as to structural alterations; they report to the Board. It is for the Board to decide to what extent the inspector's suggestions shall be enforced; but in practice the local education authority has always an opportunity of expressing an opinion before a final decision is arrived at. The relations of a local authority's inspector to his authority are presumably of a similar character. Managers of voluntary schools possess a right of appeal to the Board as to the reasonableness of a local authority's requirements; and I do not think it would be necessary or desirable to issue a circular to His Majesty's inspectors on the subject of duties which are already clearly defined and understood.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General how many judicial trustees have been appointed under the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896. (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I have not yet been able to ascertain the exact figures, but the number is, I understand, not large.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a telegraphist, named Bullamore, who was absent from duty at the Central Office from 12th April to 4th May, has had his pay stopped for this period; and whether, seeing that the telegraphist provided medical certificates showing that the absence during the whole of this period was due to illness, he will explain the reason for punishing the telegraphist for obeying the injunctions of his medical advisers, as well as for his decision to set aside the expressed opinions of two medical men. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Mr. Bullamore has been examined by the Chief Medical Officer of the Post Office as well as by the Medical Referee to the Treasury, and both gentlemen are of opinion that he was and is fit for work, and that he will not be injured by it. This opinion is not concurred in by the private practitioners whom Mr. Bullamore consulted, but I am not prepared to set it aside for that reason. Mr. Bullamore was informed in March last that pay could not be allowed in respect of further sick absences except upon the recommendation of my official medical advisers.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether, since it was stated that the question of competency was the one that would have effect when officers would be selected for the marine post office, he will say if it is his intention to appoint the officers on the Dublin and Queenstown T. P. O., in view of the fact that these men have been dealing with American mails for twenty years, and that by their training they are as well fitted for the position of sorting clerks on the marine post office as any other officials. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) In reply to this Question, I cannot do better than refer to the Answer gived to a Question on the same subject, asked on the 9th instant†. As I then intimated, convenience in working the system and competency to perform the duties will govern the selection of officers; and I cannot pledge myself to the employment of men willing to be transferred to Liverpool, irrespectively of the convenience of the service.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to reply to the petition sent to him by the Ilford postmen

† See (4) Debates, CXIV., 1339.

on 21st February, and acknowledged by the Secretary of the General Post Office about the 8th March, who promised that it should receive due consideration; and whether he will grant the Ilford postmen a maximum wage of 28s., seeing that the maximum wage in the adjacent parish of East Ham, where rent and cost of living is cheaper, is 30s. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The petition from the Ilford postmen is receiving attention, and a reply will be given to the memorialists as soon as the necessary inquiries have been completed. I am not in a position to say at present what the decision will be.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what is the number of superior appointments to be created in the telegraph office and in the sorting office, Dublin, as the result of the new scheme; and whether the appointments will be given to the staffs of the Dublin Office, and in each case the selections will be made solely according to seniority and efficiency. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The question of the number of additional superior appointments to be created in the Dublin Post Office is being considered, and the result will be announced to the staff in due course. The officers promoted will be those best fitted for the higher posts, due regard being paid to seniority.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that certain officers employed on the Great Southern and Western Travelling Post Office have to proceed from Dublin to Cork on two days of the week, notwithstanding that they were originally appointed on the condition that Limerick Junction was to be the terminus of the journey, and that on the other four days of the week the officers travel to Limerick Junction only; and whether, seeing that the result of the trips to Cork necessitates the officers paying for lodgings in Dublin, Cork, and Limerick Junction, and that the journey from Dublin to Cork and back in a single day has been condemned by the medical officer, he will see that the practice is discontinued and the men required to travel according to the original stipulation only. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will make inquiry on this subject and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the terms of the reference to the Committee just appointed on Reformatory and Industrial Schools will include the consideration of the question of pensions or superannuation allowances for masters, matrons, and officers of the schools. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The Answer is in the negative. The terms of reference to the Committee, which the hon. and gallant Member will have seen in the Press notices, relate only to the provision of funds for the schools; and it is not proposed to extend the inquiry further.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a report from either or both the local medical inspectors under the Factory and Workshop Act as to the fatal case of anthrax at Wellingborough to a shoe hand named Albert Jones; whether such report, if any, indicates any special point on which further regulations will be made to better secure the safety of those who have to handle leather; and, if no such report has been received, whether he will cause a special inquiry to be held into the circumstances attending the death of Albert Jones, and take any further steps necessary to ensure greater safety in this class of work. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The fatal case of anthrax in a boot and shoe factory to which the hon. Member refers has been the subject of careful investigation. It is impossible to trace with certainty the cause of infection; but it seems probable that the disease may have been contracted from spores of anthrax in the leather, which had retained their vitality through all the tanning processes. As no raw hides or skins are used in the factory in question no special rules or regulations under the Factory Act apply to it; and in view of the extreme rarity of such cases as the present one, and of the doubt as to the source of the infection, no case is as yet made out for any special action.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet consulted the Government of India on the Question put to him on 24th March,† 1904, as to whether the attention of his military advisers has been directed to the fact that, as a result of the unification of the Indian Army, officers are liable to be shifted on promotion, and more frequently without promotion, from one end of India to another, sometimes within short periods, each change involving a break up and renewal of establishment and a considerable expense to the officer concerned: and whether, at least in cases where the transfer is not accompanied by substantial promotion, but is made with no advantage to the individual, reasonable compensation for the expense involved to him by such transfer could be awarded, and what steps have been taken. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have consulted the Government of India, who reply that, while the liability of military officers to transfer is inseparable from the conditions of military service, no recent changes have been made in regulations; and transfers, though sometimes necessary for the good of the service, are rare in the case of regimental officers, and with regard to staff officers are never ordered without due consideration. The travelling expenses of officers on transfer are paid.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the application of John O'Driscoll to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement in the evicted farm at Coolclogher, Hegarty Estate, near Millstreet, county Cork, whether, in view of the denial by

† See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 606.

of the landlord's statement as to his status as an evicted tenant, and also to the fact that the holding is untenanted, the Commissioners will direct an inspector to examine into all the circumstances of the case and give the evicted tenant's representative an opportunity of explaining his claims under the provisions of the Land Act of 1903. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long,) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to his Questions of 4th† and 13th§ April last. The owner of this estate has not expressed any desire to sell it, and the Commissioners, therefore, do not propose to direct any inquiry into the matter.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Estates Commissioners purchased recently from Dr. Joyce, J.P., Carrick-more, county Tyrone, a farm of sixty-nine acres for the purpose of transferring it to a Mr. Dunlop, from county Donegal, and that Dunlop refuses to pay instalments because the arable acreage is less than represented by the vendor; and will he say if the farm was inspected and mapped and extent of arable ground stated thereon; what is the Poor Law valuation and the amount of the purchase money; and whether, in view of the second inspection made at the request of Dunlop, will he state whether the second inspector's report bears out the contention of Dunlop that the arable acreage is less than represented by the vendor. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Estates Commissioners were not the purchasers in this case; Mr. Dunlop purchased direct from the vendor. The Commissioners had the lands inspected, with the object of satisfying themselves as to the security, and, being so satisfied, they sanctioned the advance. Dunlop has raised objection to pay the annuity upon the grounds stated, but the Commissioners cannot entertain this objection, and proceedings are being taken for the recovery of the amount due.

‡ See (4) Debates, cxliv., 307.

§ See (4) Debates, cxlv., 51.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he intends carrying out the recommendations contained in the Commissioners' Reports of 1901 in regard to increased pay of Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if so, when. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Effect has already been given to such of the recommendations of the Committee as do not involve legislation. I am unable at present to say when legislation on the subject can be introduced.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether any charges have been made by Patrick Murphy, of Munhin, Bangor-Erris, county Mayo, against members of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed in Belmullet and in Bangor-Erris, county Mayo, and, if so, has any inquiry into these charges been ordered by the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Yes, Sir, charges of various kinds against several members of the force have been made by the person named. These complaints were carefully investigated and found to be either unfounded or frivolous, and to have been made from vindictive motives.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that young men joining the Dublin Metropolitan Police are guaranteed that all promotions shall be made from the ranks of the force, according to seniority, ability, and good conduct, no reference being made to influence; and whether he can say if those conditions have been observed in filling the higher positions in the force. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Promotions are made from the ranks, and are regulated by the fulfilment of requirements, of which influence is certainly not one, common to all disciplined forces of police.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the reason of the delay in paying to the teacher of the Armagh M. N. School, Roll No. 101, his salary for the quarter ending the 31st March, notwithstanding that his quarterly return and salary claim were forwarded to the Education Office on 1st April. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The senior inspector has been directed to inquire into a charge which has been preferred against this teacher, and, pending the receipt of the inspector's report, payment of salary has been withheld.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the recent report of Surgeon-General Evatt, as to the condition of the Irish Poor Law Medical Service, and if he will grant a small Committee to consider the grievances complained of. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover to the similar Question addressed to him on the 29th April†, 1904.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Board of Agriculture have made any experiments regarding the impregnation of the soil with nitrogen bacteria; whether the experiments have proved successful; and, if so, will steps be taken to instruct the Irish farmers in this process. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department have inoculated soils at numerous centres in the manner referred to in the Question, but until the crops have had time to grow it is impossible to say with what results. If the system proves successful the agricultural instructors appointed by county committees will show farmers how to use the preparation.

† See (4) Debates, cxxxiv., 12.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of Chinamen who have been sentenced to corporal punishment since the introduction of indentured labour into the Transvaal, the number of strokes in each case, and in how many instances the sentence was carried out. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Returns for July to January, published in [Cd. 2401], show, as I understand, that five were sentenced during that period to twenty strokes for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, the Return for February which was subsequently received shows one case sentenced to ten strokes for the same offence. The sentences were, I understand, carried out. I should add that, as is pointed out at page 41 of [Cd. 2401], by the law of the Colony no sentence of whipping imposed by a magistrate can be carried out till the record is sent to and the sentence confirmed by a Judge of the Supreme Court.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what number of pistols were manufactured at the Enfield Small Arms Factory and the cost per pistol for the years 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, and 1885; what was the amount spent on plant and machinery for pistols at Enfield for the same period; and what has become of the machinery. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) As regards the first part of the Question a statement containing the required statistics is attached. As regards the second part of the Question the amounts expended cannot be ascertained as no separate account for plant and machinery for pistols was kept. As regards the third part of the Question such machines as could be utilised and were worth conversion were altered and used for the manufacture of rifles, and the remainder were brought to produce.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in South Africa soldiers are moved by railway in carriages which are set apart for natives, and in which no white man will travel, and that when soldiers are placed in these carriages slips marked "soldiers," or "military," and which are kept available for this purpose, are pasted over the word "natives"; and whether, in the interests of the Army, he will take steps to have this practice discontinued, and British troops conveyed under the same conditions and in the same carriages as other white men.

Nothing is known at the War Office of the matter alleged in the Question. Inquiries will, however, be made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain as to the protests made by Commanding Officers against this treatment of their men?

No such complaints have been received at the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if any modifications in the terms of the Tibet Convention have been agreed upon in consequence of the negotiations that have recently taken place between Great Britain and China; if so, will he state the nature and particulars of the changes to be effected; and, further, if the Government of India have been consulted on the subject.

The negotiations as to the adhesion of China to the Tibet Convention are still proceeding, and I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject. The negotiations are being conducted on behalf of His Majesty's Government in India by the Government of India.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now lay upon the Table the terms of the provisional agreement which has been concluded with the Mullah.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to my hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn on the 10th inst†. There is no object in laying the terms of a provisional agreement which is to be superseded by the fuller treaty concluded with the Italian Government.

Is there any special reason for withholding this agreement?

There is no reason whatever.

How does the noble Lord know that there is no object in laying it on the Table of the House?

It is an incomplete document, merely an abbreviated form of the Italian Agreement, and it is to be superseded by another treaty.

Can the noble Lord give an explanation of the long delay in the information coming to the Government as to the actual position between them and the Mullah. The arrangement was made six or eight weeks ago.

I gave an identical Answer ten days ago. Some of the delay has been caused through the transmission of telegrams between this country and Somaliland.

Will the definitive agreement, when it

† See (4) Debates, cxlv., 1478.

arrives, be laid on the Table of the house?

Oh, certainly.

Will it have the Mullah's signature?

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the statement of Sir E. W. Hamilton, in his evidence given before the Select Committee on Savings Banks Funds, 1902 (Question 1152), that if Consols went down to 90 there would be a serious loss on the capital account of the savings banks; and whether, as Consols have fallen to 90 and lower, he will say if this loss on the capital account has been incurred; and, if so, is it his intention to propose measures for making the same good.

Yes, Sir; I have seen Sir E. Hamilton's evidence before the Committee in which he pointed out that, if Consols went down to 90 and it were necessary to realise them at that price, a great loss of capital would be incurred—not, however, by the savings bank depositors, but by the Exchequer. But no necessity has arisen, or, as far as I can see, is likely to arise, for selling at current prices the Consols which are held as permanent investments. No such loss has therefore been realised, and no special measures are necessary in respect of the savings banks.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state whether men from the Liverpool Post Office have been appointed to the marine post office which is to be established on the American liners; and does he intend to appoint any officials from the Dublin Office who have for years dealt efficiently with American mails, and who are willing to transfer to Liverpool in the event of their being selected for the duty.

In reply to this Question and that asked by the hon. Member for the College Division of Dublin, I cannot do better than refer to the Answer given to a Question on the same subject asked on the 9th instant.† As I then intimated, convenience in working the system and competency to perform the duties will govern the selection of officers; and I cannot pledge myself to the employment of men willing to be transferred to Liverpool, irrespectively of the convenience of the service.

asked whether the principle of natural selection that prevailed on the Treasury Bench would be adopted.

Yes, Sir. The best man for the job.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether, since it was stated that the question of competency was the one that would have effect when officers would be selected for the marine post office, he will say if it is his intention to appoint the officers on the Dublin and Queenstown T. P. O., in view of the fact that these men have been dealing with American mails for twenty years, and that by their training they are as well fitted for the position of sorting clerks on the marine post office as any other officials.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the Rev. Charles Jennings (who on Friday the 5th inst. was sent to Worcester Gaol for refusing to pay the education rate), that he took with him to prison three books, viz. "The Imitation

† See (4) Debates, cxlv., 13 9.

of Christ," by Thomas à Kempis, the Commentaries of Julius Cæsar, and Charles Lamb's "Essays of Elia," that he was allowed to retain the Thomas à Kempis and Cæsar, but was not allowed to keep the "Essays of Elia"; will he say what authority is responsible for this action, and on what grounds was this selection of books made; and whether the exercise of such authority meets with the sanction of the Prison Commissioners.

The prison rules provide for the supply to prisoners of books from the prison library, and do not allow them to have others, except by special authority. In this case the governor, out of special consideration to the prisoner, who was only under a sentence of seven days, allowed him to have two of his own books to read as well as a supply from the library, and in all the circumstances I entirely agree with the Prison Commissioners in thinking that he would not have been justified in allowing more than two.

said the matter was one for the discretion of the governor.

What authority settles what books shall be in the prison library?

I cannot say, but I will ascertain if the hon. Gentleman desires.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report of the inquiry into the cause of the telephone fires at the Mansion House Chambers and Oxford Court, Cannon Street, which disclosed the fact that the fires broke out simultaneously through a telephone cable coming into contact with a high tension current; and, in view of expert evidence as to the danger of such currents being in proximity to telephone cables will he consider the expediency of appointing a Committee to inquire into the subject of telephone risks and their prevention.

My attention has been called to this matter by a report made to me by the coroner for the City of London, and I have also consulted the authorities of the General Post Office. I understand that the question of preventing the occurrence of similar fires in the future raises no problems of special difficulty. The expert advisers of the General Post Office, and also, I do not doubt, those of the National Telephone Company, constantly keep in view the prevention of risks arising from the laying of telephone cables, and in these circumstances I agree with the coroner's jury in thinking that it is not necessary to hold a Government inquiry.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Denbighshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the veterinary and other yards to which the Metropolitan Police take stray dogs are subject to any and what inspection, and if there exists any and what prescribed method of destroying such dogs; whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the yard in High Street, Bromley, a dog was recently buried alive under the mistaken belief that it had been destroyed, and that at the same yard a dog was recently destroyed by suffocation and suffered great agony during the process; and whether he proposes to take any and what action in the matter.

Dogs which are seized by the Metropolitan Police within the county of London or within the limits of the Metropolitan Streets Act are conveyed by them to the Dogs Home at Battersea. The local authorities outside the County of London are the county and borough councils, who appoint their own receiving places for dogs and their own veterinary inspectors, and are solely responsible for the control and inspection of those places and for the method of destruction adopted. The yard in the High Street, Bromley, is under the Kent County Council. I am informed that the dogs are never suffocated there, but they are destroyed by means of prussic acid poisoning. It appears that on the 4th August, 1904, a dog which had been so poisoned by the veterinary inspector and which apparently was dead was buried lightly in a pit, but was subsequently found to be alive and was rescued. The case was investigated by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who came to the conclusion, I understand, that no cruelty was intentionally committed, but recommended that a considerable time should elapse between the poisoning and the burial of the dog.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that numerous Private Bills dealing with the supply of electricity in bulk within the Metropolitan district are now under consideration by a Select Committee of the House of Lords, the Government intend to proceed with their Supply of Electricity Bill; and, if so, when; and whether, in the event of the Government proceeding with that Bill, he will see that the Second Reading is taken in time to allow it to be referred to the same Select Committee to which such, if any, of the Private Bills as come down from the House of Lords are referred.

The principal object of the Supply of Electricity Bill is to facilitate procedure by Provisional Order instead of by Bill, and thus to save expense to local authorities and companies who may wish to obtain statutory powers for electric supply. I hope to be able to proceed with the Bill, which was fully considered by a Committee in another place last year, as soon as public business admits. The Bill is a Public Bill and has no special reference to the Metropolitan district. I do not think it would be at all convenient to refer a Public Bill to a Committee charged with the duty of considering the specific proposals of certain Local Bills.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he has received a report of an accident which occurred at Copy Pit, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, on 23rd April last, to the 9.20 p.m. goods train, Hollinwood to Rose Grove, which consisted of 120 loaded wagons, weight 1,000 tons, with, two engines in front and one in the rear, due to the drawbar hook of the eightieth wagon from the train engine breaking whilst the train, owing to its length, hung over both sides of the summit, and the latter portion running back and off the line at some catch points; and whether he proposes to take any action with a view to preventing such accidents.

I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he has received a report of a breakaway which occurred at Copy Pit, Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, on 5th May instant, to the 7.23 p.m. goods train from Leeds to Rose Grove, consisting of eighty loaded wagons with two engines in front and one in the rear, the front portion running away to Cliviger East Cabin; whether he can state the number of accidents and breakaways which have occurred during the last three years in this district of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, and if they were due to the length of the trains; and whether he will take immediate action with a view to preventing such accidents.

Neither of these accidents has been reported to the Board of Trade, nor do the circumstances as stated by the hon. Member appear to have been such as to require them to be reported, if, as I gather, no personal injury resulted. Since the 1st January, 1902, eleven accidents in the district referred to, due to the breaking away of parts of goods trains, have been reported by the railway company in question, although in eight of these cases no one was injured. The Board's information does not show whether the length of the trains caused or contributed to any of these accidents. Advantage will be taken of an inquiry about to be held by one of the Board's inspecting officers into another accident in the neighbourhood to make some investigation into the general question to which the hon. Member has drawn attention.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has now considered the desirableness of making any charge incurred under the Order dealing with the feeding of hungry children in London a charge upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, and not upon the poor rate for each parish; and, if so, whether he has arrived at any decision upon the matter.

As the hon. Member is aware, legislation would be necessary to give effect to his suggestion. I could not give any promise to introduce a Bill for this purpose.

Will the Local Government Board spread the incidence of this cost over London?

I cannot go beyond what I said on a previous occasion. I think the matter is worthy of consideration, but I do not see any chance of introducing the necessary legislation this session.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Order dealing with the feeding of hungry children will enable boards of guardians to assist under it fatherless children living with their mothers, and to assist the children of wives not living with their husbands.

The Order would not apply in the first case mentioned in the Question, or in the second, if the child was not residing with the father. The limitations in the Order are consequent on the terms of the enactments under which it was issued, but in any case of the kind referred to, if the child was, in fact, destitute of necessary food, and application for relief was made on his behalf to the guardians or the relieving officer by any responsible person, it would be incumbent on the guardians, and in a case of sudden or urgent necessity on the relieving officer, to afford the requisite relief. In general, however, it could not be given on loan.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has seen any of the furniture removal vans, with locomotive fittings and with another furniture van attached as a trailer, which are now occupying the streets of the Metropolis, and which are permitted under the heavy motorcar regulations to travel at a speed far in excess of what is allowed to horse traffic; and whether he will take steps by personal observation and otherwise to examine the situation and make such modifications as will restore to the general public the free use of the public roads.

I understand there are a certain number of vans answering to the description in the Question at present in use in the Metropolis. Under the regulations the speed of a heavy motor-car drawing a trailer is not to exceed five miles an hour, and I understand that the police have been directed to see that the vehicles in question do not proceed at a speed in excess of the legal maximum.

But is it not a fact that these heavy motor-cars with rubber tyres are allowed to go eight miles an hour?

I do not think these cars have rubber tyres.

I am certain that under the regulations they can travel eight miles an hour and go much quicker than five miles.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what part the audit of the Local Government Board has played in connection with the frauds of which the late town clerk of Holborn has been convicted; whether he has any official information showing that robberies to the amount of thousands of pounds have for years been passed by the audit, which, but for the fact that the town clerk became ill, would not have been discovered; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.

At the last audit, the district auditor discovered that Mr. Jones, the late town clerk of Holborn, had improperly retained a large sum received by him on behalf of the borough council, and as a result of this discovery all the frauds of which Mr. Jones was convicted were at once brought to light. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative, and I may say that it was prior to Mr. Jones's illness that the improper retention of a considerable part of the moneys in question was discovered by the auditor, who thereupon called upon Mr. Jones to produce proof that he had not received any part of the remainder. The case does not appear to be one in which it is necessary that I should take any action.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a request that some person representing the Government should assist the Holborn Borough Council in its present inquiry into its administration; and, if so, whether he can comply with the request.

I received a letter from the Holborn Borough Council, in which they stated that while feeling themselves perfectly competent to investigate their own affairs they would welcome the presence of any official the Local Government Board would care to send to assist at the meetings of the special committee investigating the defalcations of the late town clerk. This communication received my consideration, but I did not think it necessary to avail myself of the offer of the council.

Then does the right hon. Gentleman propose to allow this investigation to be resumed without any appearance at the inquiry on the part of his Department?

I do not think the interference of the Local Government Board is called for. Had the borough council requested me to send an official I might have done so, but they did not.

But you had a letter from the council?

Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to argue the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take action in accordance with the last clause of the Question?

There has been no request.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that during last year the Holborn Borough Council spent £1,200 in opposing Bills affecting London, and that Messrs. Bircham and Co., Parliamentary agents to the borough, paid to the late town clerk, unknown to the Holborn Borough Council, 33⅓ per cent. commission of all profit charges on such business; and whether he will take steps to extend the provisions of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, to such payments.

I am informed that the expenses referred to in the first part of the Question approximated to the sum mentioned. It is stated in a letter from Messrs. Bircham & Co. published in the Press that they never held any appointment or retainer from the borough council, but that for some eighteen years past they had undertaken for Mr. Jones (the late town clerk) on "agency terms" certain work in connection with Parliamentary business, and that under this arrangement they made certain payments to him. The question of any extension of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, is hardly one for the Local Government Board, but I may remind the hon. Member that the Prime Minister stated on Thursday last† that payments of this description are now engaging the attention of the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, and also of the Incorporated Law Society.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Bircham's bill was paid in full by the Holborn Town Council and that the money which Jones received was received secretly by him and without the knowledge of the council? If so, is not this a matter coming under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act?

It may be so, but I am not prepared to say "Yes" or "No." It would not be a matter for the Local Government Board, but rather for the law officers of the Crown.

The right hon. Gentleman says Messrs. Bircham had long done business on "agency terms." What is the meaning of that phrase?

I said that was the statement made to me in a letter from Messrs. Bircham.

But the right hon. Gentleman adopted it.

I am not well acquainted with the facts. I simply conveyed to the House the information given to me.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has any further information as to the nature of the payments made by Messrs. Bircham & Co., Parliamentary agents, by way of commission to the late town clerk of Holborn; and whether he is aware that part of this commission has, since the trial, been refunded to the borough council.

† See page 57.

My right hon. friend has asked mo to answer this Question. I understand that the facts are as follows: Mr. Jones was solicitor to the Holborn Borough Council, and employed Messrs. Bircham as Parliamentary agents upon. What are known as "agency terms," that is, that the fees should be divided between the solicitor and the agents. Messrs. Bircham accordingly paid Jones as his share of the fees which they had received two cheques; one for £116 13s. in respect of work up to the end of 1903, and the other for £94 14s. for work up to the end of 1904. The first of these cheques was cashed by Jones, but the cheque for £94 14s. was found uncashed among his papers by the borough council after his defalcations had come to light. The council claimed that they were entitled to it, and Messrs. Bircham paid to them the amount on receiving their indemnity against other claims by Jones or his representatives. It now appears that Jones, by the terms of his engagement with the council, was bound to hand over to them all fees received by him during his tenure of office, but Messrs. Bircham were not aware of this arrangement. Jones did not account for these fees, and retained for his own use the amount of the cheque cashed by him for £116 13s., concealing the fact that he had received it. Work upon agency terms is well known, and payments made in respect of it cannot be correctly described as "commission." Work upon such terms is very common as between solicitors, and has prevailed extensively as between Parliamentary agents and solicitors. One of the recommendations of a Joint Committee of both Houses in 1876 was that such division of fees as between Parliamentary agents and solicitors should be prohibited. Debates took place in both Houses upon this question on July 28th and August 2nd, 1876. There was then, and always has been, a great division of opinion on this subject, and no action was taken on the Report of 1876. The question of the propriety of such agency terms in the case of Parliamentary agents is now under the consideration of the authorities of both Houses.

May I ask whether the Holborn Borough Council were aware of these payments from Messrs. Bircham to Jones?

I suppose the town council knew nothing of the fact; but for eighteen years similar arrangements as to agency terms had existed. I have just said that these payments were concealed by Jones from the council.

Jones had not been town clerk for eighteen years; and when he was appointed quite a different set of circumstances arose, of which Messrs. Bircham were fully aware.

The difference is not of the slightest importance. Before the arrangements with the borough council, Jones was clerk for the St. Giles's Board, and then he employed Messrs. Bircham. When the St. Giles's Board ceased to exist, Jones became town clerk of the Holborn Borough Council, and still employed Messrs. Bircham on the same terms.

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any objection to placing on the Table of the House the cross-examination of Messrs. Bircham which took place at this inquiry?

It is open to any hon. Member to look at it.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that if the basis of the present assessment of the Houses of Parliament, viz.: £40,000, were amended to accord with the basis of the assessment of the Carlton Club, it would be £105,000, and of the National Liberal Club, £122,000; and whether, in view of the rising rates in London, he will take steps to ensure Government property bearing its proper share of rating.

The valuation of the Houses of Parliament was specifically mentioned in the Treasury Minute of February 7th, 1896, which contained the following passage—"The Houses of Parliament have hitherto been exempt from contributions (except as regards the residential portion) on the ground of being a Royal Palace. My Lords regard this as a case in which some contribution may be allowed, but the rules for the assessment of private property are not applicable, and they therefore sanction the payment of a moderate contribution to be fixed with due regard to the peculiar character of the property." Having regard to the peculiar character of the property, the contribution which is based on a rateable value of £40,000 is, in the opinion of the Treasury, a reasonable one.

May I ask whether in view of the peculiar character of the rating burdens in London the hon. Gentleman will recommend an increase in the Government contribution?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that intimation was given that a Committee might be appointed to consider the whole subject of the rating of Government property, including the Palace of Westminster. Is there still a willingness to appoint that Committee?

The matter was very carefully investigated by the official responsible for the Treasury in conjunction with the local authority, and the figure was agreed upon as reasonable. I can hold out no hope that the matter will be brought forward again. In reply to the hon. Member for Islington the Question is one which should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If such an intimation were given, and if there is any strong feeling on the subject, no doubt a Committee might be appointed.

Is it not a fact that this payment of rates on Government property accounts for £500,000 increase in the Civil Service Estimates in the last few years.

Yes, Sir.

The investigation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred took place as far back as 1896, and in view of the recent rise in the rates I submit another revision is necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state what, if any, concessions he is prepared to make in answer to the petition of the Customs watchers.

I have this matter still under my consideration.

This question has now been under consideration a very long time. I will repeat the Question again next Monday.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state the grounds upon which the whole of the education grants payable to the local education authority of Merionethshire, in the months of March and April last, have been withheld; and for how long it is proposed to withhold such grants.

No March grants have been withheld; all grants which normally matured for payment during the financial year 1904–5 have been paid. The instalments of fee grant due in April last have been paid, less the sums deducted for expenses properly incurred by managers, and for which provision should have been made by the local education authority during the period from 30th September 1903, to 30th October 1904. No annual grants fall due for payment, as regards Merioneth schools, during the month of April owing to the incidence of the school years. The aid grant under Section 10 of the Act of 1902 is paid in respect of the financial year, or rather for so much of it as a school is open. It may be paid by instalments in advance from April 1st onwards, and the Board are now considering what payments they may properly make in respect of the county of Merioneth.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many agricultural inspectors are employed by the Irish Department of Agriculture, what are their names, what are the qualifications of those officials for their present duties, and what was their occupation before they received the appointment of agricultural inspectors.

Detailed information in these matters will be printed with to-night's Votes.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the sale of certain estates in the county of Kildare has been delayed and hampered owing to ignorance on the part of the parties as to the terms upon which the Trustees of Trinity College, Dublin, are willing to sell the head rents of the same; can he say whether the Trinity College Estates Commission appointed to inquire into the sale of the Trinity College estates has yet reported; and whether it will deal with the question of the terms on which such head rents will be sold.

I have no information to the effect stated in the first part of the Question. The estates referred to have not come before the Estates Commissioners. As to the remainder of the Question, I would ask the hon. Member to await the Report of the Trinity College Commission, which has been received and will shortly be laid on the Table.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sale of certain estates in county Kildare cannot be completed until the Report has been received?

There will be no delay in laying the Report.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieuenant of Ireland whether, before authorising the employment of a special police force to carry out the eviction of Antony Loftus on the Bingham Estate, at Doolough, Belmullet, county mayo, on April 26th last, he had made himself acquainted with the facts of he case; whether he is aware that the andlord had given time to the tenant for he payment of the one-and-a-half year's rent due, together with the costs, till May 12th; that the tenant had only just been supplied with seed potatoes by the local board of guardians in consequence of the failure of his crop the previous year; and that the full amount due was tendered to the sheriff immediately before; the eviction took place, and was refused; and will he say whether any negotiations for the sale of this property passed between the Estates Commission or the Congested Districts Board and the landlord; and, if not, will he suggest to the Congested Districts Board the advisability of opening negotiations with the landlord, with the object of purchasing this property and restoring the evicted tenant to his former status thereon.

This eviction was carried out by the sheriff, for whose protection and upon whose requisition, a force of four police attended in the, ordinary and necessary discharge of their duty. The Executive have no power to refuse such protection. I have no information as to the facts of the case. I understand that on March 7th the tenant received a supply of seed potatoes, as stated. So far as the police are aware, the amount due was not tendered to the sheriff. No negotiations for the sale of this property have passed between the landlord and the Estates Commissioners or Congested Districts Board. The Board are prepared to consider any offer which may be made to them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether it is on his instructions that the Estates Commissioners are acting in peremptorily requiring the tenants on Lord Longford's Estate, in Westmeath, to sign agreements to purchase their holdings not at the value of the landlord's interest in those holdings, but in excess of the joint value of the landlord's and tenants' interest added together, and threatening penalties upon those tenants if they refuse to sign such agreements within a week.

The estate is being sold by direct agreement between the landlord and tenants. One tenant refused to purchase on the same terms as the other tenants. The inspector reported that this refusal was unreasonable, and the tenant was accordingly informed that unless he should agree to buy his holding would be omitted from the estate to be sold.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of Mr O'Keefe. On the Bligh Estate county Meath, and other cases which have been brought under the notice of the Estates Commissioners, pressure by writs and other contrivances has been applied to tenants for the purpose of compelling them to sign agreements to purchase at prices in excess of the entire value of their holdings, including the landlord's interest and their own; and whether he will instruct the Estates Commissioners to have the landlord's interest in all holdings so affected valued irrespective of any agreements signed under duress, as a guarantee that the land so affected would be sufficient security for the moneys advanced by the state.

The application for sale includes the holding of Mr. P. O'Keefe, who, it is stated refuses to Purchase, and the vendor has asked that the holding be excluded from the sale. Before deciding the matter, the Commissioners will through their inspector, inquire as to the reasonableness of Mr. O'Keefe's refusal to buy. If any tenant has been forced by duress to enter into any agreement to purchase he has a cheap and easy method under Section 10 of the Act of 1885 of having the agreement revoked. If he does not take that course the sale of the holding must be dealt with under the ordinary practice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Minutes of all meetings of the Commissioners of National Education at which Rule 127 (b) was considered.

This question will be considered by the Commissioners at their next meeting, on the 23rd instant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say on what date the claim of the principal teacher of school, Roll No. 11,041, Circuit 9B, county Cavan, to an increment of good-service salary was made; and whether any unsatisfactory report was made upon the school during the triennial period; and, if so, on what date.

The claim was made on April 15th, 1904. An unsatisfactory report had been made on July 14th, 1903. The claim is now being reconsidered in connection with a recent representation received from the manager on behalf of the teacher.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the neighbourhood of Athenry the police have been in the habit of visiting the houses of the people at night, forcing the people to get out of bed to be inspected and interrogated; and will he say by what authority such domiciliary visits are carried out.

The police have visited certain houses in the district of Athenry for the purpose of obtaining information in respect to the prevention and detection of crime. This i a fundamental duty of the police which, as peace officers, they are bound to discharge. There is not the smallest foundation for the suggestion that they have forced people to get out of bed to be inspected and interrogated. The visits of the police were not made at times when the inmates of houses were in bed, and they have always been careful not to cause inconvenience in any way to the persons visited.

My information is that the people were compelled to get out of bed.

I have no information as to the precise hours, but I am informed that the visits were not made at times at which the people ought to be in bed.

What was the hour? By what right do the police insist upon entering people's houses without warrant?

I will endeavour to ascertain whether there is any further information as to the hour at which these proceedings were taken.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any negotiations have yet been set on foot or opened with Colonel Dopping Hepen-stall for the purchase of his estate at Derrycassan by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, whether the applications of the thirteen evicted tenants on this estate for restoration to their former or equivalent holdings will be favourably considered.

No proceedings for the sale of this estate have yet been instituted before the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Estates Commissioners propose to admit William Fox, an evicted tenant's son on the King Harman (county Longford) Estate, to the possession of that part of his father's former holding which they have decided to allow him to purchase under the Land Act of 1903.

The Commissioners are awaiting the decision of the Judicial Commissioner on certain legal points which have been raised, before deciding whether they will make an advance in this case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a recent petty sessions Court, held at Longford, the county inspector of police there, Mr. Henry R. M'Dermott, refused to obey a witness summons issued by order of the Court, and duly served upon him with the usual viaticum; whether, before refusing to obey the summons, Mr. M'Dermott took the advice of the law officers of the Crown or the Constabulary authorities; and whether the police code provides any special exemption in the case of police officers any more than in that of other persons for such obedience.

The county inspector did not attend, because, owing to an informality in the proceedings, it had been decided to withdraw the case in which he was summoned as a witness. He explained the reasons for his absence to the magistrates, who did not deem his attendance necessary. The county inspector did not consult either the law officers or the Constabulary authorities. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.

Did not the inspector himself decide that the proceedings were not in order, so that he might evade the summons?

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the proportion which the income-tax assessment on which taxes were contributed by Ireland bears to that of Great Britain, averaged for the last five years available.

The percentage of income-tax contributed by Ireland, as compared with that contributed by Great Britain, is, after making the necessary adjustments in accordance with the practice followed in preparing "Financial Relations" Returns, as follows:—

	Ireland.	Great Britain.
1899—1900	3·77	96·23
1900—1901	3·54	96·46
1901—1902	3·32	96·68
1902—1903	3·31	96·69
1903—1904	3·73	96·27

Ought not these to be the figures on which the taxation is levied, seeing that they represent the taxable capacity of the two countries?

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what proportion the total trade imports and exports of Ireland bears to that of England as suggested by Article 7 of the Act of Union, 1800.

As I stated last year, in answer to the hon. Member for West Islington, no machinery exists for collecting complete statistics of goods removed from port to port within the United Kindom, and, in the absence of the requisite data, the proportion between Ireland and England cannot be stated.

was understood to say that according to the Act of Union these statistics were to be issued every twenty years, and that the right hon. Gentleman was infringing the Act by not issuing them.

I can not give figures which are not available

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will, before the forthcoming debate on arterial drainage, cause to be circulated amongst the Parliamentary Papers the instructions to, and other correspondence with, Sir William Binnie, who has been commissioned to report on the Lough Neagh drainage question.

I have not seen the correspondence referred to, but I understand that my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant has been in communication with Sir Alexander Binnie. Any Questions on that subject should therefore be addressed to him.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the trial of processes last week at the Belfast Quarter Sessions against certain occupiers of flooded lands in Lough Neagh district, in the course of which the drainage trustees admitted that the lands were flooded although the actions were brought for the cost of maintaining them drained; and whether, pending the forthcoming report from Sir William Binnie, he will take steps to suspend further proceedings in such cases.

I am informed that processes have been served and judgment given against several persons liable for the payment of Lough Neagh drainage maintenance rates, but I have no knowledge that any such admissions as that indicated in the Question were made by the trustees. In any case, the Government have no authority to intervene as suggested.

If I send the hon. Member newspaper reports containing these admissions, will he read them?

I shall be delighted to read anything the hon. Member sends me.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on 25th March last a postman called Henderson, of Vernersbridge, county Armagh, discharged a revolver at a boy named Hamill; that Henderson always takes part in Orange disturbances in this locality; and whether he will consider the advisability of relieving him of his present public duties.

I have no information on the subject, but I am making inquiry and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that complaint has been made to the War Office of the damage done to the roads near Crosshaven, county Cork, by their contractor in the conveyance of material to the Government works by traction engines; and whether, seeing that Cross-haven is a health resort, and in view of the present condition of the roads, orders will be given to have them immediately put in proper repair.

Orders have already been given for the repair of the roads at Crosshaven which have been damaged, and these repairs are already well advanced.

Will the right hon. Gentleman hurry up the contractors? At the rate they are going on at present the season will be over before the roads are repaired.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will inquire into the case of James Nolan, of Cavan, No. 241. Army pensioner, who is in a state of destitution; and, seeing that this man has had eleven and a-half years foreign service and was discharged on account of disease contracted whilst on active service, will his present condition be alleviated by the Government.

This man served for eleven years and three months, of which nine years one month were spent abroad. He was discharged in 1869 for phthisis and epilepsy, and was granted 6d. a day pension, the maximum rate permissible under the regulations. The Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital have reconsidered his case, but state that he cannot be awarded any increase of pension.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a public meeting held at Cappatagle, county Galway, on Sunday the 7th instant, the Member for that Division, while addressing his constituents, was dragged and pulled about by the police; and whether they were authorised to do so without serving him with a copy of the proclamation or giving him any notice that the meeting was proclaimed before he commenced to address his constituents.

The proclamation in the case of this meeting was issued on the 6th May. Copies of it were extensively placarded in the districts and served on the promoters and many other persons likely to attend the meeting. An unsuccessful attempt was made to serve a copy upon the hon. Member at Woodford. On the following day he endeavoured to address a meeting, notwithstanding the proclamation, which was known to everyone in the locality. The county inspector, I believe, handed him a copy, and, according to a newspaper report which I have seen, the hon. Member "tore the copy and threw the fragments on the road." The police were authorised to prevent any meeting, and in carrying out their instructions no violence whatever was used towards the hon. Member.

Are we to understand that it is lawful for the police in Ireland to seize a Member of this House and drag him about, using violence when no resistance is offered?

I am informed that no violence was used. If the police had instructions to prevent the meeting, their duty was obviously to prevent it.

As the Member for the Division, may I be permitted to state that I was collared by two policemen——

rose, as if to a point of order, his rising being followed by loud and continued cries of "Sit down," "Order," and "Name" from the Nationalist Benches.

intervened, and in response to Nationalist cries of "A personal explanation," said: The hon. Member must put his personal explanation in the shape of a Question.

On the point of order, may I ask whether, where an Answer such as that of the right hon. Gentleman is given, directly contravening the statement of an hon. Member as to his own action in his own constituency, it is not the invariable practice of the House to allow the hon. Member to make a personal explanation?

If the hon. Member will postpone his explanation to the conclusion of Questions, I have no doubt that the House will listen to him. There are a number of Questions on the Paper still to be answered, and it would be most unfair to shut them out by the hon. Member's personal explanation.

Was a copy of the proclamation served on the hon. Member for East Galway previous to the meeting or after the hon. Member had been dragged along the road by the police?

I am told that every effort was made to serve the hon. Member before the meeting; and I am also informed that before the meeting took place the proclamation was visible in that part of the district. Whether the police were successful or not in serving the proclamation is not a matter of importance, because, as hon. Members know, the police have power to prevent a meeting from being held, whether it has been proclaimed or not.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the declaration of a member of the Cabinet at Bristol that the Aliens Bill had been introduced to prevent the displacement of British labour, and his promise not to proceed with the policy of protection in this Parliament, he still intends to go on with the measure.

We certainly intend to proceed with the Bill; and my right hon. friend tells me that the speech to which reference is made in the Question does not bear the interpretation which the hon. Member puts upon it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the importance of facilities for escape from fire, as disclosed in the evidence at the recent inquiry into the causes of the telephone fire at Mansion House Chambers and Oxford Court, Cannon Street, can he see his way to facilitate legislation on the lines outlined in the City of London (Means of Escape from Fire) Bill now before Parliament.

The Home Secretary has consented to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the subject, as that is the best way of dealing with it.

said he desired to make a personal explanation as to what had occurred in relation to the proclaimed meeting in his constituency. On the 7th inst., when he was addressing his constituents, the district inspector ordered the police to drag him down immediately. Two of them, acting on the orders of the district inspector, caught him, one on each side, and dragged him to the road. Not satisfied with that, they dragged him along the road for at least fifty yards or more. He repeatedly asked them to let him go and not drag him in that manner, and he demanded what authority they had for doing so. He called for the county inspector and asked him what right these people had to insult him in this fashion and drag him about, and he requested him to direct them to let go of him. The county inspector did direct them, and they immediately let go of him. After that incident the proclamation was served upon him, and naturally in the circumstances he gave vent to his feelings and tore it up. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had read the account of these proceedings in the Press. He challenged him to stand up there and deny that in that report the statement was made that the hon. Member for the Division had been assaulted by the police. [At this stage there were loud NATIONALIST cries of "Long."]

On a point of order, Sir, the House having listened to the personal explanation of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, are we not entitled to hear the personal explanation of the Chief Secretary on the new situation created by the hon. Member's statement?

There can be no debate or Answer upon a personal explanation. By the leave of the House the hon. Member made a personal explanation, and the House accepts it. It would be a most improper thing to contradict the hon. Member.

Somebody is a liar. Who is it?

That is a most improper observation.

On the point of order, Sir, when a Minister or any Member of the House makes a personal statement in reference to any hon. Member, and when that hon. Member of his own knowledge contradicts that statement, is it not customary in this House for the Gentleman who originally made the statement to withdraw?

I have no recollection of a personal explanation being debated or contradicted in any way. [An HON. MEMBER: Accepted.] The House at once accepts the explanation made by the hon. Member.

On a point of order, Sir, I understand that you would not refuse to the right hon. Gentleman the right to make a personal explanation if he should desire to do so, and if the House did not desire to put any impediment in his way.