To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the judgment delivered by the Lord Chief Baron (Palles), on the 10th instant, in which he alluded to the lengths of time that persons arrested under attachments in Courts of equity were at present being detained in custody, and stated that this was not the case in the King's Bench Division where Crown rules particularly pointed out the course to be adopted, and that it was the duty of the plaintiff to see that the defendant was brought before the Court, and that the proper proceeding was taken for the purpose of having it determined what punishment he was to be subjected to; whether he can say if the other Divisions of the High Court have adopted these Crown rules; and, if not, will he take steps to see that like rules are adopted for dealing with cases of imprisonment for contempt of Court; whether there are any persons now imprisoned in Ireland for contempt of Court in which the plaintiff failed to have the defendant brought before the Court in the way condemned by the Lord Chief Baron; and, if so, will he take any action in such cases. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. My attention has been called to newspaper reports of the judgment referred to. I cannot, however, say whether they are accurate. The Lord Chief Baron, in referring to the Crown Office Rules of 1891, apparently omitted to call attention to the fact that, on June 30th, 1899, at the instance of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, a Circular was addressed to all Governors of Prisons requiring them, in the case of every prisoner committed for an indefinite period for contempt of Court, to send a report on the case within fourteen days of the prisoner's reception to the Lord Chancellor, through his secretary, and also to the Judge who made the order of committal; and to send a similar report to the same persons on every succeeding quarter day. This practice is similar to that which exists in England, and is followed by all the Divisions of the High Court in Ireland other than the King's Bench Division; and it has hitherto apparently given satisfaction. The matter is not one for the Executive, but rather for the Judges themselves to regulate. The attention of the Lord Chancellor will at once be called to the Lord Chief Baron's observations.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in respect to the provision of constitutional changes in the Transvaal, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the undertaking in the terms of peace signed in 1902 that the question of granting the franchise to the natives would not be decided until after the introduction of self-government did not apply to the case of non-African coloured subjects of His Majesty, or bind the Government to withhold the franchise from British Indians possessing the requisite educational and property qualifications; and whether, in these circumstances, he will advise His Majesty to so amend the Letters Patent and Order in Council as to admit such British Indians to the franchise, in fulfilment of various official pledges, including that contained in Governor Viscount Milner's despatch to Mr. Chamberlain, dated May 11th, 1903. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The reason why, as stated in my despatch of March 31st in [Cd. 2400], His Majesty's Government have been unable to make provision for the representation of any of His Majesty's coloured subjects is that they understand that the interpretation placed upon the pledge contained in the terms of peace by the burghers is that the question of granting the Parliamentary franchise to any coloured persons would not be decided until after the introduction of self-government. Having regard to this fact and to the importance of giving no ground for a charge of departing from the terms of peace, I am not prepared to advise His Majesty to amend the Letters Patent, and I am not aware that specific pledges on this point have been given either in the despatch quoted or otherwise.

To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is in a position to state when the Report will be issued of the Departmental Committee appointed in April, 1904, to inquire into the rates charged by railway companies in Great Britain in respect of foreign and colonial farm produce, and to report whether there is any evidence to show that preferential treatment is accorded to such produce; whether the evidence taken will be printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper; and, if so, will the evidence already taken be circulated at an early date. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) It is not possible, as yet, to state when this inquiry will be completed. Some difficulty has been experienced in obtaining evidence, and it is very desirable that the work of the Committee should not be brought to an end until the fullest opportunity has been given to those concerned to bring forward any complaints which they may have to make. The evidence will be printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper, but it would be undesirable that it should be presented except as a whole.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the prevalence of piracy in the Canton delta and along the coast of China; whether he has received during last year any account of organised attacks on British vessels; and what action the British Government is taking towards the suppression of these pirates. (Answered by Earl Percy.) The attention of His Majesty's Government has recently been called to a number of piratical attacks on vessels on the Canton River (some of them being British owned). His Majesty's Cousul-General at Canton has made a representation to the Viceroy on the subject, and His Majesty's Government are in communication with His Majesty's Minister at Peking regarding these attacks.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has decided to transfer a number of telegraphists from certain towns to offices in other districts; if so, whether he can state what monetary compensation he proposes to give to telegraphists who are to be compelled to leave the places in which the have resided for a number of years; and whether he will take steps that such transfers shall not interfere with the prospects of promotion and position on the seniority list of the telegraphists at the offices to which the transfers are sent. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) As the result of a general falling off in telegraph business throughout the country, the staff of telegraphists in some towns is more than sufficient for the work. The officers thus rendered redundant cannot be allowed to remain idle; and if they cannot be employed on postal work in the same office they must be transferred to some other office where work can be found for them. The interests of such officers are considered as far as possible, but I do not consider that any monetary compensation is due to them, since they are liable to employment wherever they are required; but they will be allowed to retain their seniority, and their actual and reasonable removal expenses will be paid. It is always the case that circumstances arising from the exigencies of the Service may affect favourably or unfavourably the prospcets of the staff; and I do not consider that any special measures are necessary in the interests of the staff at the places to which the officers I have mentioned are transferred.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the rule of the postal service that officers transferred from one office to another do not carry their seniority with them, but are placed at the foot of their class, he will explain why a sorting clerk and telegraphist, having been removed from the Croydon office seven years ago at his own request, has been allowed to return and take his place above a number of his colleagues; whether he will state what steps he proposes to take to recompense the men for their loss of prospects; and whether it is intended that this action will form a precedent. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The officer to whom the hon. Member's Question is understood to refer had been promoted to another office from the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists at Croydon, and has recently been removed back to his former position by any direction. The case was dealt with on its merits, and I do not consider that the other members of the class have any good ground for complaint.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he can state when the County Courts (No. 2) Bill will be brought on for the Second Reading, and if he can hold out hopes of passing the measure this session. (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I am not yet in a position to name a day for the Second Reading of the County Courts (No. 2) Bill, and it would be premature for me to express any opinion on the question whether it will become law this session.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the recently published opinions of Dr. S. Monckton Copeman, and of the Commissioners appointed by the Lancet in 1900 and 1902 to examine the various lymphs on sale in this country, support the view that large marks are not an evidence of efficient vaccination, and that small marks are not an evidence of inefficient vaccination; and that the same authorities have shown, that, in consequence of the modern methods of vaccination, it is possible to produce the Board's stipulated area of vesiculation, viz., not less than half a square inch, without leaving anything; like a corresponding area of marks; and whether he proposes to take any steps to amend the Board's Vaccination Order of 1898 so as to make it more consistent with the latest medical evidence on these points. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Dr. Copeman informs me that in his opinion large scars are not necessarily evidence of efficient vaccination, and small scars are not in themselves evidence of inefficient vaccination, but that usually the area of the scar corresponds fairly closely with that of the vesicle which preceded it. These opinions do not, as I am advised, render it necessary or desirable to amend the Vaccination Order, 1898, which does not make the area of the scar a criterion of successful vaccination.

To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will consider the expediency of giving orders that, from the moment when a Question is put from the Chair for a second time and the challenge of a division is persisted in, the upper windows of the Chamber, on both sides, be opened and so kept open for at least ten minutes. (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The capacity of the input and extract fans is more than sufficient to change the air rapidly, if run at full speed when the Chamber is cleared for an adjournment or division. The First Commissioner is quite willing that the windows shall be opened occasionally during the sitting, but he is unable to promise that this shall be done at each division.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to cases in which silver and gold watches imported from abroad have been sold in England in contravention of the law which prevents silver and gold wares being sold in this country unless hall-marked; and to cases in which watches imported from abroad have been sold in England in contravention of the law which forbids the sale in this country of silver and gold vessels or plate of less than a minimum fineness; and whether he will state what action he proposes to take in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the circumstances mentioned, and they have been in communication with the Commissioners of Customs and the Goldsmiths' Company on the subject. The Board are informed that the Goldsmiths' Company have commenced an action, which will raise the points referred to by the hon. Member.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that if the recommendations of the Industrial Alcohol Committee are carried out the relative positions of the home distiller, the colonial distiller, and the foreign distiller will remain unchanged, he will explain how the West Indies can derive substantial benefit, as a surtax will still be imposed equally on colonial and foreign spirit. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Distillers generally will derive substantial benefit from the encouragement that will be given to the consumption of alcohol for industrial purposes, and the West Indian distiller will have the opportunity of sharing in such benefit.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the additional duty of 1s. per pound on foreign cigarettes imposed last year has yielded to the revenue, and how far the yield corresponds with the estimated production of the tax. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The amount of revenue yielded by the additional duty of 1s. per pound on foreign cigarettes from the date of its imposition, 20th April, 1904, to the 31st March, 1905, was £14,651. The estimated yield of this additional duty was £20,000.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Irish Local Government Board now state that the disinfecting chamber erected in 1895 in the Athlone workhouse, under the system known as Dr. Scott's Patent Hot Air Disinfecting Chamber, and approved by the Board, is useless; and whether, seeing that the amount of the loan, £175, was then granted by the Board for this purpose, he will explain why the Board sanctioned the loan. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board have not stated that this disinfecting chamber is useless, but in reply to the guardians' inquiry whether it was sufficient for the purpose of disinfecting the clothing of smallpox patients they stated that such a chamber is not to be depended upon, and that disinfection after smallpox requires special efficiency. The Board understand that disinfection by hot air is rapidly falling into disuse-Experience has shown that such disinfection is not as efficient as disinfection by steam, as the hot air does not penetrate the clothing so thoroughly as steam. When sanctioning a loan in 1895 the Board imposed no conditions upon the guardians as to the description of disinfector which they should obtain.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Michael Fisher, of Raphoe, county Donegal, applied to the Strabane No. 2 Rural District Council over six years ago to have a labourer's cottage erected for him under the Labourers Acts, and that the dwelling-house he then resided in was condemned as unfit or human habitation by Mr. Tully, Local Government Board inspector; and whether the Local Government Board will make inquiry as to what is the cause of delay on the part of the district council in providing the man with a cottage. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 24th March †, the delay in this matter is not due to the Local Government Board. The Board are now addressing the district council on the subject.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the circumstances which led to the rejection of the applications for labourers' cottages presented by John Weir, William Casson, John Dewart, and Thomas Young to the Ballymena Rural District Council. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A local inquiry was held in this matter, and the applications were rejected on the ground that there was no necessity for the cottages. The inspector found that there was an ample number of vacant suitable cottages, with gardens attached, to be had in the village of Ahoghill.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what amount has been expended

† See (4) Debates, exliii., 1079.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that cases of blood-poisoning occurred in the Cootehill Union Infirmary in January, 1904, alleged by the medical officer and inspector to be due to rotten floors and want of sanitary accommodation; and whether, seeing that an appeal has been made on behalf of the seven electoral divisions in the county for the necessary alterations to be made, and that Dr. Biggar was deputed by the Local Government Board to confer with the board of guardians, he can say what action, if any, has been taken in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Cases of septicæmia occurred in this workhouse in January, 1904. The medical officer was of opinion that the germs of the disease were in the floors and possibly in the walls. The Local Government Board's inspector inquired into the matter, and reported that it was difficult to find the direct and definite cause of the outbreak as there are several ways in which infection of the kind could be conveyed. He advised the guardians to make certain alterations, and thereupon they decided to obtain an estimate of the cost. No further action has, however, been taken by the guardians, but the new board will come into office next month, and the Local Government Board will urge them to take the matter in hand.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two clerks in the sub-sheriff's office, county Mayo, applied for parcels of the grazing land on the Claremorris Estate, recently purchased by the Estates Commissioners; that these men never held any land on the estate; that they are neither farmers nor the sons of farmers entitled to come in under the Land Act of 1903; that two bailiffs on the estate were induced by the clerk Soar to accept payment of one year's rent for an acre of land on each of their holdings, with a view to giving them some pretence of a claim for getting parcels of the grazing lands; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to prosecute these men for attempting to get a grant of public money under false pretences. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Estates Commissioners have agreed to purchase the Claremorris Estate. Messrs.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount of gold raised in the Transvaal, the amount distributed in dividends, the amount paid to the Government as income-tax on profits or otherwise by the gold mining companies of the Transvaal in each of the three years 1902,1903 and 1904. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The figures are given in the following table. The Gold Profit Tax Proclamation (seepage 168 [Cd. 1163]), was passed in June, 1902, and the figures are for the Transvaal financial years running from 1st July to 30th June:—

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Constitution about to be granted to the Transvaal contains any safeguards against the exclusion of British emigrants by the colony in the future. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I would refer my hon. friend to my reply to a similar Question by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee on the 4th instant, † in which I pointed out that any legislation relating to immigration would be subject to the power of disallowance belonging to the Crown.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to facilitate the interchange of students between the Universities in the United Kingdom and in the Colonies, he will take into his consideration the desirability of issuing from time to time a circular letter to the British Colonies, somewhat after the manner of the letter of 27th December, 1902, sent out by Lord Onslow, enclosing memoranda, from any of the Universities in the United Kingdom stating their rules and regulations for the reception of colonial students, and inviting the Colonies, on their part, to inform the Universities of the United Kingdom and the Colonial Office what rules and regulations are laid down by their Universities and technical schools for the reception of students from the Universities of the United Kingdom. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The circular despatch of 27th December,

† See (4) Debates, exlv., 915.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Provinces of Canada, which, along with all Colonies of the Crown, at present enjoy the benefits of the Colonial Stock Acts of 1877 and 1892, are alone deprived by Imperial legislation of the benefits of the Colonial Stock Act of 1900; and whether, with a view to the removal of such disability, His Majesty's Government would be prepared, on the motion of the Dominion of Canada, to take steps with a view to such amendment of the British North American Act as would confer upon the King in Council, as well as upon the Governor-General in Council, the right of disallowance of Bills assented to by the Lieutenant-Governors of the Provinces of Canada, whereby the Provinces of Canada might be enabled to enjoy the benefits of the Colonial Stock Act of 1900. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have received no communication from the Canadian Government on this subject, and am not prepared to say what action His Majesty's Government might be prepared to take in the hypothetical case referred to by my hon. friend.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make with reference to the case of a midshipman on H.M.S. "Kent," who, having been sentenced by a mock Court-martial to be flogged, defended himself with a revolver; whether the commander of H.M.S. "Kent" or the other officers on board were aware of the treatment of this midshipman by his associates; and what steps were taken to protect him; who was the president of this mock Court-martial; and whether flogging with the flat of a dirk is the usual penalty inflicted by these mock Courts-martial; and whether the Admiralty authorities intend to take steps to put an end to such treatment on the King's ships.

In September, 1903, it came to the knowledge of the Admiralty that in a ship in the Channel Fleet there was a practice of private punishment in the gun room. Orders were immediately issued that this system must be at once put down, and a circular letter was addressed to all commanders-in-chief forbidding such a practice, and desiring that commanding officers of His Majesty's ships might have their grave responsibility in the matter impressed upon them. For the intervening eighteen mouths no further case has come to the knowledge of the Admiralty. On the evening of the 2nd instant, however, a midshipman of the "Kent" who was about to receive a caning from the senior midshipman, fired a revolver at him. The Admiralty, on receiving the report of the Rear Admiral commanding the First Cruiser Squadron and that of the Court of Inquiry, decided at once to supersede the captain of the "Kent" and to place him on half pay; and the others concerned were suitably dealt with. A further circular letter has now been issued to the Fleet making it perfectly clear that the Admiralty are determined that this practice shall cease.

And what has become of the boy who saved himself from outrage by firing the revolver? I hope he is not to be punished.

The boy has been withdrawn from the Navy by his parents.

In view of the great gravity of the question, will the hon. Gentleman appoint a Committee to inquire into the question of flogging in the Navy?

I shall bring this up later on.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty by whom are nominations to compete for cadet-ships with a view to obtaining commissions in the Royal Navy conferred; on what principle is the practice of nomination based; and why is not admission to the position of commissioned officer in the Royal Navy open to public competition instead of being closed to boys whose parents and friends cannot exert sufficient influence to procure nominations.

Nominations of candidates for naval cadetships are made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and to a limited extent by other members of the Board and certain naval officers holding high commands. The principle on which the practice is based, under the new system of entry, is fully described in the Papers presented to Parliament this year and last (Cd. 1962–04 and Cd. 2450–05), which show the care taken to ensure that the best boys are chosen and in the fairest possible way.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office on what date Paper (Cd. 2433), Return of Stores and Supplies destroyed locally, was sent to the printers; on what date was it p published; and if he will explain why this Paper was published in the London papers three or four days before being available for Members of this House. It is a growing practice thus to ignore the Members of the House.

This Paper was sent for printing on the 11th inst., and was circulated to the Vote Office on the 13th inst. The distribution to Members of Parliament and to the Press is not a matter with, which the War Office is concerned, and I am not therefore in a position to reply to the rest of the hon. Member's Question.

How is it it was published in Saturday's papers and we did not get it till Tuesday?

I cannot say.

Then read The Times.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the reason why boys who do not get a leaving certificate on leaving their public school, and who, having passed their preliminary examination for the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, fail in the further examination, should be required to again pass the preliminary or qualifying examination.

The question of the relative value of leaving and qualifying ceitificates is not at present definitely settled, but is under the consideration of the Army Council.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the Return relating to Militia Service Abroad during the South African War, of which notice stands upon to-day's Paper.

I am prepared to give a Return containing such information as is available. As regards the 4th and 5th Sections of the Return, there is no record containing the information required.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of unpaid learners employed in the postal service who have passed the Civil Service Competitive Examinations, together with their average service; whether he is aware that two learners at the Enniskillen office with fifteen months service have received no pay, and that youths in the Enniskillen district with four years service are still waiting appointments.

I will make inquiry and communicate with the hon. Member.

asked if the Postmaster-General was prepared to accept his Amendment to the Motion regarding the National Telephone Agreement Committee with a view to enabling the Committee to inquire how far the interests of the National Telephone Company's employees were safeguarded.

I have always said I wished these employees to have an opportunity of expressing their views before the Committee, and I was under the belief that the reference would enable that to be done, but as there appears to be some doubt on the subject, I have no hesitation in accepting the Amendment.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having in view Section 18 (1) (c) of the Education Act, 1902, when a county council has paid either the whole or a part of the expenses incurred by them in respect of capital expenditure or rent, on account of the provision or improvement of any public elementary school, out of the county rate, and has charged a half or three-quarters of such expenses incurred by them in respect of capital expenditure or rent upon the pari h or parishes which in the opinion of the council are served by the school, it has been the practice of the Local Government Board auditor to allow such an arrangement.

With one exception no case has been brought to my notice in which a district auditor has allowed as a charge on a parish under the enactment mentioned in the Question a portion of the expenses incurred in respect of the provision or improvement of a school, in so far as the cost of the work has been defrayed out of current rates and not out of a loan. In the case in which the auditor allowed the charge, he suggested in his report to the county council that the education committee should consider the matter carefully and endeavour to get a definite ruling upon the meaning of the section before making further charges of the description referred to. I may add that I am not aware that any doubt has been felt that the enactment applies to the rent of a school paid out of current rates.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to repeal the Swine Removal Order so far as Ireland is concerned; whether he is keeping in correspondence with the Irish Department as to the progress of the disease in Ireland; and when he hopes to be in a position to act in the matter.

As I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on the 13th April, † I cannot under existing circumstances hold out a hope of the relaxation of the Order at present. The reports we receive go to show that it is working smoothly and well, and it appears to afford the necessary protection against the introduction of disease into Great Britain with a minimum of loss and inconvenience to those concerned. The returns of the number of outbreaks of disease in Ireland are carefully examined by the Board week by week, but no further correspondence has been necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many districts no inspection at all is carried out?

I have not heard it.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it is so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he can state how many light railways have been authorised to be constructed under the Light Railways Act, how many have actually been constructed, what is the annual cost of the Light Railway Commission, and whether it is proposed to renew the Act or to allow, it to terminate.

The length of lines authorised as light railways under the Light Rail ways Act up to the present date is 1,567 miles, and 429 miles have been constructed and opened for traffic. The cost of the Light Railway

† See (4) Debates, exlv.,68.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what were the total fees paid to Mr. Attorney-General in respect of the Venezuelan Claims Arbitration and the British Guiana Arbitration, and to Mr. Solicitor-General in the cases Rex v. Osborn and others and Rex v. Hooley and Lawson; on whose advice were proceedings instituted in the two last-named cases, and where do the amounts for these and other Law Officers' fees appear on the Estimates.

The total fees paid to the Attorney-General in the Venezuelan and British Guiana Arbitrations respectively were:—

Do I understand that the Law Officers advise proceedings in the cases in which they subsequently draw fees?

Then I take it the Answer is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total amounts of salary, fees, refreshers, and every other consideration paid out of the Treasury to Mr. Attorney-General and Mr. Solicitor-General during the two years ending May 15th, 1905.

The information desired by the hon. Member will be found up to March 31st last in the reply I gave on May 8th† to the hon. Member for the South Molten Division of Devonshire. I fear that it is impractical to give details for broken periods of a year.

But I have asked for information to May 15th.

It is impossible to give that yet.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury the date and nature of the appointment of Mr. Bonner Maurice, of the firm of Messrs. Bircham and Co., Parliamentary Agents, and the amount of his emoluments for services rendered to the Government.

Mr. Bonner Maurice was appointed on

† See (4) Debates, exlv., 1112.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the bed and soil of Lake Erne surrounding the town of Enniskillen are claimed to be the property of Lord Enniskillen, and are also claimed by the Commissioners of Woods (Dublin Office) to be the property of the Crown, and that the ownership has been the subject of correspondence for some time past between the parties; and whether, seeing that the Urban Council of Enniskillen is being retarded by this difference in carrying out a projected scheme of sanitation and roadway, he will state what decision, if any, has been arrived at between the claimants.

The matter is under investigation and a decision will be come to as soon as possible.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, in the event of the County Courts (No. 2) Bill becoming law and rules being framed under Section 6, extending the cases in which judgment may be entered up summarily against a defendant, he intends to grant similar powers by rule to the Liverpool Court of Passage, pursuant to the Liverpool Court of Passage Acts, 1893 and 1896, and the recommendations of the Borough Courts Committee.

This is not a matter which rests with me. I have communicated in the proper quarter the views of the hon. Member, and I have no doubt they will receive every consideration.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that rabbits are being exterminated in Richmond Park by being entrapped by gins where they are sometimes kept in agony for hours suffering from mutilation; and whether he can take steps to effect the extermination of the rabbits in a more humane manner.

The rabbits are being trapped as being the most effective manner of reducing their excessive numbers. All trapping must inflict pain on the animal; every effort is made to reduce this to a minimum by frequent visits to the traps.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his Department still adheres to its decision to compel the Stockton-on-Tees educational authority to increase the fees charged in the higher grade secondary school from 3d. per week to £3 per annum per scholar as a condition to continuing the Government grant; and whether, seeing that the educational authority has protested against this decision, which would practically debar the children of the working class from benefiting from the existence of this school, he will state under what authority the Department is seeking to compel a local education authority to increase the fees charged in the school which is supported from the rates.

A special investigation is now being made into the conditions of the three secondary schools at Stockton-on-Tees. Until this is completed I am unable to give a specific Answer to the Question, but I will inform the hon. Member as soon as possible of the decision of the Board. The Board are not concerned with the requirement of a fee as such, but are bound to make such requirements as they consider necessary to secure the financial stability of the school before recognising it as eligible for grants.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether any farms or the interest in any freehold or fee-simple farms have been purchased so far by the Estates Commissioners for the purposes of enlarging holdings or finding equivalent houses for evicted tenants; and whether, in cases where no un-tenanted land is for sale or possible to obtain in a district, he will consider the advisability of extending the powers of the Estates Commissioners to enable them to buy in large grazing farms for this purpose.

I am not quite certain that I understand the Question. The Estates Commissioners have not any power to buy land from a person whose interest is less than that of a limited owner within the meaning of the Act. They have no power to purchase under the Land Purchase Acts the interests of tenants entitled to lesser interests. Where the owner purchases the tenant-right of his tenant, he can, of course, sell the farm as untenanted land to the Commissioners; and applications to purchase such lands have, I understand, been made or are about to be made to the Commissioners. I do not think any additional powers are required to carry oat the policy of the Act.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the cost of the operations undertaken by the Board of Agriculture at Inny Junction for the rearing of turf; how much of the crop was sold; what sum was realised in respect of the sale; and whether it is proposed to continue the experiment this year.

The cost was about £1,150, exclusive of the cost of Departmental direction. No produce was sold, as there were no facilities for putting the turf on rail. The experiment is being continued this year, and a railway siding and loading bank are being constructed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received copy of a resolution adopted recently at a meeting of clergy and laity held in Luawarry, Collooney, county Sligo, in reference to the educational wants of the district; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in regard to it.

I have informed, the hon. Member that if he will send me a copy of the resolution I will inquire into the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations have been in progress for six months between the Estates Commissioners and Count Moore for the purchase of the evicted farm of the late Mr. Matthew Mooney, at Kilross, near Tipperary; and that two inspections have been made; and if he will state whether the Commissioners have as yet completed the purchase; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay.

The facts are as stated. The negotiations for purchase have not yet concluded owing to the owner's absence abroad.

I understand the agent has no authority to act. Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into that?

I will bring the complaint of the hon. Member to the notice of the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the sale by Sir Edmund Hayes of his estate to his tenants in the county of Donegal, some nine or ten evicted tenants were restored by him to their holdings, and on their restoration signed agreements for purchase under the Land Act of 1903; that the landlord's agent has been informed by the Estates Commissioners that the first half-year's interest on the purchase money will not be collected through the Land Commission; that the evicted tenants should not have been restored until the advances had been sanctioned; and that the agent may collect the interest in whatever manner he chooses; and whether, in view of the effect of this ruling of the Commissioners, if persisted in, upon the voluntary and immediate restoration by landlords of evicted tenants to their holdings for purposes of sale under the Land Act, instructions will be given to the Commissioners to withdraw this ruling.

Section 35 of the Act of 1896, which empowers the Land Commission to collect, from the tenant of a holding, interest in lieu of rent from the date of the agreement for the purchase of the holding up to the date of the advance, does not apply to the agreements for "parcels," and the Land Commission have no jurisdiction to collect or recover interest which may, by agreement between the vendor and the purchaser, be payable. There is nothing before the Land Commission to show that the persons referred to are in occupation of their plots, but even assuming that they are, the agreements for purchase of "parcels" only provide for collection of interest from the date of advance until the purchase annuity commences.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of schools examined in Irish as an extra during the period from 1st January, 1905, to 31st March, 1905, upon which the inspector of Irish and the ordinary inspector reported favourably; whether payment has been delayed in some cases; and, if so, what has been the cause of the delay; and when the fees will be paid.

The number was 259. Payment was delayed in some cases as a result of steps taken for the adoption of a uniform school year ending June 30th. The fees have now been paid in most cases, and the remainder are in process of payment.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 2nd April Constable Fitzgerald, stationed at Aughrim, county Galway, used threatening and insulting I language on the public road toward the Rev. Father Coghlan, priest of the parish; whether, in the interest of the peace of the district, he will have him removed to some other district; and whether it is the practice of the constabulary authorities to leave constables stationed in the parish where they have married a parishioner; and, if not, why has this constable been retained in Aughrim.

A complaint to the effect stated was received by the Inspector-General, who found, on inquiry, that on the date in question the rev. gentleman, when publicly reading a list of subscriptions received from his parishioners, announced that the constable had not subscribed. The constable, who asserts that he had subscribed £1, subsequently met the rev. gentleman and spoke to him on the subject; but he emphatically denies having used the language attributed to him. On the contrary, he complains of the clergyman's language towards him. The matter does not call for any interference on the part of the Government. The regulations provide that a constable shall not be stationed in a county in which he or his wife have relatives. That provision has not been contravened in this case, and it is not proposed to remove the constable.

As there is evidently a conflict of testimony will the right hon. Gentleman grant a sworn inquiry.

Certainly not, but if the hon. Member has any evidence he can furnish me with, I will look into it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any action with regard to the language used by the priest?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the list of malicious injury claims for which damages were awarded at Gort (county Galway) Quarter Sessions on 26th April last, which included one for cutting a boat adrift from her moorings, four for pulling down stone walls surrounding grazing farms, one for cutting the tails off cattle, and two for burning hay; whether he is aware that there were also a number of similar claims at the Quarter Sessions Courts at Ballinasloe, Portumna, Galway, and Tuam; and whether these outrages were of an agrarian nature, and what steps the Government is taking to deal with this class of crime in Galway.

Yes, Sir; my attention has been directed to the number of cases in which claims for compensation were made at the recent quarter sessions in the county of Galway. Fifteen such claims were made, and compensation was awarded in each case. In two cases, however, appeals have been lodged. I may point out that there were no cases of cutting the tails off cattle, but that there were two cases in which the hair was removed from the tails. Of the fifteen outrages, eleven were of an agrarian character. A considerable force of additional police has been drafted into the county for the protection of the person and property of individuals, and a marked improvement in the condition of affairs has, I am glad to say, since manifested itself throughout the entire county.

Have the police been able to bring anyone to justice?

I must ask for notice of that.

Were any of the constables in this district ever under the charge of ex-Sergeant Sheridan, who knows more about cattle maiming than anybody else?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a new wooden gate and 100 yards of new fencing were pulled down and destroyed on the farm of Patrick Costelloe, at Ballymacward, county Galway; and that on this farm 500 yards of stone wall were knocked down a few weeks ago, for which £50 was awarded as damages for malicious injury; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to prevent the recurrence of similar damage.

Yes, Sir; the facts are substantially as stated, save that the amount of compensation awarded was £34, not £50. The later of these offences was committed on the 4th of last month, and since that date a force of twenty extra police has been sent to the district concerned, namely, Athenry. Every effort has been made by me, and will continue to be made, to prevent the occurrence of outrage and to protect the property of individuals.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that negotiations for sale to the tenants were, some time since, almost brought to a conclusion on the estate of Mr. Adam Stafford Delmege, Garryspillane, Knock-long, county Limerick; that the tenants wanted that the untenanted lands on the estate should be sold through the Estates Commissioners to the labourers and tenants renting uneconomic holdings; and that a tenant, named Edmond Murphy, of Ballingarry, has been processed for rent due only six days because he refused to sign purchase agreements, although at the same time he owed only a half year's rent and the running gale; and will he take any steps to prevent further proceedings against Murphy.

An application for the sale of a portion of this estate has been received by the Commissioners, but no agreement for purchase has been lodged by Edmond Murphy, and no untenanted lands were comprised in the application. I have no information as to proceedings taken against Murphy, nor have I any power to intervene in any Case of the exercise of legal rights by a landlord.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the possibility of a Government grant to assist the fishermen who are sufferers from the recent disaster at Portavogie.

The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction were asked by me to make special inquiry into the circumstances attending the disaster referred to, which had been brought before me by my hon. friend and by a deputation from the locality. Their report shows that there are some circumstances of an exceptional character, which enable a contribution to be made towards the expense of repairing the damaged boats without creating a precedent which would cause a larger demand than could properly be met by the limited funds available for all purposes of sea fisheries.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the codified rules of the Land Commission now in preparation will be issued.

The new code of rules is being prepared with all possible despatch, but the date of issue cannot yet be fixed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the circumstances under which an extra force of constabulary has been drafted into the district of Athenry, county Galway.

Has the hon. Member got his information from Lord Ashtown?

A system of boycotting and intimidation directed against the holders of grazing farms has been in existence for some time past in the Athenry and other districts of the county Galway. The reletting of grazing farms on the eleven months system usually takes place about May 1st, and on the approach of this date intimidation was exercised against these persons in order to compel them not to renew their grazing contracts. A number of outrages were also committed in furtherance of this movement, and, in the circumstances, it was considered necessary to augment the police force stationed in Athenry and other disturbed areas.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the new industry of dried milk started in Ireland about a year since; and whether, seeing that at present the rate for French dried milk from Louviers viâ Paris, Dieppe, and Newhaven to London is only 30s. per ton, while from Limerick to London it is 47s. 6d., he will consult with the English Board of Agriculture with the view to some remedy being applied to this disadvantage under which the Irish trade suffers.

A complaint has been made to the Department in this matter and is under investigation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will have inquiries made as to the cause of the delay in the delivery of a consignment of five cwts. of butter, sent from Limerick on May the 9th to John Thomas, Taffs Well, viâ Cardiff, and not delivered up to Saturday the 13th; and will he say what steps he intends to take to deal with such cases of railway neglect.

The Department have received a complaint in this matter, and are inquiring into it.

I hope this inquiry will bear fruit. Personally I am sick of inquiries.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the Local Government Board auditors in Ireland were previously accountants, or held or hold any certificate from the Institute of Chartered Accountants or any kindred body.

As I informed the hon. Member on Tuesday last,† ten out of the seventeen auditors were accountants prior to appointment, in the sense that they had experience of public accounts. Only one, however, holds a certificate as accountant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Constable Masterson, Royal Irish Constabulary, Mountmellick, who has been returned for trial to the next assizes in Queen's County on a charge of assault preferred against him by a man named Carroll, and which is alleged to have been committed at Somergrove, near Mountmellick, and who is at present at liberty under a rule of bail, is still discharging duty as a peace officer in Mountmellick.

Constable Masterson has been suspended from duty since May 2nd.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Estates Commissioners have received any communication from the agent of Lord Dunraven with a view to a sale of the houses in the town of Croom, in the county of Limerick, to the town tenants; and whether, having regard to the fact that Lord Dunraven has arranged to sell the agricultural and pastoral part of the estate to the tenants thereof through the Estates Commissioners, and is willing to sell to the Croom town tenants the houses in their occupation, and also having regard to the fact that these tenants are anxious

† See page 484.

The application for sale in respect of this estate does not include the town of Croom, and the Commissioners cannot trace any correspondence with the agent on the subject. The question whether the Commissioners can, under the Land Purchase Acts, buy and resell to the tenants houses situate in towns, is one for the determination of the Commissioners, instructed by and subject to the review of Mr. Justice Meredith. I understand that a case in which this point is raised is at present before the learned Judge.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in rendering assistance to Mr. Daniel Casey, a reinstated evicted tenant on the Coltsmann Estate, county Kerry, about whose circumstances the Estates Commissioners are fully informed for over a year at least.

The Commissioners are not yet in a position to sanction the advances for the sale of this estate, and in the meantime they are unable to make the grant recommended in the case of Daniel Casey. It is, however, anticipated that the advances will shortly be sanctioned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say what was the result of the recent investigation held at Mountmellick by order of the Inspector-General of Constabulary into the charge made against Constable Reddy of using offensive and insulting expressions towards respectable residents of the town; and whether, seeing that this policeman was obliged to make a public apology before the County Court Judge at Mountmellick within the past twelve months, in a case in which he was charged with assaulting and using insulting language towards a resident in the town (which offence was alleged to have been committed outside complainant's door), he proposes that the services of Constable Reddy should be retained in Mountmellick.

I have received a report on this case, but have not yet had time to look into it. I would ask the hon. Member to kindly postpone the Question for a few days.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the Report of the Lord-Lieutenant on the Development Grant will be laid upon the Table.

The Report for 1904–5 is now under consideration, and will be laid on the Table in the course of a few days.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to submit a revised Estimate of the Irish Development Grant.

Yes.

What is the cause of the delay in submitting it?

I am afraid the reason is to be found in the necessity of examining the Estimates personally. I am dealing with each application as rapidly as I can.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Prime Minister to give us a day for the discussion of the revised Estimate?

I will do my best to secure an adequate opportunity.

I do not mean an ordinary Irish Supply day, but a special day.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps the Local Government Board of Ireland are taking, or intend to take, to enforce the carrying out of the sealed Order, dated May 15th, 1903, which ordered the Rural District Council of Ballycastle, in the county of Antrim, to provide a supply of wholesome water and proper sewerage for the village of Cushendall in their district, this Order having been made after an inquiry instituted by the Local Government Board, the result of which was a condemnation of the sanitary arrangements of Cushendall.

The delay in this case has been mainly due to proceedings in the superior Courts. A new Order was made on the 8th April last, and the district council are now preparing plans for the necessary works.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to the public in Galway City by the want of an intermediate telegraph office, the present ones being at least one mile apart; and whether he will take steps to establish one in connection with the present sub-office in Dominick Street.

My attention has not previously been called to this matter, but it was considered by one of my predecessors in 1902, and he came to the conclusion that a telegraph office was not warranted in Dominick Street as the total telegraph business of Galway was not large, and the head office was within half a mile. I regret that I am unable to take a different view.

Is the noble Lord aware that the business has considerably developed since 1902?

I do not think it has. I inquired into that, and still hold that my predecessor's decision was right.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, some time ago, letters from Belleek, Pettigo, Kesh, and Irvinestown were delivered in Enniskillen about two o'clock in the afternoon, and that now letters from these towns are not delivered in Enniskillen till about 8.20 p.m., when business of the day is over; and will he state why the early delivery was abandoned; and whether he will arrange to have the letters delivered at the former time.

It is the fact that until about a year ago mail bags were despatched to Enniskillen from the places referred to at about midday, but it was then found that so little use was made of the service by the public that the maintenance of the bags was not warranted. Instructions were therefore given for their discontinuance, and I regret that I am unable to restore them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary, in accordance with private notice, whether, having regard to the Answer he gave on Monday, based on the report of a county inspector of constabulary—an Answer impugning the veracity of a Member of the House—he will read aloud to the House the later report that he has received from the inspector, so as to give to it the same publicity as that given to the first statement.

I doubt whether it would be in order to read aloud an Answer which has already been printed and circulated with the Votes this morning. It would not be desirable to give Answers a second time in this way.

The matter is of the gravest importance, as it involves the responsibility of the Chief Secretary for repeating false information supplied to him and impugning the veracity of an hon. Member. The question is not whether the right hon. Gentleman will read his printed Answer to the House, but whether he will read the report from the police which the right hon. Gentleman has now received, and which bears out in substance and almost in detail the statement of the hon. Member for East Galway. The right hon. Gentleman is asked to do so in order to give as much publicity to this second report as to the false statement to which, inadvertently, no doubt, he gave currency the other day.

I can only deal with this matter by the consent of the House. The case has been put in a somewhat unfair way as regards my Answer. I repudiate the suggestion that I have communicated false information to the House. I communicated the report I received from the police.

I made no personal accusation.

Yesterday a Question was placed on the Paper by the hon. Member asking whether further information had been received. That Question was not asked, and I received no intimation that it was desired to postpone it. I had, therefore, no alternative but to follow the rules of the House and circulate my Answer with the Votes. I cannot now read again an Answer based entirely on the report of the county inspector, but I agree that, where the personal veracity of an hon. Member is concerned, it is desirable that the utmost publicity should be given to any statement on the subject. If the hon. Member will put a Question on the Paper, so that I may deal with it, I will take any opportunity within the rules of the House to see that the utmost publicity is given to my Answer.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will read the inspector's report?

There must be no misunderstanding. My business is to make a reply for which I am wholly responsible. I base that reply on the information which I receive from the members of the Executive Government; but it is within my discretion whether I read the reports that I receive or not.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it can be arranged that an authorised report of his speech on 11th instant, as President of the Committee of Imperial Defence, shall be issued to Members of both Houses of Parliament, and of the Indian and Colonial Governments; and also circulated in all naval and military commands for purposes of general information.

If my hon. friend's suggestion is that the report of my speech should be made into a printed document and be published and circulated at the public expense, I think that would be a novel and not a good practice to set up. I believe that long custom authorises that procedure in the case of the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, on the whole, we should do well to confine our procedure to that case and not extend it If I am able to revise the speech I shall be glad to give a copy to any one who takes an interest in the subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the expediency of proposing some method by which the House shall be put in possession of conclusions upon broad principles of policy, controlling expenditure and arrangements for Imperial defence, arrived at by the Committee of Imperial Defence, before and not after Vote A and Vote 1 of the Navy and Army Estimates are discussed in Committee of Supply.

I agree with my hon. friend in thinking that as far as this year is concerned there might have been a distinct convenience in having a discussion on item E of the Treasury Vote, but it was absolutely impossible to carry the arrangement out this year. Nor do I see how it can be carried out in another year without a drastic change in our procedure. I should rather deprecate having annual discussions on these large questions of Imperial defence and strategy. I deferred my statement as long as I could, but it was clear from the debates on the Votes for the Army and the Navy that it was necessary to make a statement this year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility, in case decisions of importance are arrived at by the Committee, of issuing to Parliament a statement of the broad conclusions by means of a Memorandum similar to the Memorandum issued on the Navy and Army Estimates.

I think that suggestion is well worth consideration.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that arrangements have been made for 700 unemployed workmen in Leicester to begin a march to London on Sunday next, to demand work from the Government; and that arrangements are in progress for similar demonstrations from Glasgow, Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham; and whether, in view of the hardship which these men and their wives and children are enduring, he will take the Second Reading and the remaining stages of the Unemployed Bill on an early date so as to ensure that the measure shall become law this session.

I have heard of the report to which the hon. Member refers, but I am of opinion that the arrangements of this House in regard to its own business ought not to be modified in one way or the other by any external demonstrations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my Question—whether he will take the Second Reading and the remaining stages of the Unemployed Bill at an early date, so as to ensure its becoming law this session.

I did not answer the last part of the Question because it seemed inseparably bound up with the first part, and I was unwilling that the House should suppose from my Answer that we ought in the smallest, degree to be influenced by the facts of which the hon. Member has given an indication. But as he now puts a separate Question, I may assure him that I have every desire and expectation of seeing this Bill passed into law this session, and I should regard it as a great misfortune if it were not passed.

Can the right hon. Gentleman fix a date for the Second Reading? In reference to the right hon. Gentleman's deprecation of these demonstrations, my statement was that it is only force that carries any measure through this House.

I take exactly the opposite view to the hon. Gentleman. It is not force that carries measures through. I hope it is a reasoned, cautious public opinion; and, in my judgment, any such demonstration of force as he describes is inimical to the prospects of the Bill becoming law, and not favourable to them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman exclude from his mind the consideration whether there are any demonstrations or not, and, realising the need for this Bill, will he give us a simple Answer to a Question asked in a law-abiding way? There is no more force about this than there was about the Brewers' Bill.

I did not hear of the brewers marching up to London.

The brewers' demonstration was behind you.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it was not I who introduced the subject of these demonstrations, but the hon. Member who put the Question, as he will find if he reads the Question. The hon. Member cannot ask me to say more than that it is my earnest hope and belief that the Bill will become law in the present session.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, seeing the grave evils which the introduction of this Bill has already brought about, he will consider the possibility of at once withdrawing it?

I will repeat this Question at an early date. Perhaps, as a personal explanation, I may be allowed to say that I am not advocating force. I am only pointing out that these men have grown desperate, and, seeing the indifference with which this measure is treated, have no resource but force.

Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to make a recommendation to these unemployed poor people to withdraw their pennies from the bank of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Islington?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state when the Second Reading of the Militia Bill will be taken.

I am afraid I cannot fix a day.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state on what day he will take the discussion in Supply on the Local Government Vote.

I do not wish to give an absolute pledge, but I hope to be able to take this Vote this day fortnight.

And Irish. Supply is to be taken this day week?

I understand that is so.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state what progress has been made in the proposed reorganisation of the Local Government Board; and if he could indicate to the House the outline of the changes which he proposes, should be made.

I hope the Bill may be introduced without any very long delay. It is in an advanced state of preparation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state what the business will be next week after Monday?

At present I can only say I cannot flatter myself we shall complete the Budget Bill on Monday, and therefore we shall have to take it on Tuesday. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will ask at the rising of the House with regard to Wednesday.

said that, in view of the modest character of the Estimate this year, his remarks would be brief. The effective portion of the Vote, that which was allotted to actual works, showed a considerable decrease—£110,574. The only items which showed a substantial increase were under Naval barracks, General Fleet Services. This increase was mainly owing to the new quarters at Whale Island and the provision of depôts for submarine boats. There was also a small increase in the item for naval armaments, which was due to the provision of torpedo ranges at Hong-Kong and Malta. The other main increase was for grants in aid of works. This item was accounted for by the fact that the New South Wales Government had agreed to provide, free of cost, the storage accommodation required by the Navy for Victualling services in Australia; but it was not convenient to them to pay that sum at once; and as the Admiralty were very anxious that the work should be begun at once, they had agreed to advance the money in the first place, the whole of it being repaid in annual instalments spread over the next five years. With these exceptions, every item in the Vote showed a decrease as compared with the Estimates last year, and every effort had been made to reduce the expenditure on naval works to the lowest possible figure compatible with efficiency. The only other salient point which he wished to draw attention to was with regard to the administration of expenditure under the Loans Act. In agreement with a desire expressed by the Committee last year, arrangements were now being made to amalgamate the Works Department proper and the Works Loans Department, and by this means he hoped that an economy of about £20,000 a year would be effected.

said he did not complain of the brevity of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman: indeed, he thought he would follow his example in that respect. Probably the most important thing in his statement was to be found in the concluding sentences, wherein he told them that the administration under the Naval Works Loan Act, and under the Naval Works were to be amalgamated. The original division of responsibility was the outcome of a well-considered scheme having economy for its object; and yet, although the works under the Loans Act had grown more extensive, a new policy had been introduced, and it had been suggested that it would be more economical to return to the old system, and to have the statutory works as well as the loan works under the same supervision.

The change, in the first place, was not made on the ground of economy but from sheer necessity, because the Works Department of the day was small and not capable of dealing with great works. Now it has been gradually built up, and it has been possible, as well as compatible with economy, to reduce the two separate staffs and combine them into one.

repeated his suggestion that economy was the ground put forward for the original change. He further desired to know when the next Naval Works Bill would be introduced into the House. It was about time, he thought, they got information. He forgot whether any statement had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anyone else as to the anticipated amount that would be asked for under the new Naval Works Bill, and he certainly hoped that they would get the information of the total estimated expenditure during the financial year just beginning. It was quite true that, apart from the increase in annuities and one or two other developments, there had been a decrease in the normal expenditure of the department amounting to £110,000. But he would like to know whether any portion of that reduction was attributable in any way to the new scheme of naval policy. He found that in the case of Jamaica there was a considerable item of £105,000 for a new official residence there. That was a large amount for a house, especially when they remembered that Jamaica was specifically mentioned in the last Memorandum as about to be reduced from its old status. Why, when the Admiralty were proposing to degrade Jamaica from its present status as a naval station, should they be asking for such an enormous sum for an official residence? He would like further to know whether the hon. Gentleman was prepared to make any statement in regard to what was being done or to be done at Rosyth?

An undertaking has been given that the sum of £200,000 already voted shall not be exceeded.

said he was afraid he could not accept the hon. Member for King's Lynn as a conclusive authority, and he must press the Admiralty for an Answer to this Question. At any rate, could they confirm the hon. Member's statement?

said that in the Report on the Appropriation Account it was specifically stated that the £200,000 was not to be exceeded.

said his hon. friend was quite mistaken. They were pledged, certainly, not to spend more than the £200,000 voted under the last Loans Bill during the existence of that Bill, but it was never supposed for one moment that they were going to create a naval base in Scotland for the total sum of £200,000. That sum, or the greater portion of it, had been spent mainly on the purchase of the site, and in due course, later in the session, when the Loan Bill of 1905 was introduced, he would lay before the House the full proposals of the Government for the development of the site, and ask the sanction of the House for the necessary expenditure.

said he believed the amount paid for the site was £170,000, and he was glad to know that when the Naval Works Loan Bill was brought in they would hear a little more as to the intentions of the Admiralty. He accepted that as a pledge on the hon. Gentleman's part that they would have a careful estimate of the proposed expenditure on that new naval base. He hope that the Naval Works Bill would be produced as early as possible, and that they would be given as much information at the present time as could be given, so that they might get some intelligible idea as to the extent of the naval budget they were dealing with.

said that certainly his memory was very distinct that the Report on the Appropriation Accounts and the Papers connected therewith contained an absolute pledge that no more money than the £200,000 already voted should be expended. It was his surprise at finding that which caused him to mention it that day. Now he understood he was entirely mistaken, and possibly the official through whom that assurance was conveyed was also mistaken. Were they to take it that the expenditure of that £200,000 was only to apply to the end of the present year, and, if so, were they to have some tremendous expenditure corresponding to that upon Gibraltar or some other first-class naval base? If that were so, he looked on it as a very serious matter. It was a serious adumbration of the intentions of the Admiralty in regard to that site. The hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty must be aware that it had been generally thought that Rosyth was to be abandoned. It was true that he had denied that statement within the last few days, but they were left for some time under the impression, conveyed through the ordinary channels of information—the Press—that an alteration had taken place in the policy of the Admiralty and that Rosyth was to be abandoned. Now they were told that it was not to be abandoned, and he supposed they were to have an expenditure of some millions incurred upon it. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman would say at once that it was only proposed to spend a small sum in addition to the £200,000, he would make no further remarks, but if the outlay was to amount to some millions, he assured him that the proposal would meet with his most uncompromising resistance, and he trusted he would be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House in opposing the creation of a naval base which was unnecessary, which was strategically false and mischievous, and which would prove an enormous additional burden to that now placed upon the country by this monstrous system of Naval Loans Acts. Now he came to the statement that the two administrative bodies were to be amalgamated—the Naval Works Loans and the administrative staff. He did not quite understand why that was not done before, and he confessed it aroused suspicion in his mind. Apparently the Naval Works Loans Department, instead of being temporary, was to be made permanent. He saw a very serious objection to that because it would saddle the country permanently with salaries which it had been anticipated they would get rid of when the loan works were completed, and it would also saddle the country with pensions. In the alternative, they would have to face this position, that the Admiralty engaged on permanent conditions, with the permanent advantages of permanent Civil servants, this staff, when they professedly were only to be engaged on work which in its nature was temporary, and was in due course to come to an end. If that were so, it indicated a determination on the part of the Admiralty to go on with Naval Works Loans Acts for an indefinite period. Surely some further explanation was required in regard to that. He would not go into the question of Jamaica. It was a very serious one, but it was only one among many questions of the same nature, Why, although the Admiralty were going to abandon that station, they were, nevertheless, incurring increasing expenditure in regard to it, was a thing which ought to be inquired into. Of course, it might be they were only fulfilling undertakings already entered into, but some further information was required. He wished to say, in conclusion, that the whole of this system of naval works by loan was a most monstrous and false system, and that in the case of Rosyth a tremendous blunder had been made. If the House was to be asked for a large sum in addition to the £200,000 already voted he certainly should most strongly oppose it.

said he took some interest in the matter of Rosyth in the earlier stages, and he thought the House was now in possession of one of the most important intimations they had ever yet had in regard to naval works. He understood the Civil Lord of the Admiralty to promise the full proposals of he Government in regard to Rosyth when the Naval Works Bill came to be discussed.

What I said was that I could make no statement about Rosyth, as regards the future, until the Naval Works Loans Bill was introduced, but that I would lay then whatever proposals the Government had in regard to it before the House.

said that exactly illustrated the position in which the House of Commons stood. He did not think his hearing was defective, but he certainly had understood the hon. Gentleman to promise them that when the Naval Works Bill was introduced he would give them the full proposals of the Government. Now they were told they were only to have such proposals as were in the mind of the Government, and there was some difference in that, because then they would only have the proposals up to a certain extent. The fact was that the Government at the present moment did not know what it was going to do with Rosyth as a naval base. It had entered on a large transaction, and it had bought property at a ridiculous and even at a scandalous price from the landed proprietor—it had paid eighty-five years purchase for that tract of land. He challenged that transaction at the time, and he still challenged is as a notable instance of how the Government had failed to use its Parliamentary powers for the acquisition of land, and had, in consequence, had to pay a much higher price than they ought to have done. He did not lay any blame on the landed proprietor, because having a soft Government to deal with he had extorted a very substantial price. He would like to explain what was the local position in regard to Rosyth, and he wished to do it now in order that it might not be said when the Naval Works Loan Bill came forward that he had made any reservation in regard to the local interests involved. There were important local as well as national interests concerned. The county of Fife had furnished itself with a water supply, and the Government had become responsible for one-third of the cost of a not inconsiderable water scheme for supplying the population which was to be at this naval base. But he wanted to know where was that population, when was it to be there, would it be there within this decade or the next decade or even within the next generation? He believed that, unless they had another ridiculous outbreak of Jingoism in the country it would be postponed for at least half a century. That was the situation. The base had been projected, but the works which were to be established on it were now going to be postponed. The late Secretary to the Admiralty on one occasion spoke of Rosyth as an eventual base. He would like to know what was meant by that? It was not an eventual purchase of the site. They had not merely obtained the right to acquire the land and to hold it in reserve. The locality were led to believe there would be an increase of population, and the county and the locality arranged their business in view of present and future requirements. If the statement as to its being an eventual base had been made at the beginning the locality would not have formed the expectations as to the increase of the population which it had been led to form, and would not have made arrangements on the assumption that the Government meant prompt business. The fact was, the whole of this transaction was a sample of the way in which the Government went on. It was a spendthrift Government; it mismanaged its business; it started on a scheme and then found that it was not sufficiently urgent to be proceeded with. He held a very strong opinion that the whole of this scheme of naval works was opposed to the general financial system of the country. When the Naval Works Bill came forward they would get nothing but vague words about eventualities, and the one fact would stand out that the land had been acquired by the Government at a rate only justifiable on the assumption of instant and urgent need.

said, as regarded the question of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he thought the hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact with regard to Rosyth that it was a total Vote of £200,000, and it was taken as a total Vote, because at that time no estimate either as to time or money could be given in respect of it, and what the House complained of then was the fact that the total proposal was made on the promise of something, the effect of which could not be foreseen. He entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dundee as to the question of procedure in this House and the policy pursued with respect to loans for works. He thought if the Navy was to be sufficiently economically administered it must be on the basis of broad facts and broad principles, and his complaint was that they could not get from the Admiralty any clear statement of those principles by reason of the methods by which this House was approached for money. The whole thing was chopped up into little bits and they were never shown the whole account. He was sorry that they had a prospect of another demand being made for naval loans, following and not preceding the Naval Estimates, on this Works Vote. He did not think it was in the interest of the Navy or in the interests of the Admiralty. He had every confidence in the Admiralty himself, and had had for many years, and he believed they did work on broad principles, but they were open to the suspicion, and recent facts had increased the suspicion he had before, that they had taken action without due consideration with regard to this matter. The House, in his opinion, was placed in a very difficult position for discussing the Works Vote, because they had not the whole policy of the Admiralty before them. To complete his observations upon the expenditure upon this matter, he might say that the Memorandum recently issued was an exposition of the world-wide policy which would have to be contemplated by this country, yet we were abolishing, or, rather, largely reducing, and in fact taking the ground that certain bases were not necessary. He did not wish to go over the whole of them, but let them take the case of Jamaica, which had been mentioned. The House would recollect that in the Memorandum dealing with this distribution of bases, the West Indian station was described as extending from the Equator to the Pole. That gave a very graphic description of the extent of the area, and they must remember that in that area the operations of commerce and trade which affected us were very great, and when they came to compare Rosyth on the one side with Jamaica on the other there was something incongruous in the position. The North Sea was not large when they considered the very small area of the German Ocean and all the waters to the eastward of England and to the westward of Europe as compared with the area between the Equator and the Pole. It was certainly incongruous when they were told the base at Jamaica was to be abolished because it was not wanted; that in these days of steam it was too near England; but that when they came to the German Ocean the contention of the Government was that Portsmouth was too far off, and that another base must be established within a few hours, steaming distance further north. He merely indicated that to establish his contention that our naval policy must be founded on broad principles, and based on a broad policy which had regard to the whole world and dealt with large areas. Therefore, this question could not be dealt with by the House unless the whole policy was before them. He noticed in this Vote there was a charge for the fifteenth instalment in aid of a dock at Halifax. Now the arrangements had totally altered since the time when the last Estimate was placed before the House with regard to the relations of this country, and of the Admiralty, to Halifax. So far as the garrison there was concerned, the Imperial business of providing for its defence was to be taken over by the Dominion Government, and so far as the policy of the Admiralty was concerned, it was to reduce expenditure and to create a sort of cadre. What that meant he did not know, and therefore he thought the House was entitled to have a real explanation of the meaning that was put to this new word "cadre," because a dock was part of the appliances necessary for any sort of naval base. They were therefore entitled to press for information as to what exactly was going to happen under this system of cadre. What was going to happen to the machinery there? What was going to happen to the dock? Who was to be responsible, for its upkeep? and who was to pay for it?

said this was no question of a dockyard. The dock was a private dock and the instalments were paid in order to secure, if necessary, the prior use of it.

said he was perfectly well aware of what his hon. friend stated, but whether it was a private dock or not, the fact of subsidising it was sufficient reason for seeing why that arrangement was made and they should have once and for all some explanation of the meaning of this new word cadre as applied to naval bases. Another point on which he desired some explicit information was the item of £88,000 for buildings on Whale Island for the accommodation of sub-lieutenants. Of late the policy of the Admiralty had been to get the officers and men more on the water, more often afloat, than used to be the case. Was it not the fact that our "nucleus of crews" system and our new rules with regard to the distribution of the Fleet as it affected the personnel had not had the effect of diminishing the numbers requiring barrack accommodation? and was it not the case that the Government had built close to Whale Island at immense cost a most luxurious barrack?

was understood to assent.

said in that case he wanted to have it clearly proved that this expenditure on bricks and mortar on Whale Island was really necessary. He quite admitted that a great deal of time was lost by young officers having to go from the Naval College right through the dockyard to Whale Island, but he could not think that all this expenditure on bricks and mortar was necessary, and inasmuch as he had raised his voice against expenditure of this kind for many years, he must press for this explanation. What he wanted to know was whether the result of the system of nucleus crews and the new distribution of the personnel had not reduced the occupation of barracks, upon which £2,500,000 had recently been spent. It was not right that this question of naval works and buildings should be dealt with in a piecemeal fashion. The whole matter should be placed before the House and an opportunity afforded of fairly considering the principles of the policy upon which the Government were acting.

thought the Cotnmiitee had a right to complain of the perfunctory way in which this Vote had been introduced. No one would have imagined from the statement of the Civil Lord that a sum of £1,900,000 was involved. In 1899 the Vote amounted to only £730,000, so that in seven years it had increased nearly three-fold. The hon. Member would probably say that it was largely due to the annuities for the payment of advances, but that simply added force to the complaints which had been made against the policy of Naval and Military Works Bills. The Estimate for repayment had increased from £630,000 last year to over £1,000,000 this year, and that he took to be entirely due to expenditure already incurred and debt already created. If that were so, the indebtedness on account of naval works had been increased during the year by £5,000,000. This was borne out by the National Debt Return, which showed that the outstanding debt under Naval Works had grown from £11,000,000 in 1904 to £16,000,000. He submitted that it was not fair that expenditure of this amount should be made after the introduction of the Estimates for the year. The Committee was now considering the Naval Estimates, but they had not yet seen the Works Bill for the expenditure to be incurred daring the present year. That was bad finance, as it did not give the House any idea as to the expenditure actually to be incurred. A further reason why the Naval Works. Bill should be introduced before the Naval Estimates were passed was that it dealt not merely with new works but with the completion of works to which the House was already committed. The policy of dealing piecemeal with naval expenditure ought to come to an end, and the Committee ought to have a clear statement of the responsibilities to be incurred during the financial year before the financial year began.

desired to revert to the statement he made earlier in the afternoon. He remarked then that the Admiralty had pledged themselves not to spend more than £200,000 on Rosyth, but the representative of the Admiralty denied it. He had now the document with him and would read the evidence of Colonel Raban and Major Pilkington given before the Public Accounts Committee in 1904, and the Treasury Minute thereon. The Committee asked—

"In that way we are giving you more and more latitude, and the House of Commons is having less control."

"At Rosyth you gave us authority to undertake work to the extent of £200,000, and no liability has been incurred beyond the £200,000. We have pledged ourselves that we shall not incur liabilities in excess of that, and the Treasury hold us to that. That is the obligation upon us."

"The Committee express the opinion that Parliament should not be asked on a token Vote of a few thousand pounds to commit itself to the construction of a new work of which the total cost may run into millions and of which not even an approximate estimate is submitted. My Lords, while entirely concurring with the principle of the Committee's observations, do not admit that in practice Parliament has been so committed. In connection, for example, with the token provision of £50,000 in the Naval Works Act of 1903 for Chatham Dockyard Extension, my Lords in Treasury Letter of June 25th last stated that they do not accept the contention that Parliament has sanctioned this service in principle, further than to provide the above-mentioned sum for preliminary work. Similarly with regard to Rosyth the Admiralty representative before the Committee stated: 'At Rosyth you gave us authority to undertake work to the extent of £200,000, and no liability has been incurred beyond the £200,000. We have pledged ourselves that we shall not incur liabilities in excess of that.'"