laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, 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.:—Alexandra Park and Palace 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.:—London Government Scheme (Hackney and Edmonton Unions) Bill; London Government Scheme (London and Middlesex) 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.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 15) Bill.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that overtime is being worked by the very class of men employed at Sheerness Dockyard who are being discharged; and whether, in view of the amount of work in hand at the present time, and likely to be undertaken in Sheerness Dockyard, he will consider the advisability, with a view to retaining men who are being discharged, and who are given as likely to be discharged, of stopping overtime for the present. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) No overtime is being worked by the classes of men from whom discharges are being made at Sheerness Dockyard, except on one small special job, on which it is impossible to put more men, and which must be completed by the end of the month. A certain amount of overtime is necessary each week, but this is of such a character as is essential for the economical working of the yard, e.g., lighting fires and furnaces before bell-ringing, pumping water, making good any breakdown to shop machinery, etc. This class of work is performed by men specially selected for the purpose. Such overtime, therefore, being normal, does not affect the number of discharges, which were calculated after making allowance for overtime of the nature stated and wastage due to death, superannuation, etc. The amount of work now in hand at Sheerness and in prospect for the next few months has led to the discharges being increased from twelve to twenty per week for the present, in order that the men borne on the books may be remuneratively employed.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give approximately the number of discharges contemplated by the Admiralty amongst the men employed in Sheerness Dockyard from 22nd May, 1905, to the end of the financial year, and the rate at which these discharges are to be effected; also whether he can state the number of discharges that have taken place in Sheerness Dockyard from 1st January, 1905, to 22nd May, 1905. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The number of discharges contemplated from the 22nd May to the end of the financial year is 540. The rate of discharge, which was at first twelve per week, has recently been increased to twenty per week. The total number of discharges between the 1st January, 1905, and the 22nd May is 190, including men discharged at their own request and on superannuation.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the conclusions come to by the recent International Labour Conference, on which His Majesty's Government were represented, will be laid before Parliament. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The conference has only just finished its meetings, and I have not yet had time to consider its conclusions, so I am not yet prepared to answer the right hon. Baronet's Question. I hope, however, to do so very shortly.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the errors in the sectoring of the Roancarrig Light, Berehaven, as shown by its actual bearings when compared with the information given in the Admiralty Chart and List of Lights, have yet been rectified; and, if so, for how long a time had the errors existed; whether the sectoring of South Arran Light was rectified in 1903, whether it is now correct, and for how long the previous error had existed; and will he explain why the light at Oyster Island, as shown in the Admiralty Lists of Lights, is described as showing from South 29 degrees East through East to South 21 degrees East, a sector of 352 degrees, instead of from South 29 degrees East through South to 21 degrees East, a sector of 8 degrees; and who is responsible for the error; for what reason the Imogene Buoy is coloured red and the Rosebeg Buoy coloured black, both buoys being on the same side of their respective channels. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that they are not aware of any errors in the sectoring of Roancarrig Light as shown by its actual bearings when compared with the information given in the Admiralty Chart and List of Lights. They state, however, that with the improved new character of light which will shortly be exhibited at this station, an observer will notice in clear weather when close to the light that the cuts are more sharply defined than with the existing light. As regards South Arran Light, which is cut by the land, I am informed that it was not affected by the painting of the screen part of the lantern in 1903, and that the information about the light given in the Admiralty publications is practically correct. The Commissioners inform me that it escaped their attention, when the Notice to Mariners in regard to the Oyster Island Light was issued, that the wording of it conveyed the impression that the white are was visible over 352 degrees instead of 8 degrees. They will take steps for this to be corrected in the next issue of the List of Lights, and the responsible authority will be asked to consider whether the case is one in which a Notice to Mariners should be issued in the meanwhile. As regards the two buoys mentioned in the latter part of the Question, the Commissioners state that the Imogene Buoy, being the starboard landmark for a danger in the approach to Dundalk Harbour, is coloured red, while the Rose-beg is coloured black as it is considered safer for shipping to treat this latter buoy as the seamark for a port land danger to vessels passing up channel rather than as starboard landmark of a danger in the approach to the Port of Dublin.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the insanitary condition of certain cheaper kinds of flock used in the manufacture of cheap mattresses; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, for the prevention of the spread of infectious disease arising from the use of insanitary and unwashed materials. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) My attention has been drawn to the sale and use of unwashed flock for bedding and other purposes. The compulsory cleansing of the materials referred to could not be generally secured under the existing law. The point has been noted for consideration, but I cannot at present hold out any prospect of legislation on the subject.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of children at present in the Metropolitan workhouses and workhouse infirmaries and in provincial workhouses and workhouse infirmaries respectively. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) On the 1st January, 1905, the latest date for which information is available, the

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of Poor Law children at present boarded-out beyond and within the union respectively. (Answered, by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) On the 1st January, 1905, the numbers of pauper children in England and Wales who were boarded-out beyond the union and within the union were 1,806 and 6,814, respectively. This is the latest information which is at present available.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of children emigrated to Canada by boards of guardians during 1904. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) During the year 1904 the Local Government Board issued Orders authorizing

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of officials in the Edinburgh telegraph staff who have reached the age for retirement laid down in the Civil Service regulations. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Under the Order in Council of 15th August, 1890, retirement is compulsory for every officer on attaining sixty-five years of age. No officer on the telegraph staff at Edinburgh has reached that age.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether auxiliary rural postmen who perform five hours duty daily, or less, and who are beyond the age limit, are eligible to qualify for appointment as rural postmen under any regulations now in force; and, if such privilege does exist, was it in operation in 1890–91. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The class of rural postmen is recruited alternately from ex-soldiers or ex-sailors and from boy messengers who pass through the assistant postmen's class. Auxiliary postmen as such have no claim to appointment as rural postmen, but they are occasionally appointed under exceptional circumstances. A man who is beyond the age limit is not, therefore, excluded from appointment, if he was within that limit when he was first employed by the Post Office and has rendered continuous service since that time. These conditions were in operation in 1890–1.

To ask the Postmaster-General, with reference to the examination for male learners in February, 1904, whether he can state how many of the eleven successful candidates have since been appointed, what is the cause of the delay in appointing the remainder, and when they are likely to be called in. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I presume that the hon. Member refers to the examination for male learners in the Dublin Office. If this be so none of these candidates have yet been appointed owing to the decrease in telegraph work and to a smaller number of vacancies on the class of sorting clerks and telegraphists having occurred than was anticipated. It is impossible to say when they will receive appointments, since it depends upon the occurrence of vacancies.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in connection with the recent establishment of the Irish Portal Veterinary Service, which was not proposed to have retrospective effect, whether he can state if the Treasury intend to accede to the request of the inspectors and of the Department of Agriculture that back service with increased pay should be granted. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) This matter is still under the consideration of the Treasury.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, with a view to avoid the hardship and expense caused to working people by the practice of school attendance officers of making a rule that parents must either send every child to school or get a doctor's certificate, and in view of the cases of death of children sent to school, when ill, because the parents could not afford to obtain such a certificate, he will issue instructions to county councils showing that it rests entirely with the school attendance committees to decide on the merits of each case, and as to whether they will send a particular case to be prosecuted before a magistrate or not. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) School attendance officers have no power to make rules on the subject referred to. Their practice should be governed by such directions as they may receive from the local education authority, who have full powers to deal with individual cases on their merits and to give such general instructions as to the evidence required for non-attendance at school as will promote the convenience of all parties concerned. The justice of the peace may also accept other evidence than a medical certificate as an excuse for non-attendance on the ground of illness. It seems, hardly necessary for the Board to issue instructions on the subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received an opinion from the Law Officers of the Crown concerning evasions of the Medical Acts and of the Dentist's Act under the provisions of the Companies Acts; and, if so, whether he will communicate it to the House. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The Board of Trade have received an opinion from the Law Officers, but I am unable to accede to my hon. friend's request, as such opinions are treated as confidential.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that property has been purchased and plans prepared by the London and North Western Railway Company at Gloucester Gate, in the immediate neighbourhood of Regent's Park, for the rehousing of the Working-class inhabitants to be displaced by the scheme for reconstructing and enlarging Euston Railway Station, according to the Act of 1900, Section 50; and whether, having regard to the fact that these sites are one mile and a quarter distant from Euston Station, and to the residential character of this neighbourhood, to the objection expressed to the plan by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, and to the fact that sites near the Hampstead Road and quite close to Euston Station have already been acquired by the London and North Western Railway Company, which would be most suitable for the purpose, he will take steps so that the company may carry out their original intention of building the working-class houses in the latter position. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The London and North Western Railway Company have made application to the Local Government Board for their approval of a scheme for providing housing accommodation for 840 persons of the working classes near Gloucester Gate, Regent's Park. The Board have not received any objections to the scheme, but an inquiry with regard to it will be held by one of their inspectors on the 30th instant, at the Town Hall, St. Pancras. The inspector will be prepared to receive at the inquiry any representation as to the suitability of the site or the advantages of any other site.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the quantity of pounds weight of unstemmed tobacco (whole leaf) cleared from bond from 1st January to 31st March in the current year; and the quantity of stems returned for drawback from 1st February to 30th April in the current year, and the basis of moisture upon which this quantity is calculated. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The quantity of unstemmed tobacco (whole leaf) cleared from bond for home consumption from 1st January to 31st March in the current year was 8,789,474 1bs. The quantity of stems (tobacco stalks) deposited for drawback from the 1st February to 30th April in the current year was 445,404 1bs. This quantity consisted of a very large number of deposits at varying degrees of moisture. It would not at present be possible to state the quantity of stems at the standard moisture of 14 per cent, which it represents.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the insanitary condition of Crossgar, county Down, owing to bad water supply and want of a sewage system; and whether he will have a Local Government inspector sent to report on the state of the town. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Representations as to the defective sewerage and unsatisfactory water supply of Cross-gar have been made to the Local Government Board. The matter has been brought to the notice of the district council, who, the Board understand, are carrying out works to improve the sewerage and provide a water supply.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether definite steps have been taken concerning the sale of the Sherlock Estate, Ballyrobin, Cloyne, county Cork, at present in the Land Judge's Court, and how the case now stands. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am informed that the abstract of the owner's title has been lodged in Court, but the rulings on it have not yet been issued.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the value of allowances for pension purposes to assistants in the Dundrum Lunatic Asylum is £40; if he can state why James M'Keogh, late shoemaker at the asylum, received pension calculated only at the rate of £25 per annum for allowances; and on what grounds are the inspectors justified in withholding this allowance from an attendant of ten and a-half years service. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This Question is based on a misapprehension. No pension was awarded in the case.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a notice issued by Mr. R. V. Stoney, of Rosturk Castle, county Mayo, warning tenants, residing on land which he sold to the Congested Districts Board, against grazing cattle or sheep on Glennamaddon Mountain, north of the Lockspit, or east of Murrivagh Mearing; and whether, seeing that this mountain forms part of the estate sold by Mr. Stoney to the Congested Districts Board, he will take steps to secure that those tenants shall not be prevented from grazing on it as they have been accustomed to do. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This mountain, which consists of 1,965 acres of rough grazing land, is part of the property which was purchased by the Congested Districts Board, but when Mr. Stoney offered to sell to the Board 196 acres of arable land, of which 174 is untenanted, they accepted his condition that they should resell to him, for the price which they had given to him, the mountain land referred to. The price of the arable land so purchased is £3,975, and the price of that resold to Mr. Stoney is only £600. This mountain land did not form part of the tenants' holdings, nor had they any rights of grazing over it.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the five case of grass farms on the King-Harman Estate, in which the Estates Commissioners have agreed to consider favourably to purchase the tenants' interests through the vendor, he can state the amount proposed to be paid for the landlord's interest in each case, and the number of years purchase of the rent the amount represents; also the amount proposed to be paid for the tenant's interest in each case, and the number of years purchase of the rent the amount represents; have any of those tenants refused to sign their purchase agreements on the ground of excessive price; whether the Treasury have sanctioned or are prepared to sanction the arrangement for advancing money to the vendor in this case, or in the case of other properties, for purchasing the dual interest of landlord and tenant in grass farms for the purpose of division amongst the smaller occupiers; and, if so, if he can state the names of the cases. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In the cases referred to in which the Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of grass farms hitherto occupied by tenants, they propose to purchase the lands as untenanted, and do not therefore put a separate valuation on the interests of the landlord and the tenants respectively. The dealings with the tenants are carried on by the proposed vendor, and not by the Commissioners. The Commissioners propose to give for the lands, as untenanted, such prices as they consider the lands can be resold for, having due regard to the security. They have no information that these tenants have refused to sign agreements for purchase. There is no proposal that money shall be advanced to the landlord to enable him to purchase the tenants' interests.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the horse-breeding schemes of the Irish Agricultural Department hackney and Welsh stallions are still used; and, if so, how many are there and where are they located; and "whether the employment of hackney stallions in the congested districts has been attended with such results as to justify their further use in these or other districts of the country. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Hackney and Welsh stallions are not used in connection with the Department's general horse-breeding scheme. Of the stallions transferred from the Congested Districts Board in 1904, several are still in use, viz., three of the hackney breed in Donegal, three in Mayo, and one in Leitrim; while of the Welsh stallions, one is located in Mayo, and four in Gal-way. Opinions differ widely as to the suitability of the hackney breed for congested districts, but, while the Department do not encourage this breed, they have not seen their way to deprive farmers in congested districts of all the sires located there by the Congested Districts Board.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the entire sum assigned in the grant for the pay of officers in the Army is paid over at monthly or other intervals to a private banking firm, constituted Army agents for this purpose, who disburse the pay to the individual officers, that the sum is paid to the agents out of the Treasury en bloc at some interval before it becomes payable to the individual officers, with the result of giving the agents the use and control of this public money during these periods, he will say under what authority this system originated and is maintained; whether any similar or analogous system obtains in other Departments of the public service; whether it has been brought to the attention of the War Office that the effect of constituting private bankers paymasters of the Army officers is to give one firm a practical monopoly of the banking business of officers in the Army; and will he explain why the practice of the India Office and Admiralty is not followed, whereby an officer can draw his pay personally or by power of attorney from a Government Department. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The agents are only paid the money as it becomes due to the officers. The practice has been in force for very many years. It is maintained by the authority of the Secretary of State, with the sanction of the Treasury. The War Office is not aware of the practice of other Departments in the matter. There are three firms involved, not one. The practice has been maintained in the interests of the officers concerned. From July 1st any Army officer will be able to draw his pay either locally or through the agents as he prefers. Regimental officers can do so at present.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to his recent statement that all Militia and Volunteer submarine mining divisions in the United Kingdom were to be dispensed with, he is aware that recruiting for the same is still being carried on; and whether capitation grants are to be paid for the men so enrolled. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Recruiting is still being carried on in certain cases, since there are duties in connection with our ports which can still be performed by these units. Capitation grants will be paid, when earned, according to the conditions which may be fulfilled.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a memorial from the people of Duncannon and the surrounding district, asking for a return of the military to Duncannon station; and whether, in view of the barrack accommodation and rifle range at Dun-cannon, he will accede to the wishes of the memorialists. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The hon. Member was informed last November that the memorial mentioned had been received and that the views of the memorialists as to the quartering of troops at Duncannon would receive full consideration in connection with any scheme involving the redistribution of the troops in Ireland. I have nothing further to add to this information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House the proportion of field artillery and cavalry held to be necessary for the effective mobilisation of every division of infantry 12,000 strong; and if such proportion is available for the sixteen divisions of Volunteer infantry provided for service in emergency; and, if not, how many field batteries und squadrons of horse would be available if the Regular Army was absent from Great Britain.

Two brigades of field artillery and one squadron of cavalry form the proportion of field artillery and cavalry laid down for each division of Regular troops for service abroad. Should the Regular divisions be absent abroad, brigades of field artillery would be available for such Volunteer divisions as are proposed for home defence, and in the event of all the Regular cavalry being sent abroad, the Imperial Yeomanry would take their place.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the number of deaths from plague in India from January 1st, 1905, to the week ending April 1st last; whether he will give the latest information in his possession as to the mortality from plague during the month of April; and whether he will arrange for the publication of the weekly tabular returns of plague in the English newspapers.

From January 1st to the week ending April 1st inclusive the number of plague deaths was 471,744. In April for the four weeks ending April 29th the mortality was 215,961. Under arrangements lately made the plague mortality in each calendar month will be reported to me by telegram, and I propose to communicate it regularly to the Press for the present. The weekly-statements are not in a form suitable for the requirements of the Press, and they are three weeks old when received.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when he will lay upon the Table a translation of the Agreement recently concluded with the Ameer of Afghanistan, together with other Papers relating to the Mission to Cabul.

The Papers will be laid on the Table to-day and will be distributed without unnecessary delay.

:I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the results of the analysis made by the officials of the Inland Revenue during the past two years ending April 30th, 1905, of all the ingredients used in the manufacture of beer, including regenerators and yeast foods, and whether the Inland Revenue officers have full knowledge of all the-substances used by brewers in the manufacture of beer; and will he state what penalties, if any, there are against the-brewer for not making a full return of all the materials he uses.

During the two years ended April 30th, 1905, the following samples of materials used in brewing have been examined at the Government Laboratory:—1,893 samples of malt, rice, and maize, in various forms, sugar, glucose, invert sugar, syrups, etc.; 238 samples of yeast foods, heading powders, and liquids, antacids, antiseptics, hop. substitutes, etc. The object of the analysis of these samples was either the determination of the brewing value for revenue purposes, or to test their purity, particularly as regards freedom from arsenic. The results of the analysis may be summarised as follows:—In 1,972 cases no objection was raised to the articles of which samples were examined. In seventy-nine cases the articles submitted were not objected to, but the applicants were informed that the non-interference of the Board would not protect the user from any action which might be taken under the Foods and Drugs Act. In the remaining eighty cases objection was raised to the use of the articles submitted on some one of the following grounds—(1) that the samples examined showed the presence of arsenic beyond the limit recommended by the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning; (2) the presence of copper; (3) the presence of Quillaia bark or extract; or (4) that they were alcoholic flavouring essences. Inland Revenue -officers have full knowledge of the substances used by brewers for sale in the manufacture of beer. The penalty incurred by a brewer for not entering a full account in his brewing book of the materials used in brewing is £100.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now give an estimate of the amount by which the National Debt will be increased in the current financial year by the liabilities classified as "other capital liabilities" in the Annual Returns relating to the National Debt.

In the Budget Statement it was provisionally estimated that the issues required on Capital Account in 1905–6 would be about £9,000,000. Towards this sum we had in hand, as the result of surplus borrowings in 1904–5, £844,000. So the gross increase of liability would be £8,156,000. But there is provided in the Votes for 1905–6 in reduction of existing liabilities £1,685,000. So the net increase of liabilities on this head would be £6,471,000. Against this increase must be set the reduction in the National Debt under other heads, namely—

There must be some increase m capital expenditure?

Yes, roughly £6,500,000.

Is it not the case that the Sinking Fund provides for a reduction of £10,000,000 yearly, whereas the actual reduction will be only £3,000,000?

I really do not understand the object of that Question. As I have said, the net reduction will be a little over £3,000,000.

But does not the Sinking Fund provide for a reduction of £10,000,000 annually?

Notice had better be given of any further Question.

We understand that the net result this year will be a reduction of the National Debt by £3,000,000?

Rather more than £3,000,000.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on what conditions, and by virtue of what authority, the sanction of the Treasury was given to the expenditure by the Admiralty, in the financial year ending 31st March, 1905, of a sum of £4,000 on buildings at Whale Island, not authorised by the Navy Estimates of that year.

The Board of Admiralty represented to the Treasury, in January last, the urgency in the public interest of providing accommodation at Whale Island for the instruction of naval lieutenants by the coming autumn, and the Treasury gave its assent accordingly. No excess on Navy Vote 10 for 1904–5 was entailed by the expenditure of £4,000 shown at page 135 of the current Navy Estimates, and consequently the authority of the Treasury was that governing the transfer of moneys between sub-head and subhead of the same Vote. As the hon. Member is aware, the Estimate of Navy Vote 10 for the current year, which includes this service, has been passed in Committee of Supply.

What authority had the Treasury for allowing the Admiralty to spend money for a service not provided for in last year's Estimates? Do the Treasury assume the right to authorise any Department to apply public money for public services not sanctioned by the House?

The Treasury has power, as the hon. Gentleman must know, to convey money voted under one sub-head for the Navy to another sub-head of the same Vote. That is the authority which we used.

What I am asking is what authority the Treasury has when the House has not sanctioned expenditure on a particular service to allow the Admiralty to spend money on it. Taking money from one sub-head and applying it to another is a totally different thing.

The Treasury did it under the authority I have stated by transferring from one subhead to another. In this particular case there was no money provision under the sub-head to which the transfer was made. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware from his experience as a Civil Lord of the Admiralty that the Treasury does take the responsibility of sactioning expenditure in anticipation of Parliamentary approval.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the property held by monastic and conventual institutions is made liable to succession duty; and, if so, what amount has been so paid for the past financial year.

It is. impossible to give a full Answer to my hon. friend in reply to a Question. Much depends upon the particular circumstances of each case. But a full statement of the law and practice will be found in the Report of the Select Committee on Conventual and Monastic Institutions of 1871 which was presided over by Mr. Villiers. No claims to exemption were received last year on the ground that property in respect of which duty was claimed was held on trust for monastic institutions, and such claims would not be admissible if received; but it is impossible to distinguish the duty, if any, paid on such property within the last twelve months from the duty received from other sources.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a case in Islington in which the Inland Revenue authorities seek to impose a fine of 2s. 6d. on an individual against whom it was alleged he had not taken out his dog licence sufficiently early; under what statute are the collectors authorised to levy such fines, and into what fund are they paid; and whether, in view of the fact that such proceedings are liable to abuse, he can see his way to put a stop, to them.

The case is one of a kind very common under the practice of the Board, whereby, in. virtue of the powers conferred by Section 35 (1) of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890, offenders in the matter of dog licences are offered the opportunity of paying a small fine as an alternative to appearing before the police magistrate. It is always open to an offender to elect this latter alternative, but, out of many thousands annually, the cases in which such election is made are relatively few. It may be inferred from this that the option of paying a fine is regarded as a privilege rather than as a hardship. The fines are paid into the Local Taxation Account. In the particular case to which the hon. Member has drawn my attention, the licence was not taken out until March 9th, after the detection had been made. If, in such circumstances, the offence were wholly condoned, I am afraid that very few licences would be taken until the authorities had detected the default.

Does the regulation apply to the Inland Revenue in Ireland?

Dog licences in Ireland are on altogether a different footing.

What is the total amount realised by these fines? Is the amount of each fine fixed by a particular officer? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the practice is open to abuse?

I cannot tell the amount without notice. The amount is fixed in each case by the Inland Revenue Department. The person from whom a fine is claimed has the alternative of a prosecution if he thinks that it is fixed arbitrarily and too high and he can go before the magistrates. But the fine obviously is a lesser penalty than the law imposes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that at a special sitting of the county magistrates, at Andover, to hear the first batch of thirty summonses against motorists for driving to the common danger around Andover during the Easter Holidays, Captain John Robert Stanford, of White Hatch and West Tilbury, a magistrate for Wilts and Dorset, pleaded guilty to driving a car at the rate of over thirty-seven miles an hour, and was fined £10 and costs; and, if so, whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor has been directed to the case with reference to the removal of this gentleman from the commission of the peace for two counties.

I have had no other intimation of this matter than that contained in the Question. I have mentioned the matter to the Lord Chancellor, who informs me that the circumstances of the case are not yet sufficiently before him to enable him to form any opinion.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state if other borough council clerks, for whom Messrs. Bircham and Company act as Parliamentary agents, receive, as in the Holborn case, 33⅓ per cent, of the profit charges; and, if so, whether such payments are known to the public bodies concerned.

I am not in possession of the information for which the hon. Member asks.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take care that no circular is sent to the various local bodies asking them to give preference to this firm of Parliamentary agents because they are in the service of the Government?

reply was inaudible.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the number of children at present maintained in the district and separate Poor Law schools of the Metropolis and of the provinces respectively.

On the 1st January last, the latest date for which information is at present available, there were 7,805 pauper children chargeable to Poor Law unions in London, and 4,329 children chargeable to Poor Law unions in the rest of England and Wales, who were maintained in district and separate schools.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he could see his way to rescind the regulation as to the compulsory registration of pathological material sent by post, and allow in its place some distinctive mark upon the envelope.

In view of the risk attending the transmission of pathological material by post it is important that special precautions should be taken. The regulation which requires that such material shall be registered is, in my opinion, a necessary one, and I regret that I cannot see my way to modify it.

Arising out of the Question I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that something like half a million of these specimens were sent through the post during last year, and the law was not carried out, while no injury was caused to anybody. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of post offices closing at 8 o'clock on Saturday nights and not opening till 8 o'clock on Monday mornings, a great deal of inconvenience and even danger is caused, and will he therefore reconsider the question.

No, Sir. I think special precautions should be taken in the interests of the staff, and I am not prepared to modify the present arrangements.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the meeting at the Royal United Service Institution on May 16th, whereat complaint was made of the little employment offered by Government Departments to ex-soldiers and sailors of good character; and if he can state generally how many former soldiers and sailors are now in the employ of the General Post Office, to how many permanent employment was given between April 1st, 1904, and March 31st, 1905, and to how many temporary employment was given.

My attention has been called to the meeting at the Royal United Service Institution and to the complaint to which the hon. Member refers, and I have to say that there is clearly some misapprehension. In connection with the Return for which the hon. Member is asking full particulars will be obtained, but I may say at once that during the last financial year about 1,000 ex-soldiers and sailors received Post Office appointments in the United Kingdom under Civil Service Certificates, in addition to a considerable number who were employed in various unestablished capacities.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will grant an inquiry regarding the damage which is being caused to the eastern counties through the encroachment of the sea on the coast.

I regret that I am not able to add anything to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the Lowestoft Division of Suffolk on March 30th† last.

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.

This matter is

†See (4) Debates,cxliii., 1735.

I shall repeat the Question this day week, with special reference to the appeal of the upper section with regard to pensions.

I will do the best I can to get the information asked for.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government are intending to take any steps to secure for the public benefit a record of any scientific observations of the forthcoming total solar eclipse on the August 30th next.

Yes, Sir. An expedition is being sent out at Government expense to make observations.

Where is it going?

I believe to Morocco.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the fact that on the physical disablement of any Member of Parliament there is at present no means of summoning immediate professional aid other than the services of any hon. Member connected with the medical profession who may happen to be on the premises, he can make a statement as to erecting a telephone to Westminster Hospital, and as to the intention of the Treasury to make an adequate money grant to the hospital to secure prompt medical assistance in the House when needed,

I am able to inform the hon. Member that telephonic communication with the Westminster Hospital was arranged on Friday last. The Post Office will make the connection early this week. The last part of the Question is one for my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the British elementary school at Shaw, in Lancashire, has (as was stated by the managers in their application for a final order, dated November 7th, 1903) been heretofore carried on as a non-sectarian school, the religious instruction in which has been undenominational, and not, superintended by any clergyman; and that the vicar and other present managers of the school have recently publicly announced that the Catechism and Collects of the Church of England will be henceforth taught in the school; and whether, having regard to the character the school has hitherto borne, and to the fact that it is the only undenominational school out of the six schools in the district, the Board of Education propose to take any such action as is open to them to prevent the religious instruction given in the school from being denominational.

The Shaw British School has been a voluntary school in private ownership, and has, it is believed, been recently acquired by purchase from its previous owners. The character of the religious instruction given in a voluntary school is under the control of the managers, and no new order for foundation managers is applied for in this case. I understand that it is contended that the transfer of a voluntary school under these conditions constitutes the provision of a new school within the meaning of Sections 8 and 9 of the Education Act, 1902, and I am proposing to receive a deputation on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in consequence of the withdrawal of the Clyde Shipping Company's steamer from Sneem, the winkle industry, which during the previous season resulted in the earning of over £300 by families in the district, has been completely destroyed; and whether, in view of the effect of the agreement made between the Congested Districts Board and the railway company, the clause by which the Board has bound itself not to grant a subsidy to any shipping company for the next five years will be cancelled.

The Board have no information that the fact is as stated in the first inquiry. I have already given the reasons why the agreement between the Board and the railway company cannot be withdrawn. The object of this agreement was to obtain favourable railway rates upon the withdrawal of the subsidised steamship service, and that object has been attained.

Will the right hon. Gentleman direct an inquiry into the industries destroyed by the action of the Congested Districts Board?

No, Sir. I cannot see that an inquiry is necessary. The Board have made the best arrangement they could.

But the public opinion of the whole county condemns the arrangement.

What object is gained, seeing you have destroyed an industry and done great injury to a whole district?

We secured special arrangements with regard to railway rates.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in how many individual cases the scheme issued some months ago by the Congested Districts Board for the insurance of fishing boats has been taken advantage of in the fishing districts of the county Kerry.

In one case only, so far.

Is it because the rate is too high?

I believe it is because the arrangement has only been in force a short time. I do not think there is any allegation that the rates are too high.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why certain competent clerks in the veterinary branch of the Agricultural Department have been deprived of all hope of promotion, and, after more than ten years service, are limited to a practically stationary salary of £95 a year, whilst other persons of less experience and not superior in qualification have been brought in at much higher salaries to do the same class of work.

The facts are precisely the reverse of what is stated in the Question. On the 11th instant † I informed the hon. Member that these clerks are on the scale of salary proper to the grade to which they belong, that is to say, a scale increasing by annual increments up to £150 a year.

In view of this public scandal will the right hon. Gentleman order an inquiry?

I do not think there is any ground whatever for an inquiry.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state how many county and district inspectors were in charge of the constabulary sent to suppress a meeting at Carrowkeel, county Galway, on April 30th; their names and the districts to which they belong; and if he will state the total cost connected

†See page 33.

Four; namely, County Inspector Lopdell, of Galway, W.R., and District Inspectors Glasgow of Clifden, Egan of Oughterard, and Spier of Spiddal. The total cost is about £100.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland who was the resident magistrate who issued the proclamation forbidding a political meeting at Carrowkeel, county Galway, on April 30th; upon what information he proceeded and the grounds upon which he took action; when was the proclamation issued; and if, before issue of the proclamation, the facts upon which the magistrate acted were submitted to the Government.

The proclamation was issued by Mr. Bell, resident magistrate, on April 29th. It was based on an information sworn by the district inspector of police, referring to the placards convening the meeting, which called on the people to assemble in their thousands and show by their presence that a certain farm must be divided among the people. The remainder of the information was to the purport and effect that the object and effect of the meeting, if held, would be intimidation, and that the meeting would cause a breach of the peace. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that violence was used upon Mr. Thomas Higgins, J.P. at the proclaimed meeting at Carrowkeel on April 30th last; that without provocation on his part he was seized by six constables and thrown over a stone wall; that at the same meeting Councillor Kennedy, of Dunmore, was seized by several constables and thrown to the ground; and that other acts of violence were perpetrated; and whether such conduct on the part of the constabulary has been sanctioned by the Government.

No violence—properly so-called—was used to either of the gentlemen named, but only sufficient force was exerted to prevent the proclaimed meeting from being held. The hon. Member himself and Mr. Higgins. followed by a crowd of 200 persons, including Mr. Kennedy, were stopped by the police when nearing Carrowkeel. The county inspector informed them that no meeting would be allowed. Mr. Higgins attempted to force his way through the police, and, on being prevented, jumped, over a low wall into a field and commenced to address the people. He refused to desist, and was then pushed on by a constable, whereupon he jumped back into the road, and the crowd returned by the way they had come. Mr. Higgins was not thrown over a wall, nor was Mr. Kennedy thrown to the ground. The action of the police on the occasion received the approval of the Government.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what the Irish Government's definition of violence, "properly so-called," is? And will he say whether anything short of breaking a, man's skull is considered violence?

The meaning, of that sentence is that the police had orders to prevent the meeting from being held, and I am informed that they used no violence in carrying out their orders. But they compelled those who tried to hold the meeting to desist.

Did the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to get independent testimony as to the action of the police; or is the report on which he has based his approval of the action of the police the report of the-police themselves?

No, Sir; the only information I have is that given to me by the police who were responsible. I have read other accounts, and I have no reason to believe that the police departed from their strict duty in the matter, or gave an inaccurate account of what occurred.

They did throw this man violently over the fence.

Could not the right hon. Gentleman have consulted the hon. Member for Galway in this House? Does he not think it worth while, before taking the word of the police, to consult a Member of this House who is on an equal footing with himself in this House?

That is a most astonishing Question. The hon. Member for Galway is the complainant in the matter. [NATIONALIST cries of "And the police are the defendants."] All I can do is to give to the House the information I have received, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information I have given.

Is it proposed to suppress the expression of public opinion in Ireland?

Judging by recent events, I should say certainly not.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fast that the herring fishing season does not open in the majority of English and Manx fishing grounds before the months of June or July, and in view of the fact that large quantities of immature mackerel are captured by herring boats off the south coast of Ireland in the months of April and May, to the injury of the mackerel fishing and curing industry, and that the evidence given before the public inquiry in 1892 proved that large quantities of small and unsaleable haak are also captured by herring nets in these months, the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture will take steps to hold an inquiry into the complaints made by the fishermen of the south and south-west coast of Ireland regarding the injury caused to the mackerel and haak fishing industries by the practice of herring fishing at an carly season of the year.

As I have already informed the hon. Member, this matter formed the subject of an exhaustive inquiry in 1892, since when the situation has not, so far as the Department are aware, been changed in any way. It is therefore considered that no good purpose would be served by holding a further inquiry.

In view of the fact that the inquiry was held thirteen years ago, when the vast majority of fishing boats did not engage in this work—except a small number of Scottish boats—will not the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind the responsibility of the Irish Board, hold another inquiry now?

The Irish Board fully appreciate their responsibility, and see no change in the situation such as would make an inquiry desirable. But if the hon. Gentleman is in possession of any facts which he thinks alter the position, I shall be very glad to consider them.

I will raise the question on the Vote for the Congested Districts Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners, when purchasing grass farms, always consider the case of the herds on the farms; and if he could state, even roughly, how many herds have been made proprietors, and how much land, on an average, such herd has obtained.

The Commissioners endeavour to provide for herds when allotting parcels of the untenanted lands upon which they have been employed, provided they come within the classes of persons entitled to advances. It is estimated roughly that about thirty-seven herds have been so provided for. The area allotted to each varies in accordance with the quality of the land and the size of the farm upon which the herd has been employed. Approximately the acreage varies from sixteen to twenty acres, and the average purchase money would be about £500.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the intention of, and what object is served by, issuing periodical Parliamentary Returns of Agrarian Offences in Ireland; and whether, in view of the fact that no such Return is issued for England, Scotland, or Wales, he will take steps to discontinue it.

These Annual Returns are furnished for the information of Parliament. They have been so furnished for a great many years, and it is not intended to discontinue them.

Why are these Returns made for Ireland and not for England, Scotland, and Wales? What is the object?

I do not know. I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of years purchase paid by a tenant under the Purchase Act of 1896 who bought his holding at a reduction of 20 per cent, on the rental; and whether he can state the number of years puvchase paid by a tenant under the Act of 1903 who bought his holding at 20 per cent, reduction on rental.

In the case of a purchase under the Land Purchase Acts, 1891 to 1896, when the annuity amounted to 20 per cent, less than the rent, the purchase money represented twenty years purchase of the rent. In the case of a purchase under the Act of 1903, the purchase money, under the same conditions, represents a little over twenty-four and a-half years purchase of the rent.

said the hard fact remained that the average price of land had been raised from seventeen years to twenty-four years purchase.

Does the twenty-four years include the bonus?

No, the bonus is added.

; I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether any disqualification attaches to rural district councillors, otherwise qualified, from acting as teachers in evening national schools.

I have nothing-to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's similar Question of the 3rd instant.†

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he in aware that, for a considerable time past and especially on the 14th instant, the Gaelic footballers of Coalisland and Cookstown have paraded on Sundays through Tullyhogue, Grange, and Stewartstown, and fired revolvers to the annoyance of the inhabitants attending Divine service; and what action, if any, does he propose to take in order to avoid similar occurrences in future.

On two Sundays within the past three months a football team from Cookstown has proceeded to Coalisland, and two return visits, also on Sundays, have been paid by the Coalisland team. On one of these occasions the latter team sang a Party song when passing Stewartstown Protestant Church. On another occasion the Cookstown team sang Party songs, and it is alleged that a shot was fired by a member of the team near Tullyhogue, but of the latter occurrence the police have no evidence. I understand that on the one side games on Sundays are objected to, while on the other the situation is aggravated by Party displays in hostile

† See (4) Debates, cxlv., 816.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what were the number of extra police or those doing extra duty and the cost, in consequence of the Gaelic footballers visit to Clonoe, on Sunday the 14th instant; and will the charge foe levied on the district.

The police employed on this occasion belonged to the district, and no extra cost was involved.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Dublin Port and Docks Board any statement regarding the necessity of immediately dredging Balbriggan Harbour; and, if so, whether he has arrived at any conclusion on the; subject.

The Port and Docks Board applied to me for a grant to maintain, improve, and enlarge the accommodation of this harbour, and I was obliged to express my regret that there were no funds at the disposal of the Government out of which such a grant could be made.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman provide funds?

It is not in my power.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any official information as to the conduct of the police at an eviction at Rossmacowen, on the Clinton Estate, county Cork, some twelve months ago.

My right hon. friend the Member for Dover replied to a Question put to him on June 14th,† 1904, by the hon. Member for West Cork, relative to the action of the police at this eviction. I presume my hon. friend's Question has reference to a statement which was recently published in the Press to the effect that on the same occasion "men's heads were split with batons, women were violently assaulted, and a man was stabbed." I am informed that considerable opposition and resistance were offered to the sheriff and his assistants, all of whom were struck several times by missiles, and that an inmate of one of the houses used a pitchfork, which was wrenched from him by a sergeant of police. In the scuffle the man received a scratch on the cheek from one of the prongs of the fork; the injury was trifling. This is the only foundation for the statement to which I have referred, and which in other respects is absolutely and entirely untrue.

How is it it has taken twelve months to get this remarkable information?

I have said my right hon. friend the Member for Dover dealt with it in 1904.

How was the right hon. Gentleman able to read the thoughts of the hon. Member for South Antrim.?

I did not. I read what I gathered in the Press.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, at the recent eviction on Dursey Island, James Leary was stabbed by a policeman with a bayonet; and whether he has yet received a report on the conduct of the police on that occasion.

I have received a full report of the proceedings on the occasion mentioned. Leary endeavoured to wrest a rifle from a head constable, and in so doing his hand was cut by the backsight or foresight of the rifle; but

†See (4) Debates,cxxxvi., 26.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this occasion one of the islanders jumped into the sea and swam ashore to the mainland in order to escape the violence of the police?

asked whether the great Naval Powers of the world were informed by the Admiralty of the great victory of the British Fleet in evicting old Healy on Dursey Island without loss of life, or injury to the "Storm Cock."

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Morley Estate, county Cavan, were to be supplied with turbary, and that the holdings wore to be inspected according to the terms of sale; and will he say if there has been any alteration in these arrangements.

Neither the originating application nor the agreements for purchase make any reference to a supply of turbary. The Commissioners are aware that there is turbary on the estate, and the question of a supply for the tenants will be considered by them. All cases which do not come within the provisions of Section 1 (a) and (b) will be duly inspected and reported on.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of purchase agreements which have been lodged in the Morley Estate, county Cavan; if advances have been sanctioned in any cases; and, if so, how many, with the date of the sanctioning of such advance.

389 agreements for purchase have been lodged, but an advance has not yet been sanctioned in any case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in country districts where there is no bank tenants who have purchased their holdings are compelled to pay poundage rates on the postal orders by which payment of their purchase instalments are made; and whether he will take steps to relieve them of this impost.

When a tenant purchaser remits the instalment of his purchase money by means of a money order, of course he pays the usual Post Office charges, which range from 2d. for £1 up to 6d. for a £20 order. The latter Question is one for the postal authorities.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Captain Walsh, R.M., reported to the Inspector-General, or any of his superiors, the undertaking admitted by him in evidence, at Moneymore Petty Sessions, county Derry, to have been made with four local Orangemen, that certain contingents of Nationalists attending a Nationalist demonstration at Loop, county Derry, should not be allowed to pass through Moneymore; and, if so, whether such undertaking was sanctioned; whether in the four days between this compact and the demonstration, these contingents were informed of this decision; and, if so, by whom; and whether, seeing that some members of these contingents who had to pass through Moneymore to reach their homes received injuries from a baton charge, that Nationalist processions have repeatedly passed through Moneymore without disturbance, and that Captain Creaghe, R.M., in giving judgment, said that, until the interference of the police, the procession was orderly, he will say what action the Government proposes to take.

As a necessary precaution to preserve peace and order, it was decided, with the sanction of the Government, that no Nationalist procession should be allowed to pass through Moneymore on this occasion save those on whose direct route it lay to and from the meeting. Moneymore is mainly inhabited by persons of the opposite Party, and the passage of Nationalist processions through it has frequently been accompanied by the breaking of windows and other disturbances. Captain Welch did not report the undertaking referred to in the first part of the Question, because such an undertaking was not given; but he informed four representatives of the local Orange lodge of the decision which had been arrived at. The Nationalist contingents from Lissan and Moneymore passed through the village without hindrance on their way to the meeting. Later in the day the police learnt that a party from Loop were accompanying the Lissan and Moneymore party towards Moneymore, though it was three miles out of their direct road home, and warning was at once sent to them that the Loop party would not be allowed to pass through Moneymore. The warning was disregarded. The police blocked the way and repeated the warning, but they were rushed and attacked by the entire procession. A baton charge was ordered, but not until injuries had been inflicted on the district inspector and others of the police. Some of the Lissan party, who were the first to attack the police, were hurt. Mr. Creaghe, in giving judgment, said that the Lissan and Moneymore procession was orderly until joined by the Loop party, when the three parties seemed to have turned into a very riotous, improper assembly. The steps taken by the Government were absolutely necessary for the preservation of the public peace. The Government do not propose to take any further action.

Did not Mr. Walsh in his evidence state that he did give this undertaking?

I am informed he did not.

He swore he did. Really the right hon. Gentleman should make sure of his facts before answering, a Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, from time immemorial, the people of Ballinlonghane, Galway, have earned their living by fishing close to the village; that recently bailiffs have forbidden them to cast their nets there any longer, claiming such right solely for the owner of the Galway fishery: and that the nets belonging to Michael Joyce, Martin Joyce, and Thomas Corcoran were seized: and whether he will stop these proceedings, and restore to the people the rights of fishing so long enjoyed.

I am informed that these nets were seized by bailiffs of the Board of Conservators, not upon the ground that the rights of any private fishery were encroached on. but because the nets were unlicensed and set in an illegal manner. I understand that the Conservators are considering the question of a prosecution. The matter is not one for the Executive to deal with. If the rights of the fishermen have been invaded, they have their remedy at law.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Board of Works is specially in charge of Galway Harbour owing to a still undischarged loan; and, in view of the fact that the entrance to the harbour is now somewhat impaired, he will say if the Board of Works or the harbour master have received any communication showing that the harbour is becoming difficult of access for vessels of 3,000 tons, even when these have been lightened in the roadstead; and whether the Board of Works will soon take steps to improve the Galway entrance, either by procuring the dredger connected with the Agricultural Department or by other means.

The Board of Works have appointed a Receiver to collect the revenues of Galway Harbour, and all financial arrangements are subject to their approval as mortgagees. The upkeep of the harbour is in the hands of its Commissioners. It is known that the entrance of the harbour needs dredging, but the Board of Works have not received a communication stating that access was difficult for vessels of 3,000 tons. As regards the last portion of the hon. and gallant Member's Question, I would refer him to my reply to the hon. Member for Galway City.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why the maximum salary at the Limerick Post Office was reduced from 50s. per week to 48s., seeing that the Bradford Report recommends that the salary at this office be increased; and will he say if he has received a petition from the local staff.

The scale rising to 50s. a week is now obsolete, but officers at Limerick appointed before April 1st will retain that maximum. I have received a memorial from the staff, and I am having inquiry made as to whether the next higher scale rising to 52s. a week is warranted.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are seven male learners in the Limerick Post Office with services ranging from two years eight months to one year ten months; can he say when those who entered in August, 1902, and who are acting as temporary force pending revision will be appointed; whether he intends to compensate these learners for the time they are waiting appointment, or will their appointment date from the time it was necessary to create the temporary force; and whether, as regards the learners with twenty-two months service, he can hold out any prospect of appointment for them, other than the vacancies that may arise from superannuation, dismissal, or death.

I am aware of the facts, which are substantially as stated by the hon. Member. As the revision depends on the occupation of a new office and other contingencies, I regret that I am unable at present to state when the learners acting as sorting clerks and telegraphists will be appointed. In the meantime, however, they receive an acting allowance which is in excess of their pay as learners, and I do not propose to give them further compensation or to date their appointments from the beginning of their temporary employment. The senior Limerick learner is at present No. 9 on the district list for employment at other offices. When the Limerick learners reach the top of the list there may be opportunities of offering them appointments at other towns.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the amount advanced, by way of loan, by the Board of Works to the Galway Harbour Commission; the year in which such loan was made; the amount of interest to date collected on such loan; the rate of interest charged; the amount of loan still due.

(1) Loan of £24,000, sanctioned June 1st, 1832, interest 4 per cent. This loan was commuted under 30 and 31 Vic., cap. 56, the sum of £9,322 14s. 10d. principal, and £1,949 13s. 7d. interest being remitted, making a total remission of £11,272 8s. 5d. The commuted debt £10,000 was made repayable in fifty years at 3¼ per cent. The interest paid on the commuted loan to March 31st, 1905, amounts to £9,461 8s. 7d., and the principal now outstanding is £4,291 8s. 7d. (2) Loan of £28,100 sanctioned August 20th, 1880, rate of interest 4 percent., period twenty-five years. Interest paid to March 3lst, 1905, £14,537 12s. 4d., principal outstanding £12,173 19s. 9d. (3) Loan of £8,200 sanctioned March 13th, 1883, rate of interest 4 per cent., period twenty-five years. Interest paid £4,261 18s. 3d., principal outstanding £4,114 4s. 2d.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the announcement that the Tralee Harbour Board expect to be through with the dredger by the 1st of August, and the fact that the need for dredging at the entrance to the new dock of Galway is pressing, and that the Galway Harbour Commissioners have been making representations on the subject to the Board of Works for years, he will place the dredger at the disposal of the Galway Harbour Commission early in August.

The dredger is engaged during the whole of the present year, but the Board of Works are endeavouring to make arrangements to render it available for use at Galway as soon as possible next year, and they are in correspondence with the Harbour Commissioners on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if any sum of money was allowed from any source for the prosecution of inquiries as to the next of kin of the late Helen Blake; if so, by whom these inquiries were conducted, where they were held, and when; and what was the total sum expended, if any.

No sum of money has been allowed from any source for the prosecution of inquiries as to the next of kin of the late Helen Blake.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Committee of Imperial Defence has had under consideration the continuance of the state of affairs declared to exist in 1900, that there was no effective organisation for the utilisation of the Volunteers, notwithstanding the recommendations to that end of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission in June last; and what steps it is proposed to take in the matter.

I think it would be desirable that any Question dealing with the organisation of the Volunteers or of any other military force should be addressed to the Secretary for War and not to the Chairman of the Committee of Defence, with whom the matter does not rest. Perhaps my hon. friend will put this Question down to the Secretary for War for another day.

I will raise the question on the Motion for the adjournment for the Whitsuntide holidays.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now inform the House on what day he proposes to introduce the Bill which has been promised for dealing with the difficulties that have arisen in Scotland in connection with the property of the Free Church and the United Free Church.

As I have previously said, I have every expectation of being able to introduce this Bill before Whitsuntide, but short of that general statement I do not think I can give any precise information on the subject of the Question.

I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is aware that great impatience on this subject exists in Scotland?

Oh, yes; I am aware of that impatience, and I think the anxiety on the subject is well justified, but I doubt whether time would really be gained by modifying the general outline of policy.

As the General Assemblies meet this week could the right hon. Gentleman not arrange to have, this Bill introduced while they are still in session?

I am aware that the General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Churches in Scotland meet this week, and that was one of the reasons why I thought it might not be desirable to introduce the Bill during their session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the character of his proposals for Imperial defence and the growing opinion in favour of large reductions in the national expenditure to enable the country to meet its liabilities, he can see his way to undertake that the Government shall reconsider the outlay proposed in the Estimates for the present year, and so initiate steps to relieve distress and abate the growing discontent.

I think the hon. Gentleman has put this Question under a misapprehension. In the opinion of the Government the Estimates of the year are not in any excess of the national requirements; and I am sorry to say that the general lines of defensive policy which I endeavoured to sketch last Thursday do not, to my mind, hold out any hope of a reduction of the important kind which appeared in our debate on naval expenditure.

Might not expenditure on capital account be somewhat modified in view of the declarations made?

The hon. Gentleman has not seen our proposals for capital expenditure as yet. The Bill has not been brought in.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, if the present Government is still in office at the time of the holding of the Colonial Conference in 1906, it is their intention to authorise the British representatives to discuss with the colonial representatives the question of mutual preferential trading between the mother country and the Colonies.

The subject has not yet been considered by His Majesty's Government, but as the hon. Gentleman asks me the Question, it seems to me impossible for any Government to endeavour to restrict the discussions of a Conference with the Colonies; and certainly, if it is difficult for any Government, it would be especially difficult for a Government which desires closer commercial union with those Colonies.

Is it definitely settled that there is to be a Colonial Conference next year?

Well, there was a Resolution passed at the last meeting of the Colonial Conference that there should be a Conference not later then 1906.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman bound by a general pledge to do nothing during the existence of the present Parliament to advance the subject?

No, Sir; I was talking of the Conference, not of this House.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman bound by the terms of his Edinburgh speech?

No, Sir.

Apparently you are bound by nothing.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister, with regard to an Answer which he gave two minutes ago to the hon. Member for Barnstaple—which Answer caused great surprise to a great many Members of the House—whether we are to understand that he meant to imply that he was under no obligation to inaction in the matter of colonial preference except in this House, and that out of this House the Government were free to take any step they chose so far as any undertaking or pledge on his part was concerned; and, secondly, whether we are to understand him to say that he is not bound by anything he said on this subject in his Edinburgh speech?

No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether I am bound to inaction with regard to colonial preference outside this House. Why, of course I am not. When the right hon. Gentleman is discussing it every day from a public platform, I suppose I may be allowed to answer him?

There is a difference between discussion and action.

If the right hon. Gentleman means that we desire to use our majority in this House for dealing with the fiscal question in the course of the present Parliament, I must reply that we certainly do not mean to do so.

Is it limited to proceedings in this House? Are we to understand that?

I really do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman means.

Are we to understand that while the right hon. Gentleman is restricted by what he has said from proceedings or discussions in this House he is free, the Government are free, to take any administrative steps they choose which will have the effect of committing the country to a certain elementary stage, at all events, of this policy?

I do not think the Government ought to commit the country on the subject of fiscal reform during the continuance of the present Parliament.