laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petition for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill.

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Older of the House of the 22nd day of this instant May, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which, are applicable thereto have not been complied with, viz.:—Canals Bill.

To ask Mr. Chancellar of the Exchequer if his attention has been directed to the fall in the price of sugar, to-day's value being 5s. per cwt. below what it was in January last, whilst new crop sugar is quoted at under 10s. per cwt., or less than one penny per pound; and whether, having regard to the relative rate of the duty to the total value of sugar when it was imposed, he will favourably consider a pro rata reduction. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Yes, Sir, I am aware of the fall in the price of sugar from the abnormal prices of last January, but I cannot admit the possibility of varying the duty pro rata with changes of price. The hon. Member is in error in thinking that the price of sugar is lower than it was when the duty was imposed.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the inquest held on the body of William Fryday, at Ballyduagh, county Tipperary, on the 22nd day of April last, at which the son of deceased, Francis S. Fryday, swore that his father told him before his death that the police took off his boots whilst in the lock-up at Thurles on the 15th April on a charge of drunkenness and hit him under the eye with one of his boots, and that he was also knocked against the wall, and that he was taken by the police from the lockup to an out-house in the barrack yard in his stockings, and that his request for a magistrate to be sent for was refused, and to the evidence of the doctor, examined at the inquest, that deceased came by his death through peritonitis, following rupture of the spleen, caused by external violence, and that Constables Vaughan and Barrett, who assisted Constable O'Connell to take deceased from the lock-up to the out-house in the yard, were not examined at the inquest; and whether an inquiry will be ordered to be held into the allegations that the cause of the death of the deceased was his ill-treatment by the police. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have received a report from the police authorities to the effect that on the 15th April last William Fryday, while in custody in the lock-up of the police station in Thurles upon the charge of being drunk and incapable on the public street, created a continuous uproar by shouting and kicking the door of his cell at a time when a magisterial investigation was being conducted in the station. It was found necessary to remove his boots and transfer him to another portion of the building. He resisted violently, and in his struggles struck his head against the door post, cutting his eye. He was discharged from custody later upon the same day, when, for the first time, he complained of having been ill-treated by the police. He asked to see the head constable, who was then absent, but refused to wait for his arrival. Fryday died on the 21st April, and, as the result of a post-mortem examination, the jury at a coroner's inquest found that death was due to peritonitis, resulting from rupture of the spleen The police proved that no violence was offered to him, and that at no time did he request to see a magistrate. The three constables named in the Question were present at the inquest, but the coroner and the jury intimated that they did not require their evidence, all the facts having been proved by other witnesses. Under these circumstances, I see no ground for imputing any blame to the police, and no necessity for further inquiry.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as A result of his investigation into the accounts of the late staff officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary Department, Dublin Castle, he has directed that the sum of £433 10s. 4d. be refunded to the widow of the said staff officer, the said sum having been deducted from an amount due on foot of an insurance policy on her late husband's life by direction of the Chief Crown Solicitor. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The reply is in the negative. Legal proceedings for the recovery of the sum misappropriated were instituted against the widow, and as a result she paid the sum in question out of a policy of insurance on the life of the deceased.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the estuary of the Thames is being polluted by the discharge of crude sewage from forts and barracks at Tilbury and Gravesend; and whether, if the War Office is unable to proceed with the works necessary for the purification of the sewage during the current financial year owing to funds not being available for the purpose, he will take steps, by a Supplementary Estimate or otherwise, to remove this difficulty, and in the interest of the public health have the works carried out without further delay. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnoldforster.) Schemes have been prepared for the septic treatment of sewage from the War Department barracks and forts at Gravesend and Tilbury, and part of the work at Gravesend has already been done.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the practicability of detaching the date postmark from the obliterating mark upon the face of letters (as is already done in London) so as to enable the time of posting, which is now often illegible, to be easily read. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I fear that it is not possible to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion generally. The electrically-driven stamping machines, which are in use to some extent in London and elsewhere, separate the dated postmark from the obliterating stamp; but these machines can only be used with advantage at offices where the stamping to be done is great in amount and continuous. Double hand-stamps were tried at one time, but they were found to be too large and heavy for easy use.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has yet arrived at a decision in regard to the general question of the delivery of letters to callers on public holidays. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Yes, and I have issued instructions that on bank holidays, and on public holidays in Scotland observed by the Department in the same way as bank holidays, persons who are not private box renters or entitled to use the poste restante may, on payment of a special fee of 3d., obtain at the counter of offices open to the public on those days any correspondence addressed to them which may be available and readily accessible at the time of calling. The arrangement will be duly notified in the next issue of the Post Office Guide.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at Staveley Head, near Kendal, there are nine houses having only two postal deliveries a week, whereas at Staveley Park, within half a mile of Staveley Head, there are only two houses with two deliveries a day; and whether he will endeavour to arrange, by slightly altering the route of the local postman or otherwise, to give the houses at Staveley Head a daily delivery. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am not aware of the circumstances as regards the deliveries at Staveley Head, but I will make inquiry into the matter and acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received from Lord Strathcona, High Commissioner for Canada, representations upon the subject of the postal charges to Canada; whether the High Commissioner has forwarded a copy of the debate in the Canadian Senate on the subject; and whether he is able to say if this matter will be submitted for consideration at the Colonial Conference of 1906. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Representations on the subject from the Canadian Government, together with a report of the debate in the Canadian Senate, have reached my hands, though not through Lord Strathcona; and I expressed my views fully on the matter to a deputation, including Members of this House, a short time since. I have no intention of submitting the question for consideration to the Colonial Conference; but I am unable to say whether it will or will not be raised at the Conference by the Colonial Delegates.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether the resolutions adopted by a number of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire respecting Empire cables have been brought under his notice; and if he intends submitting, at the Colonial Conference of 1906, any scheme or policy with respect to Empire cables. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) No recent representations on the subject of the hon. Member's Question have been addressed to me, and I do not feel called upon to submit to the Colonial Conference any scheme of the kind he suggests.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the recommendation made in the first Report of Lord Balfour's Inter-Departmental Committee on Cable Communications (pp. 10 and 11) concerning the Joint-Purse Agreement relating to the transmission of telegrams to and from India, any arrangement has been concluded between His Majesty's Government and the Indo-European Telegraph Company in connection with the recent renewal of the leasing of land wires in this country and submarine cable wires between Lowestoft and the German coast; whether the terms of such agreement, if any, would be furnished to this House; and what effect such arrrangement will have in the direction of terminating or modifying the period of duration of the Joint-Purse Agreement as recommended in the Report of the above-mentioned Committee. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The negotiations recommended by Lord Balfour's Committee proved to be complicated and difficult, and it was not found practicable to effect the termination of the Joint-Purse Agreement in the manner proposed; but, in connection with the renewal of the lease of wires to the Indo-European Telegraph Company, to which the hon. Member refers, steps were taken to provide, as far as possible, that obstacles should not be placed in the way of reasonable reductions of tariff in the future. This was the main ground on which Lord Balfour's Committee, desired to terminate the Joint-Purse Agreement.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has made inquiries into the action of the surveyor in ordering special returns to be made out dealing with the work at the Coleraine Post Office; whether he can state the result of his inquiries; and whether he can give the reason for altering the returns. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) No, Sir. I have not made any inquiries, as I consider the matter should be left to the discretion of the surveyor.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether the periods of annual leave and bank holiday reliefs are included in the six-months leave which an officer may be allowed on full pay in the case of sickness on a medical certificate; and, if so, what is the reason for counting these periods as sick leave. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Under regulations applicable to the Civil Service generally, absence from duty on full pay, whether on account of annual, bank holiday, or sick leave, cannot exceed six months in any one year. The regulation seems to be liberal.

To ask the Lord-Advocate whether the local authority for the parish of Barvas, Island of Lewis, has submitted to the Local Government Board a detailed report by Dr. Ross, the medical officer of health for the parish, setting forth particulars of the defective water supply and other sanitary defects in seven public schools within the parish; and, in view of the fact that the health of the children attending these schools is endangered, will he state what action it is proposed to take in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Secretary for Scotland is not satisfied that the information before him enables him to give a complete Answer to the hon. Member's Question. He is consulting with the Local Government Board, and will communicate further with the hon. Member.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has supplied a copy of the recent report of Dr. Reece, one of the medical inspectors of the Local Government Board, on the Liverpool Smallpox Hospitals to the local authority of that city; and whether, in view of Dr. Reece's conclusion that the influence of the hospitals has been responsible in material degree for the sustained prevalence of smallpox in Liverpool in 1902–3, he has made any representations to the local authority as to the desirability of discontinuing the use for smallpox purposes of the two hospitals situated within the city, viz., the Priory Road and Parkhill hospitals, which are especially condemned by Dr. Reece, and of making such other arrangements for the treatment of smallpox cases as will be less likely to be a source of danger to the inhabitants than those which now exist. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Local Government Board sent copies of Dr. Reece's report to the Town Council of Liverpool, but they did not deem it necessary, in connection with it, to make any special representations to the council of the kind suggested in the Question. The Board have issued a Memorandum containing their views as to the liability of smallpox hospitals to disseminate the disease, and as to the desirability of their being placed outside towns as far distant from any populated neighbourhood as considerations of accessibility permit. The Board sent copies of this Memorandum in 1902 to the Town Council of Liverpool, amongst other local authorities, and in the circular which accompanied it they expressly stated that smallpox hospitals should be placed in sparsely populated situations.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can give the average attendance of children in the infants' departments of public elementary schools, and the average attendance of such children between the ages of three and five during the last year for which the information is available. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The average attendance of children in the infants' department s of public elementary schools for the year 1903–4 was 1,572,224. The average attendance of children between the ages of three and five was 456,068.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state the total charges consequent on the provision of elementary education in Bournemouth, West Ham, Grantham, East Ham, Wimbledon, and Walthamstow in the last year for which

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now able to state the result of the inquiry as to the revision of the pay of the writing staff of the dockyards. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The matter is still under consideration.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that the London and

To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there is a distinct forestry section in his Department under a responsible head; whether he can state how far his Department accepts responsibility for promoting sylviculture in England, Wales, and Scotland; and in what respects its responsibility is shared by other Departments, more especially with regard to providing facilities for sylvicultural training. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) There is no distinct forestry section in the Board of Agriculture, but my Department deals annually with many applications for advice on forestry subjects, and in other ways does much to disseminate a knowledge of sound sylvicultural practice. The Board of Agriculture support two lectureships on forestry in the University Colleges situated in Bangor and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and I understand that not only is the demand for instruction, at these places very satisfactory, but the experts in charge are largely consulted by the owners of woodlands. My Department has already given effect to the recommendation of the Committee, of which the hon. Member was Chairman, that the attention of corporations and municipalities be drawn to the desirability of planting with trees the catchment areas of their water supply; and I am now making arrangements to carry out the recommendation of the same Committee in regard to forestry statistics. While my Department accepts full responsibility for the general improvement of forestry in England and Wales, I have to acknowledge very friendly co-operation on the part of the Office of Woods, which has established a school in the Forest of Dean for the practical training of foresters, and in other ways has done mach to help forward the movement. I have also received much valuable assistance from the Local Government Boards of England and Scotland in connection with the inquiry into the afforestation of the catchment areas of public water supplies. Education in forestry in Scotland, as the hon. Member is aware, does not fall within the province of my Board.

To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, with reference to the compulsory sheep-dipping area in Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, created by virtue of Orders of the Board dated January 27th and April 15th, 1905, whether his attention has been called to representations from many parts of the said area that the provisions of the said Order will cause serious difficulty in respect of the dates fixed thereby for compulsory dipping, and in respect of the movement and sale of fat sheep and lambs, the season for which has just begun; what are the facts as to sheep scab which have made it necessary to create the said area; and if he will consider whether, consistently with maintaining due and reasonable precautions against the spread of sheep scab, the said Orders can be modified so as to avoid or lessen the difficulties aforesaid. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) I have received representations from the district referred to, to the effect that it would be more convenient to many of the flockmasters therein that the general dipping prescribed by the Orders should be postponed until the month of August and I am in communication with the local authorities concerned on the subject. If there is a general agreement that the later period would be more suitable for carrying out the operation of compulsory dipping in this area, I shall be glad to give effect to the wishes of those concerned. The application to the district referred to of the provisions of the Sheep Scab (Compulsory Dipping Areas) Order of 1905 was rendered necessary by the fact that disease had been detected within the area scheduled, and amongst sheep grazing over large tracts of common pasturage in the Clapham and Heasden districts. From inquiries made by inspectors of the Board it was further ascertained that the origin of several outbreaks of sheep scab which occurred in the districts surrounding this area was attributable to sheep moved from the area scheduled. It became necessary therefore, in the general interest, to take steps to eradicate the disease from this locality. As my hon. friend is aware, I am most anxious to avoid placing unnecessary restrictions upon the movement of sheep intended for immediate slaughter, but owing to the fact that sheep sold for slaughter are not necessarily at once removed from further contact with other sheep, it is impossible to exempt entirely such sheep from the requirements of dipping. If it is found to be practicable to devise some special provisions applicable to the case of young lambs which are being specially prepared for the butcher, I shall be glad to modify the Order accordingly. I may perhaps add that, in regard to all the areas scheduled under the general Order, I propose to suspend Part II. of the Sheep Scab (Compulsory Dipping Areas) Order of 1905, which deals with the movement of sheep out of such areas, until the spring of next year, so soon as I am satisfied that the prescribed dipping has been thoroughly and efficiently carried out.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of hackney carriages and hackney carriage drivers licensed up to date, number of same with mechanical licences, number of motor omnibuses and of stage carriages licensed, number of stage carriage drivers, and number of same holding mechanical licences. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I can only give the figures for the Metropolitan district, and they are as follows: Up to and including the 24th instant, there were licensed 10,986 hackney carriages, three of which are driven mechanically; 3,547 omnibuses, seventy-five of which are driven mechanically; and 1,798 tramcars, of which 967 are driven mechanically. There are 12,763 licensed hackney carriage drivers, nine of whom hold mechanical licences; and 8,558 stage carriage (i.e., tram and omnibus) drivers, of whom 2,006 hold mechanical licences.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Municipal Government in Calcutta, established by Lord Northbrook in 1876 and developed by Lord Dufferin, so that out of seventy-five members of the corporation fifty were elected by the ratepayers, has during the last few years been reorganised in such a manner as to reduce the number of elected members to twenty five and thus place them in a perpetual minority; and, in view of the fact that a Committee has bean appointed to prepare a scheme whereby the administration of Calcutta will be broken up into boroughs, will he explain why no member of the Corporation of Calcutta has been appointed to a seat on that Committee. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Committee of six (three being Europeans and three Natives) appointed by the Government of Bengal to work out a scheme for decentralising the work of the Calcutta Corporation, includes two members of the corporation. A third member of the Committee was recently a member of the corporation. I am unable to say why no elected member of the corporation is on the Committee, but having regard to the fact that of the three native gentlemen on the Committee one is a Judge of the High Court and two are members of the Bengal Legislative Council, I have no reason to suppose that any better selection could have been made.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the construction of the telegraph land line between Teheran and the frontier of India via Kerman and Robat is yet completed, or when such completion may be expected; and whether this line, when completed, will be opened for public traffic. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Telegrams can be exchanged between Teheran and Quetta via Kerman and Robat, but the system is not sufficiently complete for transmission of public traffic. Action has been taken to carry the Indian extension of the Central Persia line through Beluchistan to Karachi; and on this line being completed it will be at once opened for public traffic.

To ask the Secretary of State for India, with regard to the memorial urging the separation of judicial and executive functions in Indian administration, presented in August, 1899, can some statement be placed before Parliament showing what course has been followed since that memorial was forwarded to the Indian Government, and what is the general view taken of this subject by that authority; and can any of the more recent correspondence on this question between the Government of India and the Secretary of State be presented to Parliament at an early date. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) As I promised in my reply to the hon. Member for West Denbighshire, on the 23rd February† last, I wrote to the Government of India on the 10th March asking for a report of the results up to the present time of their consideration of the subject. I have not yet received a reply. There has been no other recent correspondence on this question between the Government of India and the Secretary of State.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have had under their consideration the sale and purchase of the entire estate of Mrs. Grace Pakenham, Mahon, in the county Roscommon, including the pastoral and agricultural hamlet of Strokestown; and, if so, whether any progress has been made by the Estates Commissioners in this matter; and have they declared the whole estate to be an estate within the meaning of the Land Act, 1903.

See (4) Debates, cxli., 1073.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state under what circumstances, and for what offence, some of the crew of the steamer "Parthania," owned by Messrs. Donaldson Brothers, have just been imprisoned at Singapore; and, if the men were imprisoned for refusing to carry contraband of war, will he take steps to see that they are released. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have no information on the subject, but I have telegraphed to the Governor of the Straits Settlements asking for a report.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, when making inquiries as to the reasons for the repatriation of the 332 Chinese to December last, he will also inquire what penalties in addition to repatriation were imposed; whether all or any portion of the wages earned by such labourers were withheld or deducted as is provided by Clause 27; and whether such repatriated labourers were returned merely to the ports of embarkation or to their homes. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I will make the further inquiries in accordance with the hon. Member's request.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what are the number of Volunteer battalions in the Field Army; what is the enrolled strength of those battalions; and what is the total annual cost including grants, camp allowances, and other expenses. (Answered by Mr. secretary Arnold-Forster.) There are twenty-seven infantry units and one bearer company of the Volunteer forces in the Field Army, and their enrolled strength, including permanent staff, on the 1st November, 1904, amounted to 28,450. Their total cost for the year 1904–5 amounted approximately to £210,000.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the funeral of the late Corporal John Henshaw, Crimean veteran, at Weaste, on the 6th instant; and if he will explain what were the exceptional circumstances which permitted military honours to be given in this case while it is forbidden in others. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I have no information on the case mentioned, but I am making inquiries.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Colonial Conference which is to assemble in 1906 will be constituted in the same way, and deliberate under the same conditions, as the Colonial Conference of 1902, or whether there will be any change, and if so, in what respect; whether he still adheres to his intention, declared at Sheffield and elsewhere, not to make the merits of any proposal for colonial preference founded on the taxation of food an issue at the next election, or whether that intention has been modified, or might in the future be modified, by the proceedings of the Colonial Conference to be held in 1906; whether he still adheres to the intention declared in the past not to propose to Parliament any scheme for the commercial union of the Empire, unless it has been formulated by an Imperial Conference representing not only, like the Colonial Conference of 1902, the self-governing Colonies, but also India and (so far as may be) the other dependencies of the Crown, and laid in the shape so formulated before the electorate at the time of a general election; whether he intends to summon an Imperial Conference, representing the whole Empire, as distinct from a Colonial Conference of the pattern of 1902, during the continuance of the present Parliament. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) With all respect to my noble friend, I think those parts of his Question not already answered in the House, may more conveniently be dealt with in the debate on Tuesday than in an Answer to a Parliamentary Question.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that Lord Johnstone, having acted as senior counsel for the Free Church of Scotland, is now compelled, as Lord Ordinary on the Bills, to decide cases raising questions of possession between that Church and the United Free Church and cannot decline jurisdiction; and what course the Government proposes to take in the circumstances. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am advised that the hon. Member's Question proceeds on an erroneous view of the law. The point has been already considered and dealt with by the Court. Lord Johnstone's declinature has been sustained, and it has been arranged that the cases referred to shall be remitted to another Judge.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the representatives at the Colonial Conference, 1906, would be asked to discuss whether the idea of a closer union on a commercial or any other basis commended itself to them; and, if so, in what precise manner it could be carried into effect; whether any scheme formulated would be submitted by the colonial representatives to their respective Governments, and no scheme would be deemed binding on His Majesty's Government until it had been submitted to the electorate of this country. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour) (1)The Answer to the first Question is in the negative. (2) I have no control over the colonial representatives or the Colonial Governments. (3) Nothing done by the Conference can be binding on His Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the "Magnificent," "Majestic," "Prince George," "Victorious," "Cæsar," "Hannibal," "Illustrious," "Jupiter," "Mars," "Goliath," "Ocean," and "Vengeance" carried out from each of their four 12-inch guns the full quarterly practice, including the firing of full charges for the quarters ending 31st December, 1904, and 31st March, 1905; will he state the reasons for the omission when any portion of the firing was not carried out; and have any special instructions been issued to any of the above ships with reference to firing from any of their 12-inch guns.

So far as is known all the ships named which were in commission at the time carried out the full quarterly practice, including the firing of full charges, for the quarters named, with the exception of the "Majestic," in which ship, as already stated, two of the 12-inch guns developed defects and were exchanged. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor-General of Canada, advocating the Galway route for the transmission of mails and merchandise across the Atlantic; and whether it is intended to discuss this subject at the Colonial Conference of 1906.

I have not seen any report of the speech referred to by the hon. Member. Without expressing any opinion with regard to this particular scheme, of which I have little knowledge, the question of such a service appears eminently suitable for discussion at the next Colonial Conference.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been directed to the fall in the price of sugar, to-day's value being 5s. per cwt. below what it was in January last, whilst new crop sugar is quoted at under 10s. per cwt., or less than one penny per pound; and whether, having regard to the relative rate of the duty to the total value or sugar when it was imposed, he will favourably consider a pro rata reduction.

Yes, Sir, I am aware of the fall in the price of sugar from the abnormal prices of last January; but I cannot admit the possibility of varying the duty pro rata with changes of price. The hon. Member is in error in thinking that the price of sugar is lower than it was when the duty was imposed.

Is it not true that sugar is nearly double the price now as compared with the period before the duty was imposed, and does the right hon. Gentleman attribute the rise to the duty or the Convention?

The hon. Member is endeavouring to put an argument in the form of a Question. If the hon. Member will raise the question as briefly in the debate on Monday I shall be happy to answer him.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any applications under Section 9 of the Motor-Car Act, 1903, made by various local authorities to the Local Government Board to issue regulations limiting the speed of motor-cars within the areas, or parts of the areas, of such local authorities to a speed not exceeding ten miles an hour, have not yet been finally dealt with; and, if so, whether he will give the names of such local authorities, and the dates when their respective applications were received by the Board.

Three applications under Section 9 of the Motor-Car Act, 1903, are now before the Local Government Board, made respectively by the Denbighshire County Council on the 16th of this month, by the Town Council of Guildford on March 7th last, and by the Town Council of Ealing. The last was originally made in October, 1903, and after the lapse of many months, during which the matter rested with the town council, has recently been revived. In twelve other cases applications have been made and not formally withdrawn, but in each of these cases it is for the local authorities concerned to take the next step, and as for some months no Communication has been received from them, it is assumed that the applications are either temporarily or permanently abandoned.

Does the right hon. Gentleman include St. Albans in the list of twelve? That city has not withdrawn its application, which has been urgently pressed.

I cannot answer that without notice, but so far as I am aware, whenever an application remains suspended, it is because the local authority has not replied to the communication from the Local Government Board.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of allowing local authorities to settle these matters for themselves? The Local Government Board must be unacquainted with every locality.

In doubtful cases there is an inquiry.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by the next step? I understand the Local Government Board sends down an inspector to hold an inquiry, that he reports to the Local Government Board, who communicate the report to the local authority. What is the next step to be taken?

I do not think any of these cases have reached that stage. What has happened has been that application has been made and notice of objection received. Those objections have been communicated to the local authorities and no reply has been received from them. The stage of public inquiry has not been reached.

Was not a letter written at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on June 3rd, 1904, to the town clerk of St. Albans in which it says—

The right hon. Gentleman can hardly answer that Question without notice.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what action he has taken with reference to the Northamptonshire cases of cerebro-spinal meningitis or spotted fever; and whether, in view of the rapidity of its spread and fatal effects in Germany, special means will be taken, and, if so, what means, to prevent its spread in the United Kingdom.

The Local Government Board have caused one of their medical inspectors to visit the district affected for the purpose of ascertaining the facts, and of giving advice to the district council and their officers. As a result of the inspector's visit, the Board have expressed their willingness to entertain any proposal from the district council to make it compulsory during a limited time to notify to them cases of the disease referred to which occur in their district. I may add that the Board would be prepared to entertain similar applications from other local authorities who may deem it desirable to adopt this course, and thus to safeguard their districts from the importation and spread of the disease.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider it desirable to make the notification national instead of local?

Up to the present time I have not thought it desirable.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the sewage from the towns of Faversham and Whitstable is discharged into the Thames estuary in a crude condition; and whether he will make a representation to the authorities of those towns urging them to adopt some method of sewage purification.

I will communicate with the Town Council of Faversham and the Whitstable Urban District Council with regard to this matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any regulation has been made by the Local Government Board for compelling electric motor-cars to give the audible and sufficient warning required by Section 3 of The Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896.

One of the regulations in the Motor-Cars (Use and Construction) Order, 1904, issued by the Local Government Board, makes it the duty of every person driving or in charge of a motor-car to give, whenever necessary, by sounding the bell or other instrument required by the section referred to in the Question, audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of the motor-car.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that regulation is habitually disregarded by nearly all electrical broughams in London?

I am not able to answer that Question, which I think ought to be addressed to the Home Secretary.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the statements made at the annual meeting of the Denbighshire Education Committee, held at Chester on Friday, May 19th last, and to the resolution unanimously passed at that meeting; whether he has received a copy of such resolution; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any, and what, steps in relation to such statements and in reply to such resolution.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made on the 18th inst. by the chairman of the building committee of the Denbighshire education authority, to the effect that the council had appointed a surveyor before the appointed day to visit, inspect, and report upon the condition of every school in the county, provided and unprovided, and that the building committee had proceeded to execute the necessary repairs of the provided schools in accordance with the recommendations of the surveyor's report; and whether he proposes to take steps to verify the accuracy of this statement.

I have this morning received a communication from the local education, authority for Denbighshire. I am inquiring into the matter, and hope to send them a full reply at the earliest possible date.

But the hon. Gentleman made a very definite statement about a fortnight ago that they had not yet appointed any one to survey the county schools. Does he still say that is so?

I can hardly answer without going into detail. My statement was substantially correct. I will write to the local education authority, and if there is any correction to be made it shall be made.

Then I take it the hon. Baronet did not communicate with the local authority before he made the statement. I may tell him, as a matter of fact, that they did appoint a surveyor.

I have said I will communicate with the local authority.

Did the hon. Baronet say he communicated with the local authority before he made the statement referred to?

I did not say that. What I did say I believe I shall be able to justify.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue a monthly Parliamentary Return setting forth the number of offences reported to the police in agrarian districts in England and Wales, classifying the various offences, and the number under every head in every county.

No, Sir. The system on which the statistics are prepared does not distinguish between agrarian and non-agrarian districts; and the collection of a monthly Return would involve an immense amount of trouble.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that quarterly Returns are made as regards Ireland? Why not for England? Are there too many offences committed?

It is not thought necessary.

Is there a manufacturing department for crime in England?

Are we to understand that the number of crimes is so small that they are not worth returning. Where is the difficulty in giving the Return there?

It is absolutely unnecessary. The same conditions do not obtain in England and Ireland.

That is your opinion, not our's.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he will issue a-monthly Parliamentary Return setting forth the number of offences reported to the police in agrarian districts in Scotland, classifying the various offences, and the number under every head in every county.

I refer the hon. Member to the Return given every year in the Report on the Judicial Statistics for Scotland. I am not prepared to give him any other Return.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a benevolent Government gives these Returns for Ireland? Will he not let us know in the same way the amount of crime committed in Scotland?

I am glad to hear the hon. Member is so well off under the Irish Government. The information is contained in the Return I have referred to.

But as we are so much interested in the matter, cannot the right hon. Gentleman keep the information up to date? We get it quarterly in Ireland.

We think once a year sufficient for ordinary purposes.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will send a copy of that Answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

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

Yes, Sir; the minutes will be laid on the Table.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the amalgamation of the male and female schools, in the case of the national school in Banogue, county Limerick, has been carried out by the Commissioners of Education against the advice and opinion of the manager; whether, seeing that for the ordinary school work all the pupils, including infants, are taught in one room, he will state what is the number of children on the rolls; what are the dimensions of the school room; what floor space does it afford per child for the number on the rolls; is any classroom or cloak-room attached to it; and whether, seeing that the infant children are compelled to stand for hours every day for want of desks, and that there is no room for additional desks, will he say if the Commissioners still intend that this amalgamation shall be maintained.

The separate schools were, before amalgamation, under one roof. The manager protested against the amalgamation solely because the average attendance had been reduced owing to illness. The schoolhouse contains two rooms, each 34 feet by 18 feet. There are eighty-four children on the rolls, and therefore 14 square feet of floor space is available for each child. There is a room for each of the two teachers, and no additional class-room is necessary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the inquest held on the body of William Fryday, at Bally-duagh, county Tipperary, on the 22nd flay of April last, at which the son of deceased, Francis S. Fryday, swore that his father told him before his death that the police took off his boots whilst in the lock-up at Thurles on the 15th April on a charge of drunkenness and hit him under the eye with one of his boots, and that he was also knocked against the wall, and that he was taken by the police from the lock-up to an out-house in the barrack yard in his stockings, and that his request for a magistrate to be sent for was refused, and to the evidence of the doctor, examined at the inquest, that deceased came by his death through peritonitis, following rupture of the spleen, caused by external violence, and that Constables Vaughan and Barrett, who assisted Constable O'Connell to take deceased from the lock-up to the outhouse in the yard, were not examined at the inquest; and whether an inquiry will be ordered to be held into the allegations that the cause of the death of the deceased was his ill-treatment by the police.

It would be more convenient to furnish with the Votes a printed reply to this Question, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will adopt that course. The reply is necessarily of considerable length.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that arrangements have been made for the sale to the tenants of Mrs. Rose Trant Stanton's Estate, Ballyfeard, Kinsale, county Cork; will he say whether the evicted farms at present in possession of labourers are included in the sale; and, if so, what inquiries have been made by the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of enabling the evicted tenants to avail themselves o the clauses of the Land Act to regain possession of their holdings.

An application for sale has been lodged, but the property has not yet been declared an estate, and consequently the case has not yet been referred for inspection and inquiry. Applications have been received from persons who state that they are evicted tenants from the estate, and due inquiries will be made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the object of issuing periodical Parliamentary Returns regarding agrarian offences in Ireland; whether he is aware that no such Returns are issued either for urban offences in Ireland or for urban or agrarian offences in England, Scotland, or Wales; and whether, seeing that the particulars given in these Returns are otherwise available in the Civil and Judicial Statistics, the publication of the periodical Returns of agrarian offences will be discontinued.

I have already stated that these Returns are furnished for the information of Parliament, and that it is not proposed to discontinue them. The particulars given in the Returns are not distinguished in the Criminal and Judicial Statistics.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police in Ireland are always prepared to supply Crime to order?

The right hon. Gentleman has not told me the object of publishing these Returns. He promised to inquire as to that. Is he aware no such Returns are given for England, Scotland, and Wales? Is the object political in issuing these invidious and offensive Returns?

They are furnished for the information of Parliament. I have nothing to do with the other Departments.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state if Captain Welch, R.M., swore, at the petty sessions Court, that a deputation of four Orangemen waited upon him, and that, by promising them that certain contingents of Nationalists would not be allowed to pass through Moneymore, he succeeded in quieting his Visitors down; whether he can state the names and occupations of the four visitors, and their positions in the Orange order; and whether there is any precedent for such a compact as Captain Welch is alleged to have entered into.

Captain Welch's evidence was not to the effect stated. He neither swore that he had made any promise, nor had he as a matter of fact made any promise. He denied on oath that any compact had been made. But, as I informed the hon. Member on Monday,† he explained to the persons who waited on him that only those processions whose routes lay through Moneymore would be allowed to pass through that place. I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served by stating the names of those persons.

Whom did these four represent?

I cannot say.

Did not Captain Welch swear they were representatives of the local Orangemen?

That is a different Question to the one on the Paper. It is impossible for me to answer without notice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Treasury sanction has been obtained for increases of fifty per cent, and upwards in the salaries of certain officials in the Agricultural Department, some of whom had been only about two years in the Department's service, whilst at the same time unsuccessful applications were made to the Treasury for increases of less than 1s. a week in the salaries of clerks in the veterinary branch who had been engaged on the same class of work for a decade; and whether he will explain why the latter are denied the right of promotion to higher posts as opportunity offers.

† See page 978.

This Question, in other forms, has been repeatedly answered. I refer in particular to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Member for Dover to the Question put by the hon. Member for East Mayo on June 30th † last.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the names of the constables who threw Mr. Thomas Higgins, J.P., over a stone wall at Carrowkeel, on April 30th last.

I informed the hon. Member on Monday ‡ that Mr. Higgins was not thrown over a wall, but that he was merely pushed on by a constable. The name of this particular constable is not known; there were a considerable number of constables present, and several persons were moved on.

On my responsibility as a Member of this House, I affirm that Mr. Higgins was violently thrown over the wall; and that the information supplied to the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. I saw the act.

Do you know that Mr. Higgins' life would have been lost unless someone was at the other side of the wall to catch him?

I saw this, and it was a brutal exhibition.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to supply accurate information?

I have no reason to suppose that my information is inaccurate.

I hold to my statement that the information is inaccurate.

After my hon. friend says he was present

† See Debates, cxxxvii, 170

‡ See page 969.

Can this House try the issue?

It is a question of the veracity of a Member.

That is an issue. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: You are not at the Old Bailey.]

This is the time for asking Questions, and not for making statements and contradicting them. The matter can be raised and thrashed out at a later stage.

This is a question of impugning the personal testimony of a Member who says he saw the incident as he was present at the transaction.

said unless he could raise the matter at the end of Questions he could not raise it at all, because a "blocking" notice prevented it being discussed.

The matter cannot be raised as one of privilege, but it may be discussed in Supply.

thought that, as the Chief Secretary impugned his veracity, he should be allowed to state exactly what occurred.

The question cannot be discussed now.

I adhere to my statement, which is correct.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a protest, signed by 207 local government electors, against the proposed change by the returning officer, Mr. Claud Hamilton, of their polling station from Coalisland to New Mills, on the grounds that rumours had reached him that there was some disorderly conduct at the previous election, notwithstanding the fact that the presiding officer, polling clerks, candidates, and police state that the rumour was baseless; whether he is aware that the Orange village of New Mills has neither police station nor telegraph office, that it is two miles distant from Coalisland, that there are only 150 voters in the neighbourhood as against 480 in Coalisland, mainly mill workers, many of whom, after quitting work at six o'clock, would be unable to walk two miles and have their votes cast within the statutory period; and whether, in the public interest, he has communicated with Mr. Hamilton and made to him representations that the proposed change should be abandoned.

Yes, Sir; the protest was received and communicated to the Returning Officer, who stated that after the elections in 1902 complaints were made to him as to the manner in which voters, agents, and others had been treated by the crowd at Brackaville. He took steps to investigate these complaints before deciding to change the polling station to New Mills, and satisfied himself that they were made bona fide and were true in fact. The Returning Officer in making the change was not influenced in any way by political considerations. Under Sections 1 and 13 of the Local Government Board Election Order of February, 1899, the Returning Officer has the right to determine the situation and number of polling stations and the Board have no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. I have communicated to Mr. Hamilton the representations made to me against the change, and that officer regrets he cannot see his way to revert to the old arrangement. I may add that I personally regret he has not Seen his way to take this course.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the reason why the thirteen men arrested in the neighbourhood of Aughrim, county Galway, on the morning of April 1st, were not proceeded against by ordinary summons; and whether he can state why those men were taken out of their beds between the hours of 4 and 5 a.m., and were not allowed to have their breakfast before being brought into Ballinasloe, where they were detained until 11 a.m. before they were furnished with any food.

The arrest of these men, instead of proceeding against them by summons, was a legal and proper course, which was adopted with the object of bringing them more speedily to justice. They were arrested at the early hour mentioned in order to avoid turbulence. At half-past seven that morning the brother of one of the prisoners, who resides in Ballinasloe, sent word to the police station that he was about to provide breakfast for the whole party. The breakfast, however, was not sent in till between nine and ten.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the date of the offence and of the arrests?

I have not the information here.

Why were these people not summoned instead of being arrested?

I answered that Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. William Coote, Grand Master of the Orange Lodge at Carntall, county Tyrone, was recently a defendant in an action, Reid v. Coote, in the King's Bench, listed for trial, in which the cause of action was conspiracy to boycott; and that Coote did not go to trial, but settled the action for a substantial sum; and, if so, why Mr. Coote has been continued in the commission of the peace.

I am informed that the action in question was settled without trial by a friendly compromise on the terms that Mr. Coote should pay to the plaintiff a contribution towards his costs, that all further litigation should cease, and that the parties should resume their former amicable relations. The same controversy came up recently in a case decided by Mr. Justice Barton, but as it is stated that this decision is to be appealed from, it would be obviously improper that the question of Mr. Coote's commission of the peace should be considered pending the result of the appeal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman sure it is the same controversy? I am told it has no relation whatever to the case under appeal. Seeing that this man by his action admitted he was guilty of conspiracy to boycott, why is his name retained in the commission of the peace?

said he would make further inquiry. He had given the information supplied him.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can lay upon the Table of the House a copy of any Returns or Tables which were submitted to the Board of National Education in Ireland showing the effect on the salaries and promotions of the new rules or regulations in the Code of 1905 which did not appear in the previous Code.

The Commissioners do not consider it desirable to make public any Returns or other documents considered by them when revising their rules and regulations.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that police are in occupation of an evicted farm at Coolaclarig, Listcwel, from which a tenant named Walsh was evicted for a half year's rent, and that the tenant has made several applications to Lord Ormathwaite, the landlord, and Robert Fitzgerald, the agent, for reinstatement, which has been refused; and whether he will consider the advisability of withdrawing the constabulary from the farm.

The police are not in occupation of this evicted farm, but a protection post, consisting of two constables, exists on it for the protection of the caretaker. A tenant who had taken the farm was murdered on July 29th, 1888. The constant personal protection of the caretaker is considered to be necessary, and it is not intended to withdraw this protection.

As this man has several times applied for reinstatement and been refused will the Government now take action?

The Government cannot take action. It is for the landlord and tenant to come to terms.

The tenant is willing and has said so through me, yet he is being treated with contempt.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what action, if any, the Estates Commissioners have taken in connection with the application of cottiers and sub-tenants on Lord Listowel's Estate at Pilgrim Hill, North Kerry, to have their holdings enlarged; whether, seeing that tenants in the district have held grazing tracts of land, he will say what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken to divide those grazing lands amongst the smaller tenants who have uneconomic holdings.

The agreements for purchase have been lodged, and the matter will shortly be ready for inspection. Application has been made by cottier tenants at Pilgrim Hill North to have their holdings enlarged, and the question will be considered in due course.

Will the Estates Commissioners inquire into this particular matter? It is the case I alluded to recently in which the agreement made between landlord and tenant was for the same number of years purchase as in the agreement between the landlord and the Estates Commissioners.

I know nothing about the facts, but no doubt they will be inquired into by the Estates Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the character of the speeches delivered at a meeting on the 16th ultimo at Carntougher, county Derry, organised by Mr. R. C. Bonner, teacher in Tirkane National School; and whether, in view of the fact that national school teachers are debarred from taking part in political meetings, he will say what action, if any, has been taken in this case.

Yes, Sir, and the matter has been brought to the notice of the Commissioners of National Education.

Has any action been taken?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in the case of a prosecution under the Local Government Act of Mr. Shawe Tener, agent of the Marquess of Clanricarde, for having voted when disqualified at a meeting of the Portumna Board of Guardians, the justices who adjudicated and refused to convict, but agreed to state a case for the superior Courts so far back as two months ago, have not yet stated such case, though more than once requested to do so; and, if so, will the attention of the Lord Chancellor be called to the conduct of the magistrates in question.

If the facts were as mentioned, it would be open to the guardians to take proceedings in the superior Courts to compel the magistrates to state a case. But I am informed that the case has been fully stated and signed by the magistrates, and that it was forwarded to the guardians' solicitor on the 17th instant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the neglect of their duties shown by the Lough Corrib Drainage Board; whether, seeing that the gentlemen composing the Board do not reside near Lough Corrib, and in view of the need which exists for a thorough cleaning of the mill race at Galway, the Government will take over the duties of the Lough Corrib, Drainage Trustees; and, if not, will the Government hand over this work to the Galway County Council.

The transfer of the functions of drainage trustees to a county council is regulated by Section 20 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and the consent of the trustees is necessary. The Board of Works cannot permanently take over the duties of the trustees, but can only do so temporarily, and to the extent authorised by the Drainage Acts, where the trustees are found by the Board to be in default in maintaining the district. From the information before the Board of Works it is considered that the district, including the mill race, is in a fair state of maintenance.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether teachers who spend some years in teaching in Poor Law Union schools previous to the passing of the Pension Act, and who were subsequently transferred to ordinary national schools, will be allowed such years in calculating the amount of pension allowance payable to them on retirement.

The National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879, only enables pension to be granted in respect of service as a "classed teacher," as defined in Section 2 of the Act; and, as the teachers in Poor Law Union schools do not come within this definition, there is no power to give effect to the suggestion of the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, on December 11th last, the Imperial Federation (Defence) Committee submitted to him a memorandum claiming that the question of colonial co-operation in the maintenance of the Navy necessitated primary consideration at the proposed Colonial Conference; whether he assented to that claim; and whether he adheres to his intention to submit this question for primary consideration by the conference.

In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question I have to say that he correctly represents, if I understand it, the memorandum submitted to me by the deputation to which he refers, but nothing fell from me indicating that I was of opinion that this question should be first in order of importance, or that it should be the first submitted to the Colonial Conference.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Government will take action in the sense advocated by the deputation?

No, I have not said that.

What is it that the right hon. Gentleman intends to do?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was a member of the deputation, but if he was that was the time to ask the question.

No, I was not.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is proposed that the Indian Government should be represented at the Colonial Conference of 1906; if it is, whether such representation was contemplated by the resolution of the Colonial Conference of 1902, which suggested the summoning of another Conference in 1906; and, if the Indian Government is to be represented without such suggestion having been made, whether he will state the reason for this change from the ordinary composition of Colonial Conferences.

May I ask whether, in addition to the representation of India, steps will be taken to give due weight to the interests of the Crown Colonies and other dominions of His Majesty?

If the conference of 1906 meets before a dissolution it will be, of course, the conference contemplated by the resolution of the conference which met in 1902. This resolution did not suggest either Indian or Crown Colony representation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if India is not represented, any proposals, for colonial preference will be debated at that conference?

I do not know what ground the hon. Gentleman has for thinking that the Government mean to make proposals to that conference on the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that at the last conference we were informed—of course the full report was never published, but we were informed—that someone was present on behalf of India?

Well, I have refreshed my memory this morning of the resolution actually passed at the conference—

I do not mean the resolution.

It is that on which the Question was based, and that resolution will be strictly followed, as far as we are concerned, supposing the conference meets before a dissolution.

Are we to understand that, as India is not to be represented at that conference, no resolutions arrived at by the conference propounding a scheme of Imperial preference will form the basis of a scheme to be submitted to the electorate at the next election?

I really think that the hon. Gentleman is travelling far beyond the Question originally put, and I would suggest to him that these are questions which will probably be debated on another occasion.

Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that His Majesty's Government would not submit any proposals in regard to Imperial preference to the conference which will meet next year, if it should meet before the dissolution?

No, Sir, we shall not make proposals any more than at the previous conferences.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that no opportunity has been given this session for the discussion of Indian affairs, he will arrange for the Indian Budget to be taken at an early date after the Whitsuntide recess.

I am anxious, if possible, to bring on the Indian Budget early this year, and I have been considering the matter with my right hon. friend the Secretary for India. I cannot give a pledge, but I still hope to be able to carry out some plan by which an early discussion will be secured.

I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the business for next week, and as part of that, what day he will allocate for the debate on the Motion standing in the name of my right hon. friend the Member for Berwick.

I propose to go on with the Budget on Monday, and the arrangements after that must in part depend upon the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am very anxious to give him the day for which he has asked; but, as he will remember, I made an appeal to him when he first made his proposal, to which appeal he has, I think, so far not seen his way to make any response. I think he will himself agree with me that I am in some difficulty. The substance of what occurred was this. The very subject of the vote of censure was brought up at the right hon. Gentleman's instance on a Motion for the adjournment; he was listened to with profound attention and respect by this side of the House [Cries of "So would you have been"]; he was followed by a Member of the Government who was not allowed to finish, I think, one sentence so that he could be heard; and during the whole of that time the interruptions from that side of the House were not protested against by the right hon. Gentleman. Now I do not wish to go back on an old sore, but let it be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman proposes that we should discuss the same subject; and I propose to put up the same speakers more or less in the same order. That is to say, I shall probably ask my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies to speak early in the debate, and I shall certainly reserve myself for some later stage of the proceedings. Now, I think the right hon. Gentleman will feel that I am bound, not only to my right hon. friend but to the House, to see that, so far as. I am concerned, the scene which disgraced us in the eyes of the world—

It was a disgrace to you primarily.

does not recur; and that there is some danger of its recurring, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is quite evident from the noisy and disorderly interruption of the hon. Gentleman who was quite unable to control himself on the previous occasion. In these circumstances my appeal is simply to the right hon. Gentleman to do his best to prevent a recurrence of such an outrage upon decency and fair play.

I am greatly surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have renewed to- day the condition or stipulation which he mentioned two days ago, and which at the time I did not regard as of a serious character at all. I cannot imagine that the right hon. Gentleman's appeal is a serious appeal; in the first place, because the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Chair alone can maintain and enforce order in this House, and if I were to give—which it never entered into my mind to do—the undertaking he asks for, I should be so far usurping the authority of the Chair; in the second place, because the right hon. Gentleman must also be aware that if there was any disorder on Monday [Cries of "If!"]—well, so far as there was any disorder on Monday, it was occasioned by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman departed from the invariable practice when the personal conduct either of a Minister or a Member is directly impugned, and did not himself rise to meet the charges against him. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there was no discourtesy intended or felt towards the Colonial Secretary; but the House, or a large number of Members of the House, having experienced for weeks and months past the greatest difficulty in ascertaining from the right hon. Gentleman his view of his own opinions, and finding that he, when confronted by a statement made by me in very plain and unaggressive terms showing as we thought, as I thought, and as I still think, at all events a prima facie case of a breach of faith on his part, did not rise immediately to explain the circumstances—that was the cause of the disorder, that, Sir, and that alone. And if similar circumstances arose again, I think it is only natural to suppose that a similar expression of feeling would be given. There has never been any desire here on the part of any of my friends to disturb the ordinary business of the House unless on such an occasion as this when the ordinary practice was flagrantly departed from. I cannot give the undertaking he asks for.

I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman, by the observations he has just made, has laid it down that it is not discourteous to an hon. or right hon. Gentleman to keep him standing fifty minutes without allowing him to speak. He has also laid it down that the provocation given was sufficient to justify that procedure. That is a doctrine which goes to the very root of Parliamentary business. The right hon. Gentleman, to my intense surprise, has defended his friends by saying that I was violating a rule of the House by not rising at once, and by waiting until the whole attack which was in contemplation by hon. Gentlemen opposite had developed, and until the person accused had heard all the accusations that were made against him. That also is a new doctrine to which I absolutely refuse to subscribe. The right hon. Gentleman has told his friends that they would be justified in pursuing the same course if the same situation were to arise. Well, but the same situation will arise. Whatever attacks may be made upon me in the earlier stages of the debate for which the right hon. Gentleman has asked, and which I am anxious to give, whatever the charges made against me may be, I do not propose to rise early in that debate, any more than I proposed to rise early in the debate the other night. In those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman, having given fair warning—

As perhaps the decision of the right hon. Gentleman is hanging in the balance, I wish to explain that I do not conceive this Motion of my right hon. friend's to be at all of the same character as the proceedings of last Monday. This is a Motion dealing with the whole question of the Colonial Conference and the policy to be submitted to it. Therefore it is a perfectly reasonable thing that the Government should put up such Members as they think fit, and it will be no ground for disorder. But on Monday night last there was a direct challenge of the honourable conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, and I never before knew a Member of Parliament, either an ordinary Member, if I may be allowed to use the term, or a Front Bench Member, still less a high official of the Crown, who refused or appeared to evade replying. [Cries of "Withdraw."] The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to lose his temper entirely the moment any question of this sort arisen. The ground taken on Monday last was that the attack was a personal one, to which the right hon. Gentleman alone could give a reply. That would not be the case at all on the occasion of the Motion which it is proposed to bring forward on Monday, or whatever day may be fixed.

I think the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman, which has attained such proportions that perhaps it might be thought to be an independent and self-supporting speech, is really deplorable. A right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition, and some day may well lead the House, puts forward a proposition which I think absolutely ruinous to our proceedings. I have been the subject of as much direct personal and individual attack as any man in this House, probably of more than any man in this House. That is so owing, among other things, to the circumstance that I was Irish Secretary at a time when feeling ran very high in Ireland, and naturally enough the Irish Government and the Minister responsibly identified with the Irish Government—especially identified with it—was subject to almost nightly attack. Never have I heard it laid down that I was bound to reply at once, although more important speeches might come, or there might be reason to think more important speeches might come, at a later stage of the proceedings. That is not all. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think there is no personal element in this vote of censure. He is quite wrong. This Resolution states precisely what was stated and put by you, Sir, from the Chair as a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the alleged conflicting utterances of the Prime Minister [OPPOSITION cries of "Ministers"], and if the contention of the right hon. Gentleman be accepted it appears to me that I should be expected to rise first on whatever day was selected, as I was expected to rise on Monday. I repudiate the doctrine absolutely, and nothing will induce me to depart from that position in any way. It is in the first place a gross violation of Parliamentary procedure to lay down that that is the rule; and if it were the rule, the sanction which it has received from hon. Gentlemen opposite is of a kind which should really receive the severest condemnation from the Leader of the Opposition if he desires, as I am sure he does desire, to see that our debates in this House are conducted fairly and decently. I should like to know whether I may gather from the right hon. Gentleman, who presumably does know the mind of his followers, whether we are to receive a fair hearing or not.

If he will inform me that to the best of his ability, and so far as his knowledge extends—[Cries of "Oh"]. I withdraw the term "to the best of his ability," because he has repudiated any influence in this matter with his friends. If he will tell me that to the best of his knowledge the debate will be fairly conducted on Tuesday, supposing Tuesday to be the day, or on any other day which is selected, I shall be glad to find an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman; otherwise I cannot.

Will you do the same?

We had better know how we stand. Is Tuesday to be given for this purpose?

Are you going to give the pledge? [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"]

I think it is a piece of gross impudence to ask it.

There is no reason that I can see why anything should lead any Member to depart from the ordinary course of debate, if the right hon. Gentleman does not provoke it by departing from it himself.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would himself use his influence with his own followers to procure a hearing for Members speaking from the Opposition side of the House upon points of order or other matters in the course of the debate.

I understand that, though in somewhat grudging and stumbling language, the right hon. Gentleman has given the pledge. In that case I shall be quite ready to give Tuesday next.

Why did not you climb down at once?

A decision has been come to, and it seems undesirable to prolong this discussion.

On a point of order, you have allowed me, Sir, to put the Question to the right hon. Gentleman. May I not ask him whether he will endeavour to secure a fair hearing?

The Clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.