I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty can he explain why the midshipman of His Majesty's ship "Kent" who fired at and wounded his superior officer was allowed to withdraw from the service; was any Court-martial held upon the midshipman in question, or was any punishment inflicted upon him; does the Board of Admiralty hold that in cases where an officer of the Fleet has used a lethal weapon against another officer, the Admiralty have power to dispense with a Court-martial and thus to render impossible the punishment prescribed by the Naval Discipline Act; and, if so, does this apply to men as well as to officers.

I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty can he state for what reason the midshipman of H.M.S. "Kent," who shot the sub-lieutenant, had been threatened to be cobbed or beaten; was it for a breach of the King's Regulations; had this midshipman ever been cobbed before, and had he been bullied by his fellow officers; was the sub-lieutenant, who was shot, in uniform and in the execution of his office at the time; has he received a hurt certificate; and will he be entitled to any compensation for his wounds.

With regard to the hon. Member's two Questions, I have nothing to add to the statements made in the House on May 18th† in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for South Donegal, and subsequently in debate.

Do the Admiralty propose to allow officers of the Fleet to fire at and wound superior officers and then be withdrawn from the service without Court-martial? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is destructive of the whole discipline of the Fleet?

In this matter there are three parties concerned—the officer injured and his friends, the officer who inflicted the injury and his friends, and the naval service. Neither of the first two parties, I am in a position to state, desires, from their point of view, that this matter should be further dragged before the public. The third interest, and the most important—that of the naval service—has been most carefully

† See (4) Debates, cxlvi., 748

I really must press this. Is the discipline of the naval service to be subjected to the desires of persons implicated in affairs of this sort?

Why try to hush up the scandal?

Does the hon. Member remember that in November last a boy was sentenced to twenty-four strokes of the birch for striking his superior officer? Is there one law for the rich and another for the poor? Is a midshipman to be allowed to shoot his superior officer with impunity while a boy who strikes his officer is punished?

A few days ago the hon. Member was justifying this act.

And I think the Admiralty have justified my action by not bringing up this boy for trial to show what provocation he received.

said that he should put down another Question, and, if he did not get a better Answer, he should take the appropriate course.

I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether he will put down for to-morrow or to-morrow week the Vote for the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty or some other Vote on which I can call attention to the refusal of the Admiralty to explain why they have allowed a midshipman who fired at his superior officer and shot him through the cheek to retire from the service without being Court-martialled?

It is generally understood that to-morrow will be devoted to the Local Government Board Vote. The hon. Member had better consult through the usual channels as to the best means of getting the discussion he asks for.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements will be made to secure for the cadets who will be leaving the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, in July next, the average number of commissions in the Royal Engineers.

The number of commissions to be given to the Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery is based, from time to time, on the requirements of the service, and no hard-and-fast proportion can be laid down. As far as can be seen the numbers in July will be about one-third of the cadets to the Royal Engineers and two-thirds to the Royal Artillery.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the practice of witchcraft at May Hill and other parts of Gloucester; whether he is aware that, in the case of a family named Markey, four members last week lost their reason and one attempted to commit suicide at a place called Blakeley, as a result of these practices; and whether, in view of the alarm in the locality, he can state what action will be taken by the authorities to suppress witchcraft.

I have made inquiry into this very curious case. I find that Markey and his wife consulted a supposed witch about some money which they believed to have been stolen, and that subsequently three members of the family became insane, while the wife left the house and remained concealed in a wood for nearly four days. If sufficient evidence is forthcoming to justify a prosecution, proceedings will be taken by the local police against the woman who was consulted.

I beg to ask the Secretary of Stats for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the speech delivered at Northampton on Friday by the Duke of Grafton, where his Grace condemned as fearful cruelty the practice prevalent in London and throughout England of docking horses' tails and pulling out the hairs by the roots; and whether he can state if instructions will be issued to the police to prosecute in such cases.

I have not seen any report of the speech referred to. In the case of cruelty to a horse it is open to anyone to prosecute under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1849. I have no reason to think that any special instructions to the police are necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any complaints have lately been made by farmers in the neighbourhood of Solihull as to the cutting of the tails of their horses; and, if so, whether any effort has been made to trace the authors of these crimes.

I have made inquiry from the local police and find that the manes and tails of three horses in the neighbourhood were cut on the night of the 19th instant, and that a man was arrested on the following day and is now in custody on the charge of having committed these offences.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he can state the total number of charges preferred at the present sessions at the Old Bailey, and the number under each of these headings: murder, attempts to murder, manslaughter, forgery, coining, conspiracy, robbing, and indecency; and how often these sessions are held.

I have no official information on this subject, but I may refer the hon. Member to the summary of the Central Criminal Court Calendar which was given in The Times of yesterday (May 30th), where figures are given as to the offences to be tried. The Central Criminal Court holds twelve sessions in each year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more serious crimes are investigated at one sessions of the Old Bailey than are committed in all Ireland in one year?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that a cripple named Bowring was murdered at Greenwich on Saturday; and whether the police have obtained any clue as to the perpetrator of the crime.

The person who is supposed to have perpetrated this crime is in custody.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Rex versus Walter Webb, at Doncaster, on May 20th, who was charged with a criminal assault on a girl thirteen years old, when the mother of prose-cutrix was also charged with procuring the girl; and will he introduce legislation to secure that such trials shall be heard in camera.

If, as appears to be the case, the hon. Member refers to the preliminary investigation of a charge by magistrates acting under the Indictable Offences Act, 1848 (11 and 12 Victoria, cap. 42, Section 19) the question whether that investigation should be conducted in public or not is one for the discretion of the magistrates. I should not be in favour of fettering that discretion by an Act of Parliament.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether application is made by the Inland Revenue authorities for payment of estate and succession duties on the death of individuals who held property for monastic and conventual institutions on undeclared trusts.

The Inland Revenue would claim estate and succession duties on property held by a deceased person on trust for a Roman Catholic monastic institution where they had evidence of property being so held. In the case of a community of nuns, the death of a trustee would not give rise to any claim for death duties.

May I ask whether these institutions pay corporation duty?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask Mr. Chanellor of the Exchequer why, in the Return of the gross public income and expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1905, the income from Excise is stated at £30,750,000, and from Estate Duties at £12,350,000, but in the financial statement presented to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the income from Excise Duty is stated at £36,066,000 and the income from Estate Duties is stated at £16,669,000; and why, in the Return, the payments to Local Taxation Accounts are stated at only £1,156,867 when they really were £9,696,000.

The Public Income and Expenditure Account, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers in his Question as the Return, is prepared under the Sinking Fund Act, 1875. That Act requires that it shall be "an Account of the Public Income and Expenditure of the United Kingdom according to the actual receipt and issue of moneys on the Exchequer Account." It cannot therefore, include the receipts of revenue which under various Acts are paid direct by the Revenue Departments to the Local Taxation Accounts, and do not pass through the Account of the Exchequer. The Financial Statement which is presented to the House in connection with the Budget is prepared for the convenience of Members, so as to show the aggregate revenue raised by the State, including the revenue paid to the Local Taxation Accounts as well as that paid to the Exchequer Account. The receipts under the two heads are distinguished, and the Exchequer figures as there shown agree with those which the right hon. Gentleman quotes from the Return. As regards the sum of £1,156,000 about which the right hon. Gentleman inquires, that sum only represents the amount paid in pursuance of statutes from the Consolidated Fund to the Local Taxation Accounts; and it necessarily does not include the sums paid direct to those Accounts out of the assigned revenues which are given at page 2 of the Statement (Parliamentary Paper 119) as amounting to £9,813,000, making the aggregate amount with which the Local Taxation Accounts are credited up to £10,970,000 (in round thousands).

May I ask whether there is any distinction in the receipt of this money as between the revenue and the Exchequer. The death duty levied on an estate is paid in one lump sum to the revenue, and allocated afterwards. It becomes part of the gross public income.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has observed that the Return has to be prepared to show the actual receipt and issue of moneys on the Exchequer Account. This money never reaches the Exchequer Account; it is intercepted beforehand. Therefore, a statement which is to show only what is paid into or out of the Exchequer Account could not include that item. Accordingly, the Return is not a complete statement of the money raised by Imperial taxation, as I made clear in my Budget statement.

Would it not be more convenient if one form of Accounts were adopted. At present there is a great difference of opinion as to what the taxation of the country is. Differences of ten millions constantly occur in the debates in this House. Has not the time arrived when, week by week, a proper, intelligible, accurate statement should be presented to the country?

I think it would be a great convenience if all parties could agree on a single form in which the accounts should be presented, instead of having separate Returns moved for by individual Members who all desire the figures presented in a different form. At present I am under a statutory obligation, by the Act of 1875, to present the particular Return to which the right hon. Gentleman objects, and if that were adopted as the only form it would be open to the objection of being incomplete.

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the vicious process of interception, by which £20,000,000 is withdrawn from the account, was not introduced until after the Act of 1875. In consequence of the interception of that money, can he not consider the propriety of introducing some Bill to amend the present form of accounts?

I have just carried one Bill through its Committee stage, and there is another Bill I have promised. The prospect of adding another amending Bill to these has no great attraction for me at this moment. The fact that the interception of revenue has taken place since 1875 does not dispense me from presenting this Parliamentary Return.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to accept a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee on the subject.

Clearly I cannot say beforehand what my attitude would be to proposals which have not yet been submitted. Any recommendation from the Committee as to the form in which public accounts are presented will have my most serious consideration. The hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn holds strong views as to the particular forms which should be used, but others consider them the most misleading that could be adopted.

My request has reference to the accounts presented weekly and published in the newspapers, which are not presented under the Act and are in the entire discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir William Harcourt, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced his intention of making the alteration, and the officials of the Department must have known that he would have done so if he had not been ejected from office.

I was not aware of that, nor did I understand that that was the point of the right hon. Gentleman's later Question. I will consider the matter. As far as my experience goes, the weekly Returns of revenue and expenditure seem to give rise to more misunderstanding than possibly any other Returns. It not infrequently happens, from the anxiety of the Government to give full information to the public, that they give information which the public are unable to digest. I am not at all certain that any good purpose is served by making these Returns at all.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Departmental Committee to consider the practicability of a standard form of accounts being prescribed for local authorities has been appointed; whether it has taken any evidence on the subject; and whether it is intended to take the opinion of professional accountants in accordance with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Municipal Trading.

The Committee has not at present been appointed; but the matter is receiving my attention and the appointment will be made as early as practicable. The Committee will no doubt take evidence from professional accountants.

Much the same Answer was given so far back as March 7th†

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the local authority in Southwark allowed a child named Campbell to lie unburied and uncoffined for sixteen days after death, and that the father was refused facilities for the burial until he had worked two days breaking stones for the guardians, although the mother was starving; and whether the Local Government Board has taken, or intends to take, any action in the matter.

I have seen a newspaper report of the case referred to, and I am making inquiries with regard to it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has considered the circumstances disclosed at the inquest held on May 20th on George Charles Nichols, a horsekeeper of the Andrew Star Omnibus Company, Fulham, who was found to have died of acute glanders, and, further, the recommendation of the jury that veterinary inspectors ought to have power to compulsorily apply the Mallein test to in-contact animals with a view to stamp out this disease; whether he is aware that in one London hospital only no less than seven similar fatal cases to man have been diagnosed; whether he is aware that out of sixteen recently purchased Australian horses in the same omnibus stud twelve have been found to have glanders; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, he will take the necessary steps to have the Mallein test compulsorily applied to all in-contact animals in case of outbreaks of glanders, and to provide a full veterinary inspection and the application of the Mallein test in the case of horses imported from Australia or any country in which glanders is prevalent or suspected.

† See (4) Debates, cxlii., 575.

I have received from the London County Council full information as to the results of their inquiries into the regrettable circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. Although it is a fact that the horses reacting to the Mallein test in this case were of Australian, origin, it is not by any means clear that the horses were affected with glanders when imported, and it seems on the whole more likely that they contracted the disease since their purchase in London in January last. The desirability of amending the Glanders Order in the direction indicated is a subject which is receiving my careful consideration, but there are difficulties, both administrative and financial, in the way of the compulsory adoption of the Mallein test in connection with outbreaks of glanders which I have not so far seen my way to overcome. I am at the same time making inquiries with a view to deciding whether any action can usefully be taken in the direction of controlling the importation of horses into this country. I have not before me the information referred to by the hon. Member with regard to one of the London hospitals, but the London County Council have been good enough to inform me that during the last five years twelve cases of human deaths from glanders have been brought to their notice, in six of which a connection was traced to outbreaks of that disease in horses.

I shall put another Question on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what day before Whitsuntide the Bill dealing with the Scottish Churches will be introduced, in accordance with the undertaking given by the Prime Minister.

I understand it is the intention of my right hon. friend to introduce this Bill next week—probably on Wednesday.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether his attention has been called to the outrages perpetrated on children at Rutherglen, Glasgow, last week; whether be can communicate to the House the contents of the police reports on these outrages; whether any hope is entertained of the recovery of the victims; and whether any arrests have been made.

The Procurator-Fiscal has reported to me that on Thursday 25th instant, about noon, two boys aged respectively nine years and three years and eleven months had been stabbed near Rutherglen—the former was only slightly cut on the back and is now going about, the latter was mortally wounded and died the following night. The person who is believed to have committed the outrages was apprehended on the following day and has been charged with murder.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a protest from Mrs. Mary Anne Wall, Ballacolla, Queen's County, a tenant on the Caldbeck Estate, against being included amongst the tenants who signed agreements to purchase, and alleging her signature to an agreement to purchase, forwarded to the Estates Commissioners on behalf of the vendor, to be a forgery; and, if so, will he say what course he proposes taking in this matter.

No, Sir; but an agreement to purchase signed by James Wall has been lodged, and Mrs. Wall has sent in an objection, stating that she, and not James Wall, is the tenant. This objection will be inquired into before the sale is sanctioned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since it has been represented that the scale of remuneration proper to their grade is paid to the Catholic gentlemen of the Agricultural Department who have eleven years service, perform high class work, viz., the conducting of registries, the interviewing of callers, and the drafting and writing of correspondence, and have salaries of only £97 10s. a year, he will state what was the scale of salary originally fixed by the Treasury as proper for the grade of chief clerk in the Department; has such original amount since been exceeded; and, if so, by how much; and on what principle did the Department exceed the scale at first considered adequate for the position.

My right hon. and learned friend replied to a similar Question pat by the hon. Member on March 14th.† I have nothing to add to that reply.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the police are endeavouring to treat as criminal the operations of the Gaelic League, which has for its object the advancement and propagation of the Irish language; how many of the branches of the league have been visited by the police; and whether the discovery of anything of an incriminating character has resulted from such visits.

It is not the fact that the police are endeavouring to treat as criminal the operations of the Gaelic League, nor, so far as the Inspector-General is aware, have any branches of that organisation been visited by the police.

Has any special order been issued to the police about the league?

Not that I am aware of.

† See (4) Debates, cxlii., 1389.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state on what grounds Timothy Fallon, of Derrybrien, county Galway, was arrested by the police and brought before a magistrate; whether T. Fallon was subsequently summoned for the same alleged offence; and whether the charge was dismissed unanimously by the magistrates.

An action for false imprisonment has been instituted against the constable who made this arrest, and I must decline to make any statement on the subject while the case is sub judice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the last search for arms was made in Belfast, Lurgan, Portadown, or Derry; and whether firearms are not frequently used during disturbances in these districts.

The last search for arms was made in Belfast in 1886, and in Londonderry in 1888. No searches have been made in Lurgan or Portadown. Shots have been fired by both Parties in the North of Ireland; fortunately, however, serious results have rarely followed, but the practice is none the less reprehensible. Detection is difficult in such cases, but the police use their best endeavours to bring offenders to justice.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why searches are made in Roscommon, where arms are not used, but are not made in the North of Ireland, where arms are used?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now say that he will lay upon the Table of the House the comments on Mr. Dale's Report sent in to the Government by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland and referred to by the Commissioners in their last annual Report.

The last published Annual Report of the Commissioners embodies substantially, and in considerable detail, their general observations on Mr. Dale's Report. The communications from the Commissioners which contain these observations are incomplete in themselves, since they make references to previous correspondence of a Departmental and confidential character that passed between the Irish Government and the Commissioners. For this reason I am unable to lay on the Table their observations as a separate Paper.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Mr. Charles O'Connor, of Floughena, in county Mayo, has been brought before the Estates Commissioners for sale to the tenants; and, if so, what steps have been taken by the Commissioners to meet the claim for reinstatement of the representatives of Thomas Durkan, who was evicted from a farm on this estate.

No, Sir; but if the estate should come before the Commissioners, they will consider an application for reinstatement which has been received from Mary Durkan.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table the official Minutes and Correspondence connected with the case of Constable Anderson which Lords Cadogan and Spencer asked to be made public.

I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will let the hon. Member for Mayo East have a full attested copy of the evidence given at the public Court of inquiry on which Constable Anderson was dismissed from the Irish Constabulary.

I desire to remind the hon. Member that my predecessor the right hon. Member for Dover, on the 13th July† and 3rd August† last, declined to lay these documents on the Table of the House. I fully accept my right hon. friend's decision In this matter, and am moreover, unable to act on the suggestion in the second Question that an attested copy of the evidence taken at the Court of inquiry should be supplied to the hon. Member.

Then do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow us to see the evidence?

Yes, I think that is the result of my Answer to the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the pledge given by the hon. Member for Dover, on July 1st, 1903; and whether, in pursuance of that pledge, he will not publish the instructions and orders to the Estates Commissioners contained in the letters received by them from the Irish Executive, and which instructions and orders are referred to in the Report of the Commissioners as controlling their action equally with the Act of Parliament.

The statement made by my right hon. friend on the occasion referred to was that "he had not yet decided on the exact form of publication, but he agreed that the regulations should come before the House in some way." The regulations in question were those which are provided for by Section 23, Sub-section 8, of the Act. As I have already repeatedly stated, no such regulations have yet been made.

Did the right hon. Gentleman, in making the promise to the House, refer to any proposal to issue secret regulations?

† See (4) Debates, cxxxvii., 1485.

‡ See (4) Debates, cxxxix. 724.

So far as I am aware, no secret regulations have been made. There have been communications between the Estates Commissioners and the Government, but these are always treated as confidential. I have promised, and intend to keep the promise, to lay the regulations on the Table as soon as possible.

Was it not the impression of the House, on July 1st, 1903, that all orders and regulations issued by the Irish Executive to the Estates Commissioners should be laid on the Table?

I cannot possibly say what the impression of the House was. My right hon. friend promised that the regulations, when issued, should be published. None have yet been issued, but they will shortly be issued, as they are now practically complete. I have done my best to hasten their publication, but they deal with questions of great difficulty and delicacy, and it is necessary that they should be very carefully drawn. I certainly have issued no secret regulations.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the reasons for keeping secret the instructions and orders contained in the letters received by the Estates Commissioners; and whether the Irish Government propose to continue the practice of issuing secret instructions and orders to the Estates Commissioners.

Sir, the reason is that these memoranda were of a, Departmental and confidential character. I may repeat what I have already more than once stated, that inasmuch as the Department of the Estates Commissioners is a branch of the Executive Government, communications of a Departmental character must necessarily pass from time to time between the Commissioners and the Government, which, like all other communications of an inter-Departmental character, are treated as confidential, in accordance with well-established practice, and, as such, will not be published. The issue of instructional orders or regulations of the nature contemplated by statute is, however, on a different footing, and I have already undertaken to lay such regulations, when settled, on the Table of the House.

That is not a sufficient Answer to my Question whether the Government propose to continue the practice of issuing secret regulations?

I have stated that I am not aware that the Government has issued secret orders. Communications are always passing between the Executive and different branches of the Government, but secret orders have not, to the best of my knowledge, been issued, and certainly not by me.

The Attorney-General said that in the correspondence with the Commissioners there were contained instructions and orders; and they must be secret because you refuse to communicate them to the House.

The word "instructions" may be interpreted in different ways. As far as I know, nothing in the nature of regulations governing the general action of the Commissioners has been issued by the Government. When the Commissioners applied to the Government in regard to the administration of the Act, the Government, as in duty bound, gave advice; but it is the invariable practice to regard such communications as confidential.

Then are we to understand that for eighteen months the Land Act has been worked on the basis of communications with the Executive Government?

The Member can understand what he likes. I cannot alter my Answer that no regulations have yet been issued. As soon as regulations are issued they will be laid on the Table; and I undertake that they shall not be altered or varied except by new regulations, which will also be laid on the Table.

But the Commissioners in their Report refer to regulations overruling them. Are we not entitled to see those regulations?

I should say no, Sir. That is not the question we ale now speaking of—namely, the issue of regulations for the general instruction of the Commissioners. They will be issued, and as soon as they are ready they will be laid upon the Table of the House.

I wish to submit a point of order. I wish to ask whether we are not entitled to obtain from the Government the instructions which are referred to in the Report of the Estates Commissioners submitted to the House of Commons. We have been informed by the Attorney-General for Ireland that these instructions were contained in written letters. We were assured in this House that we should have full information to enable us to criticise the Report of the Commissioners.

said that his observation referred only to the evicted tenants' question.

That is a most important admission. We now know that written instructions were given in reference to the action of the Commissioners in regard to reinstating the evicted tenants. We have the Report of the Commissioners stating that their operations were controlled by the instructions they received. Are we not entitled to obtain from the Government those instructions referred to in the Report?

I do not think that is a question of order. It is a matter for argument in debate, but there is no authority in the Chair to compel the production of these instructions.

Is it not the practice that a Minister cannot quote from a document without producing it? Are we not entitled to have this document produced?

I do not think there has been any quotation from it in this House.

Certainly; it is quoted in the Report of the Commissioners.

It is not a question of quotation by a Minister, I admit. It is a quotation of a document by the Estates Commissioners in their Report, and I submit that the same rule applies to this as to quotations by Ministers.

I do not think the rule can be carried as far as that. The rule is a well-ascertained one. If a Minister in this House quotes for the purposes of argument one or more sentences from a document he is bound to produce the whole document.

In this case a Minister has presented to the House a Report in which reference is made to other documents. I say that the rule therefore applies.

In the Report of the Estates Commissioners, who are responsible to and controlled by this House, there is a distinct reference to the instructions received by them from the Government. The Attorney-General says he gave the advice to the Government on which the Commissioners acted. I think we ought to have the whole case before us.

The Commissioners say that their proceedings under Section 23 have been regulated by the provisional rules and the instructions received from time to time from his Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant. Yet Ministers tell us no instructions have been given. I think we are entitled, at any rate, to an explanation of this extraordinary contradiction between Ministers and the statement in the Report presented to the House by the Estates Commissioners.

I see no reason for altering my decision. There has been no quotation by a Minister from a particular document, and the rule only applies to that.

Surely the action of the Commissioners up to the present must have been regulated by some instructions, and if we are entitled to have the regulations which are now in preparation to regulate the action of the Commissioners in the future, we are equally entitled to have those by which they have been regulated in the past.

And my answer is that there have been no regulations issued as contemplated by the Act up to the present, but there have been constant communications between the Executive and the Commissioners, and it would be an unheard of departure from practice to disclose such communications.

Then does the right hon. Gentleman wish the Estates Commissioners to correct their Report?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the representation of Denis Healy, of Lower Belmount, Crooks-town, the Bandon Rural District Council caused a cottage with an acre of land attached to be built on the lands of Mrs. Henry Wall, Crookstown; and will he say if possession of this cottage has been given over to Healy; if not, what proceedings have been taken by the district council in connection with its occupation, and has any tenancy been declared.

Healy was one of four labourers who made representations for this cottage. At the local inquiry Mrs. Wall offered to give the site provided that another of the four, named Callaghan, who was a labourer in her employment, should get the cottage; and this offer was accepted by the district council.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many public bodies in Ireland have forwarded resolutions asking for the appointment of an Irish Commissioner in England to look after Irish agricultural interests, in the same manner as Denmark and Sweden does, and what answer has been given to those requests.

Resolutions have been received from eight public bodies, and formal acknowledgments have been sent. The Department's transit inspectors visit the principal British markets, interview merchants engaged in the sale of Irish and foreign, produce, and make inquiries generally as to the marketing of the produce.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the amount contributed by the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of technical or agricultural schemes in the county of Kerry in the year 1904–5; and if he can give the names of the schemes assisted by such grants, and the amount allowed to each scheme.

I have for warded to the hon. Member a statement giving in detail the information asked for.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction made grants to any persons in the county of Kerry in the year 1904–5, other than to the County Council of Kerry; and, if so, what were the amounts of such grants and to whom were they given.

No grants for agricultural or technical instruction were made by the Department out of their endowment fund to persons in Kerry, other than the county committee, in the year 1904–5.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Lord Ashtown, county Galway, issued a circular last February calling upon his friends to form an association for the purpose of collecting information re boycotting and agrarian offences, to be supplied to the Ulster Tory Members, and asking for funds to promote same; that about two weeks ago Lord Ashtown purchased the estate of the late Mr. Galway, upon which eighteen tenants are living, upon an average valuation of £2 10s. each; that there is a considerable amount of untenanted land upon the estate, and that the tenants sought to buy; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Land Act of 1903, he will say what steps, if any, the Executive intend to take to extend the benefits of the Act to those tenants and prevent such occurrences in future.

I am not aware that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. I am informed that the Land Judge has expressed his intention of accepting Lord Ashtown's offer for the purchase of the estate referred to. The tenants opposed the acceptance of this offer, but, as the estate was unencumbered, and as no receiver over it had ever been appointed, the learned Judge held that the compulsory provisions of the Act of 1896 were not applicable. The number of tenants is, I understand, correctly stated; their holdings are small, and there is a considerable amount of untenanted land which it has been the practice to let for grazing. The learned Judge was satisfied that for at least two years past the letting of this grazing land has been boycotted by the tenants. No action on the part of the Executive is called for.

I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether he can hold out any prospect that the House will soon see the Prime Minister again in his place and what arrangements the Government contemplate for the Motion standing in the name of my right hon. friend the Member for Berwick.

I have seen the Prime Minister this morning, and I am in a position to offer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick Monday next for the vote of censure. My right hon. friend the Secretary for the Treasury promised on Monday last that the earliest possible day should be given. Monday is that earliest day, and I shall be ready to place that day at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the first Question which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked me, I have every reason to hope that my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury will be in his place to-morrow.

At the time when the Secretary for the Treasury spoke of fixing the earliest possible day, I remember I suggested that the convenience of the House should be consulted; and I am bound to say that, while I think any day this week would have been suitable, I do not think any day next week is likely to be convenient for the great majority of Members of the House. Therefore I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and make other arrangements.

I have carefully considered the question with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and I am afraid I can offer no other day than Monday next. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the objections to the postponement. The character of the Motion is exceptional. It is not an ordinary Motion; it is a direct vote of censure upon the Prime Minister, and ought to be dealt with as speedily as possible. [OPPOSITION cries of "To-morrow."] The right hon. Gentleman himself treated the matter as one of urgent public importance, because he moved the adjournment of the House on this question last week. Therefore, so far as I am concerned as representing the Prime Minister on this occasion, I am afraid I can hold out no hope of any day before the holidays except Monday next.

I greatly regret the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to deal with this matter, which ought to be a matter of amicable arrangement between the two sides of the House. The arrangements of hon. Members were made on the supposition that this Motion was to come on last Tuesday, and therefore many hon. Members have made arrangements to go out of town next week. There are other circumstances which have occurred which increase the tendency in that direction; but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have an early day why does he not select tomorrow? We are ready to go on with it tomorrow if the right hon. Gentleman will give us that day, and not select a day next week which will be notoriously inconvenient.

First of all let me apologise if in any way my manner gave the impression that I had answered the Question of the right hon. Gentleman in any discourteous spirit.

There was no discourtesy. It was the words of the right hon. Gentleman.

It certainly was not my intention to be discourteous. I said I had every reason to hope that my right hon. friend would be present to-morrow; but I cannot guarantee his presence to-morrow, and therefore I cannot fix that day in the absence of my right hon. friend, who is the Minister challenged and who must reply to this question. So far as the day for the Motion is concerned I am afraid I cannot depart from the offer I have made.

The right hon. Gentleman appears to forget that it is not our fault that it did not come off yesterday.

I am perfectly certain there is no person in the House or in the country who more deeply regrets that it did not come off yesterday than the Prime Minister himself.

I am not quite clear how the matter stands now with reference to the proposal of the Government as to a day for the Motion. Do I understand that the Home Secretary states that the Motion must be taken on Monday or not at all, and that the Government will not give any other day? Because the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that that is an inconvenient day. More than one unforeseen cause has occurred to disturb the course of public business since my Motion was put on the Paper. Do I understand from the Home Secretary that the position of the Government is that they offer us Monday, but meet us with a point blank refusal as to any later day?

I have already pointed out that it is very desirable that the Motion should be dealt with before the vacation, because I do not think that a Motion challenging the bona fides of the Prime Minister ought to remain on the Paper for a long period. If the right hon. Gentleman would take the Motion off the Paper I daresay my right hon. friend would at a later period give the right hon. Gentleman another opportunity. At all events, Monday is the first day at our disposal; and whether the Motion should be postponed till after Whitsuntide is a question which the right hon. Gentleman should put to the Prime Minister.

I gather from he Home Secretary that the main difficulty of appointing another day, assuming it is impossible to take the Motion his week, is the matter of form of keeping the Motion on the Paper. I should be willing to remove the Motion provided should be regarded as at liberty to replace it when the Government can offer day which will suit the general convenience of the House.

I am as anxious for the general convenience as right hon. Gentlemen opposite; but all I an say now is that I can only offer Monday before the Whitsun holidays. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to take the course he has adumbrated perhaps he will put a further Question to-morrow or on the adjournment to-night.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question of which I have sent him private notice,. viz., whether it is a fact that the Report f Sir William Butler's Commission which he Secretary of State for War presented to the Public Accounts Committee was presented as a confidential document, and whether there is any reason why the contents of the Report should not at once be made public to the House and the country.

I see no reason at all why this Paper should not be laid, but as a matter of courtesy I should first like to consult the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

It was said by the Secretary for War the other day that presenting the Report to the Public Accounts Committee was tantamount to presenting it to the House. Why, then, is the House not in possession of it? The proper course in a matter of this sort is to present the Papers to the House first and then for the House to refer them to the Public Accounts Committee.

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. The Committee on Public Accounts desired that the Report should be presented as soon as possible, and as soon as it was received it was presented to the Committee. But the printing of the evidence on which the Report is based has not yet been completed, and I thought it would be in accordance with all precedent that the Report and the evidence should be presented at the same time. The printing of the evidence is now so far advanced that we shall be practically able to present both the Report and the evidence either to-morrow or the day after.

After the Whit by election!

as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said that he personally could see no reason why the Report, a copy of which had been supplied to each member of the Public Accounts Committee, should not be presented to the House. The Committee had not been able to commence their inquiry into the alleged scandals because they had not yet had the evidence. So far as the Committee were concerned, they had no objection to the Report and the evidence being placed before the House, and ho had asked the members of the Committee not to make public the Report until it had been presented to the House.

asked the Secretary for War under what authority he had referred this document to the Public Accounts Committee, marking it "Confidential?"

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in marking the document "Confidential" I had no intention whatever to withdraw it from the cognisance of the House. That is the ordinary inscription placed on documents emanating from the War Office. It is not a question of withholding the document from the House, but a question of the rapidity of printing.

Then there would be no objection to any member of the Committee handing a copy to the Press?

That is not a matter on which I should like to express any opinion. I can see no objection if any members of the Committee think it part of their duty. I think it is better that the Report and the evidence should be presented at the same time, and I do not see that the public advantage would be served by accelerating the presentation of the Report by a couple of days.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be proper on the part of a member of the Committee to hand his copy to the Press? I should strongly object to such a proceeding.

I think it would be much better that this matter should be left until the evidence is printed.

asked whether the word "Confidential" on a document did not mean that a member of the Committee was precluded from showing the document to other Members of the House?

expressed a strong hope that the invariable rule of the Public Accounts Committee that all documents that came before it should be regarded as confidential should not be departed from in this case. It would be a great misfortune if it were. He might add that six or eight weeks ago the Committee foresaw difficulty with regard to the evidence and asked the War Office to get it printed from day to day, so that there might be no delay in its correction.

entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman. The circumstances were that the Chairman of the Committee asked him to forward him a copy of the Report and he did so, and he thought that necessarily involved sending a copy to the other members of the Committee. As to the propriety of his action, it seemed to him in accordance with the general view of the House that these documents should be regarded as confidential. The delay in presenting the evidence was due, not to printing, but to the correction of proofs.

also agreed with his hon. friend as to the expediency of maintaining the doctrine that an ordinary document communicated to the Public Accounts Committee for its purposes should be regarded as confidential; but this was a Report presented to Parliament at the instance and in consequence of Questions put by Members of the House. Therefore, it was not a confidential document in any sense of the word. He adhered to his statement that in the case of a Report of this sort the proper course was to present it to the House and then let it be refered to the Committee.

said he must explain, in correction of a misapprehension of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Report was not in any way the result of any representation made in the House. It was the result of action taken by himself as soon as he was made aware that these difficulties had occurred. It was the result of a Report made by a Committee appointed by him on his own Motion after reference to the House. It was his desire that the House should be made acquainted with the tenor of the Report. He had perhaps erred in acquiescing in the request of his right hon. friend the Member for Walsall to forward him an advanced copy of the Report; but he had no desire to keep the Report back. It would be presented as soon as the evidence was received.

Was the Report laid in dummy?