laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [Lords]; Formby Township Bill [Lords]; Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords]; Littlehampton Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [Lords]; Matlock Bath Improvement Bill [Lords]; Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council Bill [Lords].

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the standing Order not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.:—Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Company Bill [Lords].

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of the Petitions for Private Bills That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill.

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Liverpool, etc.) Bill [Lord]; Pier and Harbour provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred pursuant to the Order of the House of the 7th day of June, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Churches (Scotland) Bill. Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill (changed from "Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill"). As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time. Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have received any communications from Norway or Sweden regarding the constitutional question which has arisen between King Oscar and the Norwegian Storthing; and, if so, whether such communications, or the substance or purport of them, can be laid before Parliament. (Answered by Earl Percy.) A copy of the King of Sweden's Address to the Storthing has been communicated to His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Consul-General at Christiania has been furnished unofficially with copies of documents relating to the Storthing's Declaration of Dissolution of the Union.

To ask the Postmaster-General if a memorial had been received in October last from certain sorting clerks and telegraphists employed on Dublin and Queenstown T. P. O. asking for increased trippage allowance; and could he say when a decision would be communicated to them. (Answered, by Lord Stanley.) The memorial to which the hon. Member refers has been received. I am not as yet prepared to reply to it, but I hope to be shortly in a position to do so.

To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, on what spot in the Horse Guards Parade it is intended to erect the statue of the Duke of Cambridge. (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) There is a proposal to erect a statue in memory of the late Duke of Cambridge in the neighbourhood of the Horse Guards, but as yet no site has been selected, and it has not been suggested that it should be erected upon the Horse Guards Parade.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what is the result of the inquiry made by the Board of Education into the alleged caning of children in the public elementary schools at Preston because their parents did not pay school fees; whether school fees are charged in the Preston schools with the sanction of the Board of Education; and, if so, on what specific ground such sanction has been given. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I have made inquiries, and I find that on three occasions a councillor has called the attention of the council to alleged cases of caning for non-payment of fees. As a result of careful investigation the education committee came practically unanimously to the conclusion that there was no foundation for the charge in the first set of cases. In the second set it was found that all the children had been in occupation of recognised free places for more than twelve months. The third set are still under investigation. In all the schools except one, where fees are charged, the right to do so is based upon Section 2 (2) of the Act of 1891, and no sanction of the Board is required. In the remaining case the fees were sanctioned by the Board under Section 4 (1) of the Act of 1891.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire as to the provision of means of escape from fire in factories, workshops, laundries, offices, shops, hotels, and other buildings where persons work or live in large numbers, and to report what changes in the law are necessary, he proposes to take any action in regard to the consideration by a Select Committee of the now pending London Building Acts Amendment Bill and the City of London (Escape from Fire) Bill. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Some two years ago I suggested to the London County Council that they should amend the provisions of the London Building Act in respect to the means of escape from fire; and it was not my intention or wish, in assenting to the request of the hon. Member for Berwick for a general inquiry into the subject, that such an inquiry should interfere with the consideration of the proposals that have been made for London, which stands on a somewhat different footing from the rest of the country, and has a more urgent need for legislation.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury Letter of the 8th May, granting eighteen days annual leave to abstractors of the new class after ten years service applies to abstractors of the old class; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have this concession communicated to those departments where abstractors of the old class have hitherto been given only fourteen days. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The concession referred to by my hon. friend is applicable in the case of abstractors of the old class, and heads of departments have been so informed.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. Burkitt, officiating Judge at Allahabad, recently passed a sentence of six years rigorous imprisonment on the Chaukidar Mahabir for the theft of letters the property of the Post Office; and, having regard to the fact that less severe punishment is inflicted for similar offences in this country, will he suggest the expediency of a reconsideration of the case with a view to a remission of part of the sentence. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have observed a report of the case referred to in the newspapers. The accused appears to have committed an extensive series of thefts and to have stolen considerable sums of money contained in the intercepted letters. It is open to him to appeal to the High Court and the Governments of the United Provinces and India in regard to the severity of the sentence, and I see no reason to interfere.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if the Government of India will consider the expediency of making the appointment of a third Judge for the province of Oudh permanent instead of merely temporary. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick) I agreed in April last, on the recommendation of the Government of India, to the that third Judge in the Chief Appellate Court in Oudh being made permanent.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of National Education, at their meeting on the 26th May, 1903, at which the Resident Commissioner was not present, unanimously resolved to grant aid to Allen's Hill School, county Armagh, and that the secretaries of the Board, contrary to the usual practice, failed to notify this decision to the applicants; and will he explain why this resolution was afterwards, at a meeting of the Board at which the Resident Commissioner was present, rescinded. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners at their meeting on the 26th May, 1903, decided to grant aid to this school, but, as there were peculiar circumstances in the case, at their next meeting on the 8th June following, they requested the Resident Commissioner to, visit the locality of Allen's Hill, and, in view of the number of small schools in that locality, to report on the best arrangement of the schools. The Commissioners ordered that in the meantime the action of the Board on the 26th May was to be suspended and no intimation of the grant of that date was to be sent to the applicant. On the 15th December, 1903, the case was again before the Commissioners, and in view of the unsuitable nature of the schoolhouse premises and of the fact that there was no real necessity for the school, with small schools, the order granting aid was rescinded.

To ask Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a school was established at Allen's Hill, county Armagh, in the year 1899, by the Rev. David McLaughlin, to meet the wants of that district; that, on 31st December, 1899, application was made to the National Board for aid, on the grounds that there were sixty-two pupils on the roll, thirty-eight of whom never attended any other school; that nearly all the sixty-two pupils were nearly all the sixty-two pupils were resident over two miles from any existing school, a statutory declaration to that effect having been lodged with the Board; and if he can say why the application for aid was refused in this case. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) An application for aid to this school was receive on the 30th December, 1899. The average daily attendance was given as twenty-nine. The inspector in his report on the application stated that there were only forty-two pupils on the rolls and about thirty-one in average attendance, and of the forty-two on rolls eighteen had been withdrawn from neighbouring national schools. The reasons for refusing aid given in Answer to the preceding Question.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the fact that a new school building had been erected in 1900 at Allen's Hill, county Armagh, was reported to the National Board with an offer to make any reasonable alterations or improvements suggested by their inspector; and that an application for aid was made and supported by two memorials and afterwards verified by statutory declaration; and whether, in view of the fact that in February, 1901, the Resident Commissioner informed the applicant that if he could show by memorial or otherwise that there were thirty children residing in the district and two miles from existing school his claim would receive favourable consideration, and that a memorial from the parents of forty-eight children resident at the distance named by the Resident Commissioner was presented to the Board, he can say why the Board refused aid in this case. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The facts are substantially as stated, save that there is no record of any such promise as that alleged to have been given by the Resident Commissioner, nor could such a promise be given without the consent of the Board. Aid was refused for the reasons stated in reply to the two previous Questions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why were the fortnightly reports of the stocks of goods hold in South Africa discontinued at the 31st of December, 1902; did any cargoes of war stores arrive after the 1st of January, 1903; and were the large stocks which had then accumulated all sold locally, at some such scales of prices as those obtained for forage, and described in the Butler Report.

These fortnightly reports were telegraphed reports, which originated during the war for the guidance of the War Office in the maintenance of the supplies required by the troops in the field. In view of the cost of these cablegrams, and as similar information was also given in a monthly state of supplies rendered by mail, the telegraphed reports were considered no longer necessary and were dispensed with on March 18th, 1903. The monthly states were continued. No cargoes of war supplies, so far as is known at the War Office, arrived in South Africa after the 1st January, 1903. As regards the last part of the Question the reply is in the negative. These stocks were disposed of, some at prices approved by the War Office, others at prices approved locally; some were sent to England for disposal, some were condemned as bad, and some still remain.

Will the right hon. Gentleman publish these monthly reports which go on after the fortnightly reports?

I think I ought not to undertake to publish isolated War Office Papers. All these statements as they are required for the purposes of the inquiry will be produced.

Did the monthly states disclose the names of the buyers of the stocks in South Africa and the prices?

The prices, yes. One set of reports did disclose the names. The others not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the actual or approximate cost in the first instance of those stores which Lord Kitchener Valued at from £6,000,000 to £7,000,000 when he left South Africa; what has been the actual or approximate sum realised by subsequent sales; what has been the estimated value of these stores actually consumed by the Army left in occupation; whether any of these stores still remain in stock; and, if so, what is the estimated value of the same.

The War Office is not in possession of any detail of the stores on which the estimate made by Lord Kitchener—admittedly a rough one—Was based. A total sum of approximately £8,000,000 was realised by the sale of various stock in South Africa from April, 1902, to September, 1904, but the monies arising from the sale of ordinary supplies to soldiers, captured stock, etc., are included in this total and cannot be separated. As regards the other points raised in the Question the information desired by the hon. Member would require considerable labour to obtain in consequence of the difficulty of differentiating between the stores actually consumed and those of a similar description which arrived at a later date.

May I ask whether it is not the fact that strict ledger accounts were kept of all these transactions in accordance with Lord Kitchener's recommendation when he left South Africa; and also whether the suggestion made by Mr. Edwards to Sir Neville Lyttelton that there was a wastage of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 of our money is correct?

I really would prefer not to answer these supplementary Questions off hand. They refer to matters of which I have no personal cognisance whatever. I do not wish to make any mistakes.

Was the sum of £8,000,000, of which the right hon. Gentleman just spoke, the sum of money roughly stated at £7,000,000, I think, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer led us to suppose he would get back and did not?

No, Sir. I think not. I think it would include a portion of it; but the two sums are not identical.

That sum would include the stores sold, but never removed, and then bought back again?

Yes, Sir. The losses on those stores are allowed for.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that Colonel Morgan's solicitors have threatened a libel action against the Daily News for commenting on the Report of Sir William Butler's Committee; and whether, in the event of actions being entered against that or any other newspaper, the War Office will give access to the documents necessary for the defence.

I am not at present prepared to discuss the probable attitude of the War Office in the event of a civil action being commenced.

Was the Secretary of State cognisant of the fact that Colonel Morgan proposed to bring this action against the Daily News before his solicitors communicated with the paper?

No, Sir, I was not.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any application was made by The Times newspaper to obtain documents for the defence of The Times' action; was any similar application made by the Daily News; and, if so, what answer was given?

Yes, Sir, an application was made, and they were informed that all documents which were at the disposal of the plaintiff were at their disposal also, and were open to their inspection if they desired to see them.

Did the War Office suggest either directly or indirectly to Colonel Morgan that he ought to take proceedings against The Times and the Daily News?

I have already answered that Question. Action was taken independently by Colonel Morgan.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state under what circumstances he has advertised for sale unused lots in first-rate condition of surplus boilers, distilling apparatus, dynamos, and other plant at Bermuda, Barbados, St. Helena, and Woolwich.

The War Office has advertised for sale various lots of surplus boilers, distilling apparatus, dynamos, and other plant now lying at the stations mentioned, which were originally bought for Boer camps and which are no longer required by the War Department.

The right hon. Gentleman has not stated how it comes about that these things are offered for sale, although housed and in first-rate condition.

Because it is no use keeping plant that is not required, and it is considered cheaper to sell it than to bring it back.

asked why the plant was ordered if not required.

It was provided mainly for the Boer prisoners' camps. The number of Boer prisoners was a varying number, and we had to make provision against contingencies.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of officers relieved from duty in consequence of the Report of the Butler Committee, and their names; whether they are still drawing pay; and whether he can state the distinction between suspension and relief from duty.

The number of officers relieved from duty is eight. Their names are as follows, viz:-—Brevet-Colonel A. G. Hipwell, Army Service Corps; Lieutenant-Colonel H. G. Morgan, C. B., D.S.O. Army Service Corps; Major G. F. Walton, Army Service Corps; Corps; Captain R. H. Limond, Army Service Corps; Captain P.C. De la Pryme, Army Service Corps; Colonel G. Dewar, Army Pay Department; Lieutenant-Colonel H. Swire, Army Pay Department; Captain H. de C. Huntsman, Army Pay Department. They are still drawing pay. An officer suspended from duty is placed under the same restrictions as if in open arrest. An officer relieved from duty is not placed under such restrictions and retains all his privileges as an officer.

Have any of these officers applied for a Court-martial?

No, Sir.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the Press Censor in South Africa refused to permit newspaper correspondents to transmit information regarding the purchases and sales of stores reported by Sir William Butler's Committee; if so, on what occasions he took this action; and by whose orders, or for what reason, he so acted.

All restrictions on telegraphic correspondence to and from South Africa were removed on July 21st, 1902. It would not, therefore, appear practicable for this censorship to have interfered in any way with the transmission of information of the transactions mentioned.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is to be understood by the expression sub judice in his letter prefixed to the Report of Sir William Butler's Committee; and to what judgment is reference made in the expression quoted.

The words quoted were used merely in the ordinary acceptation of the term and designed to express the fact that the whole of the issues upon which judgment is required had not been tried, and that many of the persons whose character and credit are concerned have either not been heard or have not had an opportunity of defending themselves by the means open to all persons accused of misfeasance or dereliction of duty.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on whose authority the system of local contract for the purchase and sale of stores was set up in South Africa; and why transactions involving six or seven millions of money were entrusted to military instead of civil officers.

The system of local contracts for the purchase of stores in South Africa was approved by the Financial Secretary on the advice of the Quartermaster-General and the Director of Contracts. The system of local sales in South Africa was initiated by Lord Kitchener and was subsequently approved by the Quartermaster-General and the Secretary of State. As these transactions were to be dealt with locally they were necessarily entrusted to the military officers on the spot.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say, for the purpose of reference, which Financial Secretary and which Secretary of State respectively was responsible?

I could give the hon. Gentleman the dates when a change took place. I was responsible for the transactions which occurred after the beginning of October, 1903. My predecessor was responsible up to that time.

The right hon. Gentleman has not given us the date of the transactions. Can he say who was responsible for authorising the setting up of this system of local purchase and sales?

The system was set up in 1902.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to take any and, if so, what steps to carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee presided over by General Butler, to the effect that further inquiries on the question of sales and refunds to contractors should be made in South Africa.

I think the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question is covered by the statements I have already made to the House. He knows it is proposed to appoint a Royal Commission to make inquiries on this subject. If that Commission find, as I do not doubt they will find, that investigations have to be made in South Africa, they will, of course, take the necessary steps to have those investigations carried out.

Am I to take it that the Royal Commission will have power to issue a Commission to take evidence in South Africa, and that that evidence can be taken on oath, and the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents compelled?

My learned friend the Attorney-General informs me that he has received private notice of a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries dealing with some of the legal aspects of the case, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until the hon. and learned Gentleman has put his Question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman cite the precedents on which he relies for the proposed issue on the advice of His Majesty's Ministry of a Royal Commission empowering its nominees to investigate the action and conduct of various Ministers (a) without, and (b) with, the concurrence of the House of Commons?

I only received notice as I came into the House, when it was not in my power to make any investigation into the question of precedent. But I do not think the hon. Gentleman will regard that as necessary. There is no other possible way of appointing a Royal Commission except upon the advice of the Ministers of the Crown.

May I ask whether powers similar to those given to the Parnell Commission will be vested in the Army Contracts Commission, and whether the proposed Commission will be composed of Judges of the High Court, but not including Judges who have held seats in this House.

I may perhaps repeat in the case of this Question the Answer I have already given to another supplementary Question.

Is it not in accordance with precedent for the House of Commons to pass Resolutions or take steps to move the Crown to issue a Royal Commission, and to concur in giving powers to the Royal Commission.

I should like to look into that question before giving an Answer.

I beg to ask the Attorney-General whether a Royal Commission, in whatever terms it may be appointed, is entitled to require a witness to be sworn, unless a special Act of Parliament bestows upon it that power; whether a witness summoned before such a Royal Commission may, at his pleasure, refuse to attend or to be sworn, or to produce documents; and whether there is any case of a witness who has consented to be sworn, and has given false testimony before such a Commission, being indicted for perjury.

At the same time I will ask Mr. Attorney-General, with reference to the proposed Royal Commission on the Sale of Stores in South Africa, if a Royal Commission has power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and examine them on oath, to compel the production of documents, to punish persons guilty of contempt, or to issue a Commission to examine witnesses abroad, seeing that it is laid down in Coke's Institutes that a new oath cannot be imposed on any subject without the express authority of Parliament, and that the giving of every such oath must be warranted by Act of Parliament, or by common law time out of mind.

A Royal Commission cannot without statutory authority compel a witness to be sworn, nor can it Without such authority compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents. For the purpose of such compulsory powers a statute would be necessary, as the Prime Minister stated yesterday. I am not aware that any case has arisen in which a prosecution has been instituted in respect of evidence given before such a Commission. I may remind my hon. and learned friend and the noble Lord, that the suggestion made yesterday by the Prime Minister was that the precedent of 1886 should be followed. In that case the Royal Commission contained a clause giving power to administer an oath, but it was stated that if the Commissioners should desire further powers they were to apply to the Government to give them. As a matter of fact, however, the work of the Commission was completed without its being found necessary for it to apply for any such statutory powers. I may add that in practice the difficulties apprehended as to the working of Royal Commissions have not been found to exist.

May I ask whether, in the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, a prosecution would lie supposing a witness was sworn and answered falsely.

I may remind the hon. and learned Member that technically there could not be a prosecution for perjury, as that would relate to a judicial proceeding. In such a case the prosecution would be for the common law disdemeanour of giving a false answer in an inquiry of a public nature.

The Answer of the Attorney-General does not cover the point I put with regard to the power of the Commission to issue a sub-Commission to examine witnesses abroad.

Of course a Royal Commission would have power to send out persons to make inquiry in South Africa and to receive reports. It would not have power to issue a Commission in the sense in which the term is used in a Court which sends out persons to administer oaths and take evidence. They would not have that power, but they would have power to make every inquiry.

Am I to understand that the Attorney-General is of opinion that the taking of an oath and the answering of a question untruly is a common law offence in England?

If such a prosecution were instituted, it would be perfectly open to the defendant to contend, as I understand is contended by hon. and learned friends of mine, that the Crown has not power to authorise the administration of the oath. In 1842 Lord Campbell, in a report on the procedure of a Commissioner who examined a witness without administering the oath, said he thought the point a doubtful one whether, without a statute, an oath could be administered. But since he made that statement in 1842 we have had four cases under different Governments in which a clause has been inserted in the Commission empowering the administering of an oath, and I do not think any one who has regard to the importance of practice in affording us guidance for our procedure in these matters can ignore that in 1860, 1862, 1867, and 1886 a clause to that effect was inserted.

Is it not the case that since these precedents there have been at least two instances in which Parliament itself has expressly by Act given the power to administer the oath?

I think the hon. and learned Member overlooks the fact that for the purpose of giving com- pulsory powers a statute is necessary. [OPPOSITION cheers.] I am merely stating what was stated by the Prime Minister yesterday. The hon. and learned Member's Question seemed to be directed to the question of the power of administering the oath.

May I ask a Question of which I gave notice last night, viz., whether, in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, and considering the fact that if this Royal Commission be appointed, although the attendance of officers might be compelled through the power the Government has over them, any one likely to be indicted for fraud who is not an officer could obviously not be compelled to attend, the Attorney-General will consider the desirability of advising the Government to proceed by statute, as otherwise the proceeding may be entirely farcical.

I would appeal to the Prime Minister to tell us whether he will not say at once, in view of all that has been disclosed by the discussion of this subject, affecting a most important matter, whether the Government still adhere to the intention of not having a statutory Commission, what harm would be done by a statutory Commission, and why that obvious course of having a complete inquiry is to be neglected.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his facts. So far from having said we would not have the aid of a statutory Commission, we have distinctly and over and over again stated that if, when the Commission is at work, the necessity for a Commission with statutory powers should be made clear, we should of course grant one—

What would happen if the necessity arose in the recess?

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has been asked a Question, and is entitled to complete his reply.

So far I have confined myself to correcting what was no doubt a slip. The right hon. Gentleman then asks me whether we have any objection to appointing a statutory Commission. The suggestion I made yesterday was based upon a precedent to which the right hon. Gentleman was a concurring party. It was based upon a precedent which dealt with matters in pari materia to those we are now discussing. It therefore seemed to me that we could not go far wrong if we followed a precedent having this authority behind it. But we have no objection to the statutory powers. The clauses necessary to give these powers are common form; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who initiated this conversation, were to consult with my learned friend near me I am sure they would arrive at a conclusion as to the clauses which ought to be introduced into the Bill. That Bill, I presume, would be uncontroversial. I should introduce it and treat it as an uncontroversial Bill. I am confident no opposition will be given to it on this side, and if opposition is given to it on the other side, the responsibility will rest there. As I am on my legs, I may perhaps ask, with regard to this Commission, whether I am to take the Question put to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Longford as indicating, in the view of the Opposition generally, that the reference should be so drawn as to enable the investigation to deal with the action, not only of the subordinate officers of the Government, but of the Government itself. Is that the desire?

asked whether the members of the Commission would be nominated by His Majesty's Government?

I do not know whether I can get any guidance from that Question. I should be glad of any guidance from the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

The right hon. Gentleman need not be too particular in demanding guidance from this side of the House, seeing that he has himself twice changed his plans. But let me ask him, do we understand, notwithstanding all that has been said—even to-day—that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce a Bill constituting a statutory Commission for this inquiry? Then may I further ask whether the names of the Commissioners will be included in that Bill as usual? When the right hon. Gentleman asks me whether on this side of the House the Bill will be treated as a non-controversial measure, my reply is that, of course, in its main purpose the Bill will be non controversial; but it is impossible to say, until we see the terms of reference and the names of the Commissioners, if that applies to every detail. Upon these we must leave ourselves open to take such course as we may consider necessary under the circumstances. But saving these sub-points, upon which we may properly claim some reserve—and everyone in the House will admit it to be a proper reservation—saving these we shall do our best to expedite the passage of the Bill.

I do not quite comprehend the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's observations. I have done my best to meet the views expressed. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should make that a matter of reproach. I made a suggestion yesterday, and it does not appear to meet the views of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have now, I hope to their satisfaction, told them that I am willing to agree to the appointment of a statutory Commission. An hon. Gentleman opposite asks me whether it is proposed to go on with the Commission at once, and I have to say that I will not be a party to any dilatory action. I propose also to introduce concurrently and independently a Bill giving the necessary powers to the Commission. I gather from what he has said that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to pledge himself and his friends to allow the Bill to pass, as it ought to be passed, sub silentio, unless he is satisfied with the reference. ["And the names?"] As to the names I do not ask his assistance, but as to the terms of reference I ask the right hon. Gentleman, does he desire that the reference shall include review of the action of the Government and the higher officials or does he not?

Well, that is a point upon which it would be very convenient that my hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries should, as has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman himself, confer with the Attorney-General, the corresponding legal authority on that bench.

Great as is the admiration and regard I have for the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, I do not propose to ask him to confer with my hon. and learned friend near me on a question of policy; the conference I had in mind had reference to drafting arrangements. The question of policy there is, I presume, no wish to delegate to my learned friend.

Will not the answer largely depend on the result of researches which, in an Answer given to me this afternoon, I was told had not been made? I asked whether there was any precedent for an inquiry by Commission into the action of the Administration itself having been made with the concurrence of Parliament.

May I ask, do we clearly understand—the words of the Prime Minister were not distinctly heard in this part of the House—did the right hon. Gentleman ask if we wished the action of the Government and of higher officials to be included in the inquiry?

Yes.

Is he aware that the Government are already pledged to an inquiry that will cover the responsibility of higher officials? An Answer from the Secretary of State for War said that responsibility attached to the general officer commanding, but that the actual nature of the responsibility would be ascertained by further inquiry.

Well, then, I restrict my Question and exclude any reference to officials who are not members of the Government; and the Question I put is whether the right hon. Gentleman considers it desirable that the conduct of the Government should form part of the subject of inquiry by Commission?

I desire to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Bill creating the Parnell Commission contained the names of the Commissioners; that the House was asked to allow the Bill to pass sub silentio; that the request was not assented to by Mr. Parnell, who claimed the right to discuss the Bill and to propose Amendments, and that the Bill was discussed and Amendments were proposed and accepted by the Government?

Yes, I remember the circumstances. No doubt Mr. Parnell, as the person into whose conduct the inquiry was directed, did claim that right. Nobody on this bench is going to claim such a right.

On another subject, or on another phase of the same question, may I ask what facilities the right hon. Gentleman proposes to give for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. and learned friend the Member for Dumfries.

Monday next, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the extent of the delay of the delivery of the new field guns for India which is alluded to in the Memorandum of General Sir Edmond Elles.

The first Indian order was for three batteries Horse Artillery and eighteen Field Batteries. The guns and carriages of the Horse Artillery Batteries are reported for shipment and the limbers and ammunition wagons either ready for inspection or approved. Of the 114 guns and carriages required for the Field Batteries, forty three are reported for shipment, the remainder being either ready for inspection or approved. The limbers and ammunition wagons are in a similarly forward condition. The second orders for eight batteries Horse Artillery and thirteen Field Batteries are due for completion in October, and there is every reason to believe that they will be complete at that date.

asked what was the shortage complained of by the Indian Government.

was understood to reply that the only thing he could trace was an anticipation of delay. The guns were not ready by the 30th April as originally intended, but they were now ready.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state if the contract for the supply of bread to the troops at Holywood and Ballykinlar camps, county Down, were in both cases given to firms making the lowest tender; and whether in either case any complaints have been made as to the quality supplied; and, if so, what action has been taken.

In both cases the lowest offer for bread was accepted. There have been three complaints, one entailing rejection of the bread and its replacement. Otherwise the contracts are reported satisfactory.

At which camp?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the practice is growing up in Dublin of officers of regiments stationed in that city using Army horses belonging to their regiments for the purpose of bringing parties to and from balls, polo matches, and race meetings; and whether, seeing that such conduct inter- feres with carmen plying for hire, he will take such steps as will put a stop to the alleged grievance.

Nothing is known at the War Office of the matters alluded to. I must point out to the hon. Member that officers paying hire for Government chargers are entitled to drive them.

If I give the right hon. Gentleman definite information as to the men who drove the parties, will he cause further inquiries to be made?

It is a matter for the General Officer Commanding.

Surely if I give definite information I am entitled to an Answer.

My Answer is as to the principle involved. If the hon. Member can furnish me with any facts they will be considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a petition or petitions from public meetings held in Newfoundland, to protest against a Bill passed by the Colonial Legislature on June 12th last, to approve and confirm an agreement dated January 12th, 1905, between the Government of Newfoundland and the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited; and whether he will advise His Majesty to withhold his assent to the Bill until an opportunity shall have been afforded to the electors of Newfoundland to express their opinion upon it at a general election.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the contract entered into by the Government of Newfoundland on January 12th last, with the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited, contains provisions which are in contravention of the provisions of the Crown Lands Act of 1903, he will advise His Majesty to withhold his assent to the Bill for confirming the said contract until full inquiry shall have been made into the circumstances under which the contract was entered into.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Government of Newfoundland has entered into an agreement with a limited company, called the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited, to lease to the said company for a term of ninety-nine years, with a right of continuous renewal, an area of 3,000 square miles of land in the colony, including the inland waters and full mineral and quarry rights throughout the leased area, and that the paid agent of the said company spoke and voted in the Legislative Council on the Bill for approving and confirming the said contract, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what steps in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a contract entered into by the Government of Newfoundland of the one part and the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited, of the other part on the 12th of January last, and now printed in the schedule to a Bill lately passed by the Legislative Council and House of Assembly of Newfoundland; and whether, having regard to the unusual provisions of the said contract, he will cause a copy of the contract and of the Bill to confirm the same to be printed for the information of the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to Section 11 of an indenture made and entered into at St. John's, in the Colony of Newfoundland, between His Excellency the Governor of Newfoundland and the Anglo-Newfoundland Develop- ment Company, Limited, which section gives to a limited liability company the right of compulsory expropriation of lands held by citizens of the colony within a very large area of the colony; and whether he will advise His Majesty to withhold his assent to the Bill confirming the said indenture until clauses shall have been inserted in the indenture for the more effectual safeguarding of the rights of the Crown and of the citizens of the colony in the lands affected.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also state whether this measure has received the assent of the representative of the Crown in the Colonies, and has so become an Act, and whether he proposes to follow or depart in any way from the principles of action stated by his predecessors in the case of the Newfoundland Railway Act?

Until I receive the Act as finally passed by the Newfoundland Legislature on the subject of the concession to the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company, Limited, I am not in a position to decide what action I shall take in the matter, but in the meantime I would refer the hon. Members to Mr. Chamberlain's despatch of December 5th, 1898 to the Governor of Newfoundland, published in Command Paper 9137, as laying down the general principles which have guided my predecessors in considering the question of advising His Majesty in regard to the disallowance of the Acts of Colonies possessing responsible government.

Has the Act received the assent of the Governor of the colony, or is it reserved for His Majesty's decision?

I think it has but I have not yet received the Act.

Is it correct that this Act was passed in a very hurried manner through all its stages by the suspension of the Standing Orders, that as soon as it was known to have been passed great indignation was shown in the colony, and that public meetings were held and petitions drawn up, and will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to reserve the consideration of the matter until the public of the colony have had an opportunity of representing their view of the case?

The hon. Member should give notice of that Question. It introduces fresh matter not mentioned on the Paper.

I think it will be found in another Question upon the Paper relating to the same matter.

There is not a word in these Questions about the suspension of the Standing Orders.

I will put down a further Question.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state when the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the condition of the Independent State of the Congo is likely to be issued; whether His Majesty's Government have received a copy of Dr. Baccari's Report to the Italian Government, in which he deals with the state of affairs in that country; and whether a translation of Dr. Baccari's Report will be presented to the House.

In accordance with the promise given in my Answer to the Question asked by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean on the 23rd ultimo,†His Majesty's Government have represented to the Congo Government the importance of publishing the Report of the Commission of Inquiry as soon as possible; but they have not yet been informed when the Report is likely to be ready. His Majesty's Government have just received a copy of Dr. Baccari's Report as published in the Italian papers, and the

† See (4) Debates, cxlvi., 1120

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to furnish information in regard to the reported discovery of smokeless coal at Jambongon on the north-east coast of the British North Borneo Company's territory.

No definite information in regard to the coal has yet been obtained. A telegram has recently been received from the engineer in charge of the works to say that samples have been sent home but that the excavations have not yet been completed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the current rate of wages for seamen is higher in London than at Antwerp; and whether he is prepared to accept an Amendment to the Aliens Bill prohibiting the bringing over of foreign seamen at low rates of wages from Continental ports to the United Kingdom for British ships.

Yes Sir, I have seen the Answer which was given to the hon. Member on the 29th May‡by the Secretary to the Board of Trade to this effect, but the Amendment to the Aliens Bill which he suggests appears to me to be outside the proper scope of the Bill.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will recommend the South-Eastern Railway Company to arrange for the carriage of passenger trains to be lighted when passing through tunnels, especially between Hildenborough and London.

I have communicated with the Managing Committee of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and am informed that it has been a long-standing practice on that line to light all carriages which have to pass through tunnels, and that every train running between Hildenborough and London is so lighted. It is added that since the commencement of this year there have only been six cases of failure of light from accidental causes in individual compartments.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that considerable doubt exists as to the liability of county educational authorities for payment of the whole rent for school teachers' houses; whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a circular to such authorities defining their liabilities as to the payment of rent for teachers' houses, and their powers as to charging three-fourths of such payment upon the parish served by the school.

It does not appear that the payment of rent for a teacher's house forming part of the premises of a Voluntary school is either capital expenditure or rent on account of the provision or improvement of a public elementary school within the meaning of Section 18 (c) of the Act. The county authority would therefore be liable to pay the whole rent of the teacher's house as a part of the maintenance of the school. I do not think that there is any necessity for sending a circular to local authorities on this point. I am not aware of any difficulties experienced by them on this subject.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state how many receivers have been in charge of the estate of Robert Smith since it first came under the jurisdiction of the Dublin Court of Bankruptcy; what are the total sums paid to receivers as remuneration; what was the original value of the estate; how many years the estate has been in bankruptcy; and when it is expected to be wound up.

This matter does not in any way come within my control. I am, however, informed by the Chief Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy that the estate mentioned came under the jurisdiction of that Court in May, 1895, when a fund was transferred thereto from the Chancery Division. Since that time the estate has been in charge of but one receiver, namely, one of the official assignees. The total sum which has been paid to him as remuneration is £247 Os. 6d. The fund transferred from the Chancery Division in 1805 amounted to £2,881 16s. 4d., and between 1895 and I 1900 the assignee recovered additional funds amounting to £2,116 1s. 2d. From these sums, dividends amounting to 17s. 6½d. in the£were paid. The estate was considered to be wound up in February, 1900, but a further fund, apparently part of the estate, was recently traced in a Chancery suit, and the destination of that fund is now under consideration by the Master of the Rolls. The Chief Registrar is unable to state what sums, if any, were paid to other receivers under the Court of Chancery, or what was the original value of the estate.

When did this case first come under the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery?

I have no record of that.

It first came into the Court in 1793. Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope that the estate will be wound up in the course of the next Century.

I was not responsible for the case in its earlier stages.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total number of boards in Ireland exercising executive or other functions, whether wholly or partially under Government control, and the name of each.

There are in all twelve such boards. The members of the Local Government Board, General Prisons Board, Board of National Education, Board of Intermediate Education, Board of Charitable Donations and Bequests, Loan Fund Board, and one-half the number of Commissioners of Endowed Schools are appointed and removable by the Crown. All these Departments, with three exceptions, are guided in the exercise of their statutory duties by Rules, Orders, or Schemes approved by the Lord-Lieutenant. The Congested Districts Board is regulated by the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Act, 1891; and the Boards of Agriculture and Technical Instruction are regulated by the 8th and 9th Sections of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act of 1899. The Board of Public Works is under the. Treasury, and the Board of Irish Lights under the Board of Trade.

That is not a complete list surely! The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten about twenty three.

I have given the hon. Member all the information I could collect.

Yon have forgotten the most important of all—the Dublin Harbour Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to a statement recently made in a speech by Sir Douglas Brooke, baronet, a magistrate and a deputy-lieutenant of the county of Fermanagn, at Maguiresbridge in that county, while addressing an audience of Orangemen, that, at the time of Mr. Gladstone's second Home Rule Bill, he had given out rifles to his Protestant tenantry, and had taught some of these Protestants how to shoot those rifles straight, and that there were a good many of those rifles still in the country, he can state what action has been taken by the Lord Chancellor in consequence of Sir Douglas Brooke's conduct having been brought under his notice for a second time.

The Lord Chancellor's attention has again been drawn to this matter, and he informs me that he has nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member's previous Question on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in sales under the Irish Land Act, 1903, where the vendors or their agents have agreed to pay the land clerks of the estate offices one-half per cent, on the purchase money or one-sixth of the total amount of the land agency negotiation fees, he will ask the Treasury and the Estates Commissioners to arrange that the negotiation fees shall be paid to the negotiators within a reasonable time (say six months) from the date of signing of the purchase agreements, and not deferred until the payment of the purchase money, having regard to the fact that when sales take place under the Act some of these clerks lose their appointments and others have their salaries reduced.

Under Section 23, Sub-section 12, of the Act, these fees can only be paid out of the purchase money when distributed. There is no other fund available for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the claim of the Scottish Union Assurance Company to have the sale of the Kinvara Estate, county Galway, carried through under Section 1 of the Land Act of 1903, and which was reserved on a point of law by the Estates Commissioners for the consideration of Mr. Justice Meredith, has been decided; and, if so, with what result.

The hearing of the point of law referred to was postponed by the Judical Commissioner on the application of the parties, but it will be entered for hearing at an early date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a recent audit of the accounts of Mallow Urban Council, and to the action of Mr. Richard Bourke, an auditor of the Local Government Board, in surcharging three members of the council with the sum of 3s., being the cost of framing an address of congratulation, adopted by the Town Commissioners on the 12th September, 1902, for presentation to His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, on the attainment of his Pontifical Jubilee; and if he can explain why this surcharge has been made, especially in view of the fact that the inhabitants of Mallow were unanimously in favour of the action of the Commissioners, and that, as a result of the examination of accounts involving an expenditure of nearly £6,000, this item was the only one which Mr. Bourke disallowed.

The facts are generally as stated. No statutory authority exists for any expenditure from the rates for the purpose mentioned, and the auditor was, therefore, bound to surcharge the amount.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that some time ago, on the occasion of an Imperial Yeomanry dance in the Orange Hall, Inniskillen, a number of drunken yeomen paraded the streets for several hours cheering and shouting, that on the following morning the knockers on the doors of over thirty houses were found to have been wrenched, that the constabulary while engaged in investigating the occurrence discovered some of the knockers in the Orange Hall; what explanation they give for failing to bring the perpetrators of the outrage to justice; and what steps they intend taking in future to protect the property of the inhabitants when Yeomanry functions are being held.

It is not the case that any of the Yeomanry, who are an extremely well behaved body of men, paraded the streets cheering and shouting. It was, however, found on the morning following the date in question that fourteen knockers had been wrenched off doors in the town. Suspicion strongly pointed to a person who was not one of the Yeomanry as being the offender, but the police were unable to procure evidence of the fact. One of the knockers was found in the Orange Hall. The police will continue to use their best endeavours to protect the property of the inhabitants.

Will this appear in the next Return of outrages in Ireland?

Will it not appear as thirty outrages?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the death of Mary Jane M'Kenna, at Fintona, county Tyrone; whether he is aware that the medical officer of health in the district refused to certify that she was fit to be removed from her cabin to the polling booth, and that notwithstanding this refusal the Unionist agents removed her on the day of the county council elections, after freely supplying the woman with wine; whether he is aware that the woman died on the way to the polling station; whether the facts were reported by the police to the coroner; and, if so, whether he can state the grounds on which the coroner decided not to hold inquest.

I am informed that this person, who was a confirmed invalid, persisted in attending to vote of her own accord and contrary to the advice of her medical attendant. The medical officer of health neither refused nor was asked for a certificate. It is not the case that Unionist agents removed the woman from her cabin or freely supplied her with wine. She was given a spoonful of wine as ordered by the doctor. The police did not consider it necessary to report the circumstances of the death to the coroner. The matter does not call for the intervention of the Government.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will furnish a, list of the Irish towns, excluding Dublin, for which it was proposed to make up direct bags on the sea post office between New York and Liverpool; and a Return of the number of ordinary letters and the number of registered letters from the "Baltic's" mail, arriving at Queenstown on 1st instant, for each of those towns which instead of being forwarded in direct bags were sent to Dublin for disposal.

Apart from the bags for Dublin, direct bags are at present made up in the sea post offices between New York and Liver-pool for the Irish towns of Ballinasloe, Belfast, Castlerea, Claremorris, Clonmel, Cork, Dundalk, Galway, Kilkenny, Limerick, Lisburn, Londonderry, Lurgan, Mallow, Newry, Portadown, Sligo, Waterford, and Westport. This list is subject to revision as circumstances may require after further experience of the working of the new system. No record was kept of correspondence received in the Dublin bags instead of being included in other direct bags made up on board the packet "Baltic" on the occasion referred to by the hon. Member; but it is estimated that some 800 or 900 letters were so treated.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to a resolution unanimously adopted by the Queenstown Urban District Council, protesting against the exclusive appointment of officials from the Liverpool postal department to the position of marine mail sorters between New York and Liverpool, thus ignoring the claims of Irish officials who have had long experience in sorting the American mails between Dublin and Queenstown; and whether he will consider the desirability of recognising the claims of duly qualified Irish officials by allocating to them a proportion of these new positions.

My attention has not been previously called to the resolution to which the hon. Member refers; and I have not seen a copy of it. With regard to the last part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to replies which I have given in this House to the effect that convenience in working the system and competency to perform the duties will govern the selection of officers for employment in the Transatlantic Sea Post Offices. I cannot admit that any particular officers have a claim to such employment.

Why have no Irishmen been appointed to any of these positions?

I have in each case appointed the man recommended to me as the most competent for the duty?

Then are no Irish officials competent or duly qualified?

I did not say they were not competent, but not as competent.

Have not these men done the work successfully for many years?

This is the first time the scheme has been in operation.

At sea, but not on shore.