To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in his future Redistribution proposals, he will consider the possibility of separate representation for mariners at sea on the date of the poll; whether he will, next year, appoint a Committee to report whether it is desirable and practicable to make arrangements whereby votes can be recorded in advance by mariners and fishermen who, by reason of their calling, will be at sea on the day of the poll. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The proposal of my hon. friend for separate representation for seamen is a novel one, and I hardly see how it can be incorporated in a general scheme of Redistribution; but no doubt this case, and that of other classes, in respect of their power to record their votes, is at present one of hardship. As regards a Committee, I think my hon. friend must raise the question next session.

To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the small number of cases of swine fever now occurring in Ireland and the character of the present restrictions, especially as they affect buyers attending Irish fairs, and having regard to the fact that the pig-buying and exporting season begins about 1st October, he will take steps either to annul the present Order entirely or so modify it as to cause a minimum of inconvenience to purchasers of pigs at Irish fairs. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The collection of pigs at fairs in Ireland, and their consignment to Great Britain for store purposes, must necessarily be attended with considerable risk of the introduction and spread of swine fever, so long as it continues to exist in Ireland; and inasmuch as thirty outbreaks of that disease have occurred in Ireland this year, of which seventeen have been reported during the last six weeks, I regret that, under existing conditions, I do not see my way to modify the Order to which the hon. Member refers.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will communicate to the Arklow Harbour Board the plans for the suggested improvement to Arklow Harbour; and if he will state what arrangement has been made with the Department for Agriculture in Ireland for keeping Arklow Harbour open pending the carrying out of the proposed improvements there. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Plans in detail have not yet been prepared. An arrangement has been made between the Harbour Commissioners and the Department of Agriculture by which dredging operations will be continued during the present year. The question of further continuing these operations will then be considered.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has received the petition sent by Mr. Peter Daly from Buenos Ayres complaining of his treatment at Feliz de Azara, and stating the compensation he is endeavouring to obtain from the Argentine Government; and whether representations will be made to the Argentine Government with a view to securing this compensation. (Answered by Earl Percy.) A letter has been received from Mr. Daly making a complaint and asking for compensation. A copy of it will be sent to His Majesty's Minister at Buenos Ayres with instructions to furnish a Report.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are aware that M. Hannotte, who was examined by the Congolese Commission of Inquiry on a charge of perpetration of atrocities, has been allowed to leave Congolese territory with the knowledge of the Government of the State; and whether His Majesty's Government will make further representations at Brussels, with a view to prevent the possibility of others, against whom serious charges have been made, avoiding trial. (Answered by Earl Percy.) The Congo Government have informed His Majesty's Government that only four Abir agents were committed for trial by the Commission, that none escaped after such committal, but that one, Demol, had started for Europe before the telegram ordering his detention reached Boma.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the nature of the arrangements between the Governor of Egypt and the Khedivial Mail Steam Ship Company for the conveyance of pilgrims accompanying the Holy Carpet during the last pilgrimage; what was the amount paid by the Governor to the company; and did the arrangements include the cost of the shelter and maintenance of pilgrims whilst at Suez awaiting ships for embarkation. (Answered by Earl Percy.) The Foreign Office are not in possession of any information on the matter, which is one that primarily concerns the Egyptian Government.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state when the Government of Egypt propose to publish the complete Report of Lord Farrer's Commission on Egyptian State Railways; and can he state briefly what recommendations contained in the Report it is proposed to adopt. (Answered by Earl Percy.) The information asked for on this subject has not yet been received.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the expediency of recommending the Government of Egypt to order some inquiry to be made into the cause of the heavy infant mortality. (Answered by Earl Percy.) We do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the Egyptian Government in the matter.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the escort provided by the Government of Eygpt for the protection of the pilgrims proceeding to Mecca, 300 Eygptian pilgrims were killed and wounded during the return journey; and will he state what further precautions will be taken next year to prevent outrages of this character. (Answered by Earl Percy.) I understand that this matter is engaging the attention of the Egyptian Government.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, before deciding to withdraw the shipping licences from Mr. Maurice Vos, of Liverpool, he was given an opportunity of meeting any of the complaints made against him; whether, previous to the final inquiry, he had been cautioned as to his conduct or as to the manner in which he carried out the work of shipping superintendent; whether he is aware that Mr. Vos has the full confidence of his committees; and whether he will give him an opportunity of meeting the charges made against him before finally depriving him of a means of earning his livelihood. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) No charges against Mr. Vos have been made or published by the Board of Trade, nor have they discussed with him the reasons for the withdrawal of his licences, which contained a clause to the effect that they might be withdrawn at any time without any reason whatever being given. The Board of Trade, after careful consideration, came to the conclusion that it was not desirable that Mr. Vos should continue to act as their licensee, and they therefore withdrew his licences under the clause to which I have referred. The Board do not propose to take any further steps in the matter.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what was the average price of 88 per cent, beet sugar, f.o.b. Hamburg, in July, 1902; what was the bounty at that time in Germany, France, and Austria respectively; and what is the price of the same sugar to-day without the bounty. (Answered, by Mr. Bonar Law.) The mean of the market quotations for 88 per cent. beet sugar in July, 1902, was 6s. 0¼d. per cwt. The present quotation (3rd August) is 10s. 1½d. per cwt. The amounts of the bounties on raw sugar given by Germany, France, and Austria-Hungary, respectively, in 1902, as estimated by the United States Government for the purpose of assessing countervailing duties, were 1s. 2¾d., 4s. 4¾d., and 11¼d. per cwt. These amounts do not include any indirect bounties arising from the action of cartels, the precise amount of which it is not possible to calculate.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Lancashire Federation of Master Cotton Spinners on July 19th issued a circular appealing to the spinners on the Continent to co-operate with them in an endeavour to checkmate the manipulation of cotton by speculators; whether he is aware that, in the opinion of the Manchester Cotton Exchange, unless the designs of speculators are defeated, the cotton-spinning industry may again experience unprofitable trade, which would render necessary the adoption of short-time working; that the chairman of the International Cotton Committee has summoned a meeting, to be held in London on the 31st inst., to consider what recommendations should be made to counteract the operations of gambling in the raw material; and whether he can state what steps, if any, the Government intend to propose to safeguard the welfare of the cotton industry. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I believe the facts stated are substantially correct (except that the Federation Committee should be substituted for the Manchester Cotton Exchange). I have no proposals to announce.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in consequence of the disorganisation in the cotton industry, mainly due to gambling operations in Liverpool, artificially raising the price of American cotton to 6d. a pound, the Federation of Master Employers in Lancashire have refused to meet the operatives' demand for a rise in wages; and that, as a result, the operatives have threatened to send in notices for a general strike to begin next month; whether he is aware that it is officially proved that the cause for this advance in the price of raw material is the outcome of misrepresentation in statistics and returns, and that President Roosevelt has ordered an official investigation; and whether he will confer with President Roosevelt with the object of adopting some international co-operative endeavour to prevent the evils arising from gambling operations in options and future contracts. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) It is a fact that there is a dispute pending between the employers and workpeople in the cotton-spinning trade with regard to the rate of wages. It is also a fact that the prevailing conditions in the cotton trade have been affected by a rise in the price of cotton accompanied by speculative gambling. As to the remainder of the Question, I have nothing to add to previous Answers.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state if any measures are adopted by manufacturers of shoddy to disinfect the materials from which it is made; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of taking measures to have shoddy sold as shoddy and not sold as wool, to the detriment of the public and the wool producer and the bona fide wool manufacturer. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The question of disinfection is not within the province of the Board of Trade. False trade descriptions can already be dealt with under the Merchandise Marks Acts, and the Board of Trade are prepared to consider, with a view to prosecution, any specific case of infringement of those Acts which is submitted under the regulations which govern prosecutions.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the corner being operated in Canadian wheat; and whether he will inquire of the Canadian Government why the restrictive legislation against gambling in options in food products has not been recently enforced. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I have seen reports to the effect that a Canadian milling company has made large purchases of high-grade wheat, which the sellers are unable to deliver. I do not propose to address any inquiry to the Canadian Government in the matter.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he has any information respecting the corner in sugar operated in Paris, and resulting in loss and dislocation of trade; and whether he will enter into communication with the French Minister of Commerce with a view to promote international preventive legislation. (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I have seen reports to the effect that a large operator in sugar on the Paris market has been unable to meet his engagements. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, considering the length of time that the Customs watchers have been waiting for a reply to their petitions, he will now state the full details of the concessions the Treasury is prepared to sanction. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The following are the concessions which the Treasury is prepared to sanction in the case of Customs watchers—All watchers in London (excluding Graves-end) to be allowed to rise by annual increments of 1s. from 21s. to 24s. a week. In addition to the uniform already provided, trousers to be supplied, and, where the duties involve exposure, a greatcoat. Overtime pay to be allowed after a weekly attendance of forty-eight hours.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that County Courts have been accustomed to order their own printing and stationery locally; and that it is proposed to alter this practice and to supply each County Court from London; and will he say whether any substantial economy will be effected by this arrangement; and whether he is aware that it will cause a considerable amount of dissatisfaction in the various County Court districts. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I would refer my hon. friend to my reply on the 3rd instant† to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for Mansfield.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the heads of departments received private instructions to make no further recommendations for promotion of assistant clerks (new class) to the rank of second division clerks, although empowered to do so by a Treasury circular; and whether this accounts for the small proportion of assistant clerks (new class)

† See page 63.

who have been promoted to the second division. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that assistant clerks now in their ninth year of service as assistant clerks (new class), and fourteenth year of service in all, receive less than £85 per annum, whereas tradesmen in the service of the Government and outside of it receive from £91 to £100 per annum for shorter periods of service; and if he will take steps to remove this disparity.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that messengers in Government offices receive twenty-one days annual leave, whereas assistant clerks (new class) only receive fourteen days leave up to ten years, and after ten years service a maximum of eighteen days annual leave; and whether he is prepared to take any steps to place both classes on an equal footing in this respect.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that assistant clerks (new class) now entering the service will reach their maximum (£150) after nineteen years service and others after twenty and twenty-two years service, with no prospect of any further increase in salary; and whether he will take steps to increase the maximum salary of the class or afford better facilities for the promotion of assistant clerks (new class) to the second division. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I am unable to reconsider the question of the position and pay of assistant clerks, a decision as to which was only lately arrived at after most careful inquiry.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, before carrying into effect the Treasury circular of July 25th, 1905, addressed to registrars of County Courts, and intimat- ing that on and after April 1st, 1906, all printed forms, stationery, and miscellaneous articles usually charged for in their disbursement accounts, will be supplied by the Controller of the Stationery Office, he will ascertain and take into consideration the views of the registrars as to the proposed changes, and inquire whether and how far such changes will necessitate the employment of extra clerks, and will create delay and inconvenience when large quantities of new forms are required at short notice. (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) Due consideration was given to all the circumstances of the case when it was decided to inaugurate a new system of supply.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the return of the attendances of managers of non-provided schools in Denbighshire for the year ending July 29th; whether he is aware that, according to this return, Section 6 of Part B of the First Schedule of the Education Act of 1902, with reference to the holding of meetings of managers, has not been complied with in the case of thirty out of the seventy-two non-provided schools in the county; and whether the Board of Education will take the steps necessary to ensure that the requisite information in respect to the management of the schools referred to is furnished to the Denbighshire County Council by its next meeting. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board have only received this morning a letter from the Denbighshire local education authority, giving information on the subject referred to in the Question. The matter will receive the careful consideration of the Board. In the meantime, I am afraid that it is impossible for me to give the hon. Member a definite reply.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in making rules and orders in pursuance of the Aliens Bill, he will consider whether the responsibility for the embarkation, landing, custody, and making of returns as to aliens, and for the deportation of expelled aliens, properly devolves upon the shipmaster or upon some other person, with the object of limiting, where practicable, the personal responsibility of the master to matters falling within his observation and control. (Answered by MR. Secretary Akers-Douqlas.) The wishes of my hon. friend shall be borne in mind, but I must say that the questions raised by him seem to me to be already settled by the various provisions of the Bill, and not to remain to be dealt with by rules and orders. I am, moreover, of opinion that these provisions, which follow precedents in the Merchant Shipping Acts, will in practice be found to meet the requirements of the case, and not to be unduly burdensome to the masters of ships. The liability of the master of a ship is in effect, by virtue of Section 693 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which is incorporated with the Bill by Clause 7 (1), the liability of the owner of a ship, between whom and the master it will be a matter of arrangement as under that Act.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which Percy Hopper, an employee in the cartridge factory at Woolwich Arsenal, was brought before the stipendiary magistrate at Woolwich on June 17th, and convicted of causing a street obstruction by betting, and fined £5; that, on Hopper's appealing to the South London Sessions against his conviction, the deputy-chairman declined to consider evidence of handwriting to show that the paper found on Hopper (which the police swore was a betting slip) was only a personal memorandum in Hopper's own handwriting, and dismissed the appeal; and whether, seeing that, in consequence of his conviction, Hopper has been dismissed from Woolwich Arsenal after having been employed over twenty-one years, and also lost his bonus, and in view of this man's character, and of the fact that Hopper bore a striking likeness to a bookmaker whom the police were anxious to catch, he proposes to take any action in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My attention had not been called to this case until the hon. Member put down his Question. I find, on inquiry, that Hopper was convicted, as stated in the Question, and appealed to quarter sessions, and that quarter sessions, after hearing the case, confirmed the conviction, but reduced the penalty to 40s. I have no further information as to the course of the proceedings at quarter sessions. The Commissioner of Police informs me that there is no bookmaker known to the police at Woolwich who bears any resemblance to Hopper, and that Hopper was not arrested in consequence of any supposed likeness to a bookmaker. The decision as to Hopper's dismissal from Woolwich Arsenal is a matter entirely for the Secretary of State for War. I am sorry that I can find no reason for any action on my part, either as regards the conviction, which has been confirmed after hearing on appeal, or as regards the dismissal, which is outside my jurisdiction.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the granting of a new licence at this year's brewster sessions to the Sussex Public-House Trust Company for premises to be erected at Hampden Park, near Eastbourne; whether he is aware that the grant of this licence had previously been refused for three years in succession after opposition by the public, and that the magistrates, in granting the licence this year, omitted to demand any monopoly value from the applicants, as provided in The Licensing Act, 1904; whether he is aware that local objectors opposed this grant unsuccessfully both at brewster sessions and before the confirmation authority, and that they were thereupon mulcted by the new county licensing committee, acting as the confirmation authority, in the payment of the taxed costs of the other side, amounting to £65 1s. 8d., in addition to the costs of their own opposition; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent the new authorities under the Licensing Act, 1904, from penalising local residents who oppose the grant or confirmation of a new licence. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have no control over the licensing authorities in the exercise of their discretion as to granting and confirming new licences; but in regard to the question of costs I may point out that the county licensing committee, in their capacity as confirming authority, are not essentially a new authority under the Act of 1904, but derive their main powers from the Act by which the confirming authority was first created, viz., the Act of 1872, by Section 43 of which they are empowered to "award such costs as they shall deem just to the party who shall succeed in the proceedings before them," and rules are to be made as to the person by whom such costs are to be paid. As at present advised, I see no reason for proposing any alteration of the law in this respect.

To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will state the annual average cost per mile of maintaining the roadways in Hyde Park, Regent's Park, and Richmond Park, respectively. (Answered by Lord Balcarres.)

Hyde Park	£1,100 per mile.
Regent's Park	£300 per mile.
Richmond Park	£50 per mile.

Hyde Park is the most expensive on account of the very large traffic, but it is proposed to make a material increase on the Regent's Park expenditure next year.

To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to a letter from the surveyor to the Crown Estate Paving Commission to the superintendent of Regent's Park, complaining of the manner in which the duties performed by the Office of Works in connection with the roads in Regent's Park are carried out; whether he will state what duties in connection with the maintenance and cleansing of the roads in Regent's Park are undertaken by the Office of Works and the Crown Estate Paving Commission respectively; what exactly are the financial relations between these two authorities; and what steps have been taken to prevent any conflict of authority and overlapping of jurisdiction. (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The maintenance and cleansing of the roads is under the Office of Works; the watering and lighting is under the Crown Estate Paving Commission. There are no financial relations between the two authorities, and there is no conflict of authority or jurisdiction. The dual control is, however, admittedly undesirable, and the First Commissioner has already consulted with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests with a view to altering the present arrangements.

To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the main drain and most of the other drains in Regent's Park are untrapped, with the result that the sewer gas from the main drain is given off in the centre of roads habitually used by the public; and, if so, what steps the Office of Works propose to take in the matter. (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) No drains for which the First Commissioner is responsible in Regent's Park are untrapped.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in the payment of dockyard wages under £2 per week, he will consider the advisability of returning to the practice of payment of all or part in silver, to save the commission now frequently charged to dockyard employees for giving change. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The coins used in payment of dockyard wages under £2 are sovereigns, silver coins of various denominations, and pence, except at two yards, Portsmouth and Devonport, where half sovereigns are also used. No change in the practice of the several yards has occurred for many years, and no reasons are known for any alteration in the present procedure. There is no information at the Admiralty regarding the commission stated to be charged to dockyard employees for giving change, but inquiry will be made.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, having regard to the anxiety on account of the discharge of workmen in the Pembroke dockyard, whether any more notices are to be given. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Discharges on reduction will take place at Pembroke at the rate of twenty per week up to 15th October. Further discharges will probably be necessary from 1st March next. There is, at the present time, sufficient new construction work at Pembroke to employ the normal number of workmen, but in view of the certainty of lesser requirements in the near future, reductions are being gradually effected in order to avoid large simultaneous discharges when the vessels now building at Pembroke are completed.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount outstanding for the purchase of Irish land under the various Irish Land Acts; what are the loans raised to pay for this land purchase and the rates of interest upon the loans; why these loans do not appear in the annual Finance Accounts as part of the National Debt under the denomination of Other Capital Liabilities; whether there are any other liabilities which do not appear in the Finance Accounts; and whether he will in future include the Irish land loans in the annual Finance Accounts. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Before 1891 loans for land purchase in Ireland were made out of the Local Loans Fund by the Board of Works under the Act of 1870, by the Land Commission under subsequent Acts. The outstanding balances of such loans on 31st March, 1905, were:—

	£
Board of Works Loans	253,427
Land Commission Loans	8,249,378
	£8,502,805

The liability in respect of the money raised for the purposes of these loans is represented by a corresponding amount of Local Loans Stock. That stock bears interest at 3 per cent. per annum. Under The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, advances were provided for by the issue of Guaranteed Land Stock. Under the Irish Land Act, 1903, they are provided for by the issue of Guaranteed 2¾ per Cent. Stock. Both these stocks bear interest at 2¾ per cent. per annum. The amounts outstanding on the 31st March, 1905, were:—Guaranteed Land Stock, £13,135,098 5s. 8d.; Guaranteed 2¾ per Cent. Stock, £10,998,785 14s. 9d. These loans are not included among 'Other Capital Liabilities" because the stocks are not charged directly on the Consolidated Fund. The outstanding amounts of the three stocks are duly shown in the statement of Guaranteed Loans at pages 102 and 103 of the Finance Accounts.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the face value of the securities standing in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to the credit of the friendly societies; whether the Government guarantees a higher rate of interest to the friendly societies than the invested funds produce; and, if so, under what authority is the excess interest provided, and what amount per annum is thus contributed from national funds in aid of the friendly societies. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The nominal amount of the securities (Consols) held by the National Debt Commissioners for the Friendly Societies Fund on the 31st March, 1905, was £1,392,060 16s. 1d. The rates of interest payable to friendly societies on their investments with the Commissioners are governed by Section 52 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 and 60 Vic, c. 25). The rate of interest applicable to new investments under that section is 2¾ per cent. per annum; but the section also secured to then existing societies, in respect of investments made or to be made by them on account of assurances effected before certain specified dates, interest at the rates of 3d., 2½d., and 2d. a day per cent. Since 1877 a Vote has had to be taken annually to provide the amount by which the income of the fund was insufficient to pay the interest. The amount of the Vote taken for this purpose in the present session is £14,329. (Civil Service Estimates, 1905–6, page 502.)

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the explanation of the fact that the Catholic employees in the veterinary department of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland receive a salary of only £90 a year after ten years service, whereas other employees on similar work receive much larger salaries after shorter service; and whether he will take steps that will ensure that these Catholic employees will not be again threatened with dismissal for exposing their grievances. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.)The clerks referred to are on the scale of salary applicable to the grade to which they belong. There is no foundation whatever for the insinuation that these clerks have been threatened with dismissal.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Denis O'Hanlon, a farmer of Glynn, South Banteer, county Cork, was refused a licence for a gun to protect his crops; will he say whether the local constabulary sergeant reported to the magistrate adversely to the application, and, if so, why he did so; and whether, in view of the injury caused to his crops by crows and other birds, the constabulary authorities will support this man's application for a gun licence. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is not the fact that a licence has been refused in this case. Mr. O'Hanlon's application is under consideration, and the result will be communicated to him in due course.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Drogheda Corporation has recently applied to the Local Government Board for instructions as to the conditions under which it will be permitted to sell its agricultural landed property to the tenants under the Act of 1903; and whether he can state the reply given by the Board. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Yes, Sir. The corporation were informed that the Board would consider any such proposal, provided that the purchase money invested in trustee securities would yield to the ratepayers an income substantially equivalent to the net income derived from the lands.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say at what stage the negotiations for the sale of the Massereene Estate and the restoration of the evicted tenants has arrived; whether any obstacle has intervened; and, if so, whether anything can be done to remove it. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) It is understood that negotiations are proceeding between the landlord and the tenants, but no proceedings for sale have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that since his promise to inquire into the conditions arising out of the Local Government Board regulation abolishing Collon, county Louth, as a medical relief centre two accidents have taken place in the village; whether he is aware that, owing to the distance set up by the regulation, hours elapsed in each case before medical aid could be brought, and that one of the sufferers died before it arrived; whether he is aware that the carman who went for the doctor in the latter case is yet unpaid, through the refusal of the Local Government Board to authorise payment; and whether he will now take steps to have the doctor restored to Collon. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I informed the hon. Member on April 17th† that a local inquiry had already been held, and that no further inquiry was necessary; and on June 20th‡ I dealt fully with the remaining points of the Question. It is not intended to restore the dispensary medical officer to Collon.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will request the Local Government Board to explain why they have not insisted on the appointment of a midwife for the Stewartstown dispensing district. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board are considering the question of making the appointment referred to, but have not yet come to a decision in the matter.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has considered the representations of the Wicklow Harbour Commissioners recommending that the complete estimate of £36,000, which was made by the firm of engineers who

†See (4) Debates, cxlv., 321.

‡See (4) Debates, cxlvii., 1097.

surveyed the harbour, should be adopted, so as to make the harbour and foreshore safe from the encroachment of the sea; and, if so, does he sanction the scheme, and how much does he propose should be made by grant and how much by local contribution; and whether he will hasten the matter, in order to ensure that the necessary works will be proceeded with with the least possible delay. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Harbour Commissioners have now been informed that provision has been made, in the Estimate for the Ireland Development Grant, for a first instalment of a grant towards protective works at Wicklow Harbour, on condition that local contributions towards the project shall be forthcoming, and that the plans shall be approved by the Government; and it is now for the Commissioners to ascertain and report what the value of the proposed works will be to the several local interests which will be beneficially affected, and what contributions will be guaranteed by each.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in accordance with the recommendation of the Advisory Medical Board that all fluids employed as drinks at manœuvres, on service abroad and on active service, should be sterilised by heat, suitable apparatus and equipment for this purpose has been issued to the whole of the British troops in India and South Africa for service in the field and at manœuvres; whether the service of such sterilised fluids has been entrusted to specially trained men, having no other duties, in each unit, as recommended by the Commission on Dysentery and Enteric Fever appointed by the Secretary of State for War, August, l900; whether such specially trained men are placed under the direct supervision and responsibility of officers of each unit; and whether the regulations revised in the direction of devolving responsibility upon non-medical officers in the supervision of sanitary services in barracks, and camps have been issued. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) My hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that the Advisory Board made such a sweeping recommendation as that stated in the Question. Trials were recommended, and these have been made, both on service and at manœuvres; further investigations are still in progress. Heat sterilisation is being largely carried out at various places abroad, including India and South Africa. The supervision of water supplies and methods of water sterilisation, where required, are in the hands of the local authorities, and sanitary officers have been appointed at home and abroad, among whose special duties are the periodical examination of the drinking water supplies, and the diffusion of knowledge of practical sanitary procedure among officers and men. The regulations referred to are contained in the provisional issue of Combined Training, Part VII., Section 157, promulgated with Army Orders of March, 1903.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the Essex Volunteer Brigade is now encamped at Middlewick, Colchester, notwithstanding the expressed objection by all the battalion commanders to this ground as a place for training, and in view of the fact that the land usually available there for tactical manœuvres is now being used by Regular troops firing at the ranges. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) This was carefully considered by the general officer commanding-in-chief concerned, who, in the exercise of his discretion, made the arrangements which he thought most suitable.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the correspondence between the County Council of Wicklow, the county surveyor, and the chairman of County Wicklow Council, and the War Office, in reference to the maintenance of the roads leading to the military camp at Imaal; and, if so, can he say what decision the War Office has come to in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Negotiations between the general officer commanding-in-chief and the Wicklow County Council are still in progress.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the diversity of opinions as to the result of the conference on July 28th with commanding officers of Volunteers, he will reconsider the desirability of issuing, as a Parliamentary Paper, the names of those present, the questions put to them, and a transcript of the official shorthand report. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I have already stated to the House the considerations which render it, in my opinion, undesirable to publish the report of the proceedings at the conference between the War Office and commanding officers of Volunteers. But for these considerations I should have been glad to take the action suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will appoint a Committee to inquire into the causes of the differences which exist between the rates which it is necessary to raise for educational purposes in different areas, and generally into the incidence of the cost of education. (Answered by Mr. A.J. Balfour.) I think my hon. friend's object will be met by the appointment of an Inter-departmental Committee to inquire into the expenditure on public education in England and Wales from Exchequer grants, local rates, and other sources, with a view to ascertaining the various causes for the existing diversity in the amount of rate levied for education by local authorities, and the varying relation which this amount bears to the total local rates in each area.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, as the object of British warships is to overtake and fight, rather than to avoid, an enemy, it is still considered of vital importance to only use smokeless steam coal in the Navy; and, if not, can orders be given to use one-half, or at least one-third, of Northumberland best steam coal.

This suggestion cannot be adopted, as invisibility is of importance in all naval operations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the withholding from certain corps, raised in South Africa during the war, of the King's South African medal, who fulfilled all the conditions regarding eighteen months service in the field beyond their own districts, but were during the last five months of the war attached to the colonial division formed by the Commander-in-Chief on November 1st, 1901; and if, having regard to the ill-feeling likely to be caused by the granting of an honour to one individual and withholding it from another, who did similar service, he will cause the alleged grievance to be inquired into, and, if sufficient cause is shown, redressed.

The question of the grant of the King's South African medal to the various corps raised in South Africa has been very fully and very carefully considered, and the Army Council is not prepared to reopen it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending a fire which occurred in Fermoy on July 27th, and to the correspondence between the urban council and Colonel Amber, commanding the 2nd Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers, with regard to the failure of the military fire brigade to render prompt assistance on the occasion; if he is aware that, although the aid of the military was requested before two o'clock a.m., fully an hour elapsed before the fire brigade arrived at the scene of the fire, and when subsequently the urban council called attention to this delay they were informed that garrison fire engines are kept for the protection of Government property, and that the request for any explanation was an impertinence; if he will state whether the assistance of the military in garrison towns in cases of fire, hitherto readily and promptly afforded, has been limited or restricted by the issue of any recent regulations; and, if not, whether he will explain the cause of the delay which occurred in Fermoy.

Military arrangements for dealing with fire in barracks or their neighbourhood are, in accordance with the King's Regulations, fixed by local regulations made by the general officer commanding concerned. I have no information, therefore, on the particular matter alluded to in the Question.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that more than an hour elapsed after it was asked for before the fire engine arrived on the scene.

said he had not seen the report.

Is it not a reasonable thing to inquire into the circumstances of a case like this?

I think inquiries should in the first place be made of the commanding officer, and if there has been any dereliction of duty it can be investigated.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?

No; it is for the aggrieved person to do that.

Is it not desirable that for military and civil purposes the authorities should help one another?

Yes; and that has always been done and was done on this occasion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Rev. P. Dooley, of Galway, was acting chaplain during the last forty years to the Catholic members of the military forces stationed in Galway; that at the end of the last quarter, as per regulations, he signed the usual form of claim for allowance; that on July 20th the officer commanding the 88th regimental depôt sent him a notice that capitation pay for Catholics attending divine service had been disallowed; and will he state the reasons leading up to the dispensing of the services of the Rev. P. Dooley and the refusal to continue capitation pay.

This is an inquiry which should have been addressed in the first instance to the general officer commanding - in - chief. If it should then appear that any regulation has been violated by the officer commanding I will, upon hearing from the hon. Member, cause the matter to be looked into.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that Members of this House must address themselves not to him but to the general officer commanding?

Yes, Sir; I think it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the system of decentralisation which has been adopted that in the first instance inquiries should be addressed to the responsible officer. If he fails in his duty then the remedy lies with the House.

The right hon. Gentleman is the first War Minister who has taken up that position.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has recently had an interview with some of the commanding officers of Militia regiments; and, if so, will he lay upon the Table of the House a summary of their suggestions for the improvement of the Militia.

The interview referred to was of a private character. The principal questions discussed were those raised by the recommendations of the Norfolk Commission. It is not intended to publish a report of the proceedings of the conference, and it is believed that publication of a summary as suggested would be likely to produce misunderstanding.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an undertaking that no Militia or Volunteer battalion, battery, or company shall be disbanded during the recess.

I am not prepared to give an undertaking which would have the effect of preventing the Army Council from taking action which is strictly within their competence and which they consider to be in the interests of the service.

Are we to understand that the Secretary for War will not disband any units in consequence of the new policy laid down in the circular?

No units will be disbanded except on grounds absolutely satisfactory to the Army Council on the recommendation of the general officer commanding the district.

It will have nothing, to do with foreign service? [No Answer was returned.]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date it is expected that the election of members of the first representative Legislature of the Transvaal will take place.

I am not in a position to fix a precise date. I expect that the Commission to be appointed in accordance with the Letters Patent to divide the country into electoral districts will proceed with their work in December next, when the registration lists are expected to be complete. I see no reason why any long interval should elapse after this before the election takes place.

Is it likely to be this year?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can say what are the reasons which have determined the Government of Bengal to depart from the course, hitherto followed, of selecting a Director of Public Instruction from the Indian education service.

The Lieutenant-Governor considers that in the present state of transition in which educational questions in Bengal are situated, and in view of the many and varied problems which press for solution, it is essential that there should be at the head of the department a Director of marked energy, zeal, capacity for work, knowledge of the subject, acquaintance with the province at large, and administrative experience. The Lieutenant-Governor reports that he has been unable to find among the senior officers of the department a gentleman combining all these qualifications; and he believes that they are to be found in the Civil servant whom he has selected for the post. As already stated, I see no reason to interfere with the Lieutenant-Governor's discretion in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will now state what was the constitution of the tribunal which tried His Highness Maharaja Madho Sing, former Chief of the Ballaraj and surrounding districts in Central India; what was their decision; who is now ruling this territory; and whether any compensation, and, if so, how much, has been paid to this chief.

The Commissioners appointed to inquire into the truth of the imputation against the ex-Chief of Panna of having instigated persons to poison his uncle were Mr. Chamier, 2nd additional Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, and Mr. Tucker, of the Indian Civil Service, a Resident of the 2nd class in the Political Department of the Government of India. The Resolution appointing these gentlemen was published in the Gazette of India of November 16th, 1901. The finding of the Commission and the decision of the Government of India, thereon to depose the chief, as I informed the hon. Member on July 13th,† were stated in a Resolution of April 21st, 1902, published in the Gazette of India. The ex-cbief had no son and was succeeded by Jadvendra Singh, the' nearest heir to the Gadi in the ordinary course of succession. He is a minor, now in his twelth year. The administration of the State during the minority has been vested in a Dewan assisted by a Consultative Council under the general supervision of the Political Agent. No compensation has been paid to the exchief, who has been interned and receives a sufficient allowance.

Is not this an illustration of the evil of having too many members of one family in a Government?

Was this man deposed and his estates confiscated without his having an opportunity

… See (4) Debates, cxlix., 550.

of replying to the charges brought against him?

The investigation was a very full one, and I do not think this House can sit in judgment on the action of the Government of India, which has made the most careful inquiry.

Had this gentleman a right to appeal to the Privy Council in the same way as he would have had had it been a question of succession to property?

I am not aware. But this was practically a criminal case, and it is obvious that the proper authority to deal with it is the Government of India.

My Question refers to the confiscation of his property.

I should like notice of that.

Had the man an opportunity of being heard in his own defence?

He had the usual opportunities.

That is not an Answer to my Question. I will put it again six months hence.

I beg to ask the UnderSecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that there has been during the last few years a continuous increase in the number of penal offences committed by natives, as shown by Lord Cromer's annual Reports, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will advise the Egyptian Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry into the qualification of the judicial officers, both European and Egyptian, concerned in the administration of justice, into the system of criminal procedure now in operation in Egypt, and the laws relating to penal offences in Egypt.

The Secretary of State sees no reason to interfere with the discretion of the Egyptian Government in dealing with this matter.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the importation of coke from Germany into British ports, which coke is admitted free of duty, while coke exported from this country is subject to an export duty of one shilling per ton; and does he intend to take any steps to remedy this state of affairs?

Coke—whether of home or foreign production—intended for consumption in this country is free of duty. All coke exported—whether produced here or originally imported and then re-exported—is liable to the export duty of 1s. the ton imposed by the Finance Act, 1901. For my views on the coal duty, of which the duty on exported coke is a part, I must refer my hon. friend to my speech in the Budget discussions, to which I have, nothing to add at the present time.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a horsekeeper named Vincent, in the employment of Messrs. Ball, omnibus proprietors, of the Brixton Road, was convicted at the Guildhall, on May 16th last, and sentenced to twenty-one days hard labour without the option of a fine for sending out a horse in an unfit state to work; and that the defendant was released from Pentonville Prison the next day; and will he say what was the reason for so releasing him, what is the number of horses belonging to this firm which have been condemned, and the number of police prosecutions against them during the last twelve months.

Vincent was convicted as stated in the Question. On the day after his conviction the magistrate who passed the sentence represented to me that circumstances had come to his knowledge which altered his view of the case, and on his strong recommendation I remitted the remainder of the term of imprisonment. Messrs. Ball, who own about 1,000 omnibus and cab horses, received during the past twelve months 394 police notices not to use horses. Two hundred and four of these horses were subsequently again approved for work. During the same period there were eighteen police prosecutions for cruelty against employees of the firm, though none against the principals. The facts, even if they had been known to me, would not, of course, have affected my action in the individual case brought to my notice by the magistrate who convicted.

inquired what were the circumstances under which the sentence was remitted. It seemed a shocking case.

said the magistrate came, to the conclusion afterwards that the man had no guilty knowledge.

asked whether, in view of the extraordinary figures which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted as to steps taken against this firm, anything could be done to check these practices.

said everything which could be done was being done to check the practices. He was asked in the Question as to a particular case against a particular man who seemed not to have been in fault, as the magistrate at first thought he was.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the fact that distraint warrants are about to be enforced against some fifty vaccination defaulters at Derby, out of more than 20,000, who are liable to the penalty for non-vaccination; and whether he will explain why Derby has been selected for the enforcement of penalties under the Vaccination Acts, whilst in other large towns, where the vaccination default is much greater, such measures are not resorted to.

My attention was called by the Local Government Board to the fact that no attempt was being made by the Derby police to enforce the orders of the magistrates in vaccination cases, and I have been for some time in communication with the Derby Watch Committee on the subject. I am glad to learn that an effort is now to be made to carry out the law. I have no information as to the number of defaulters in Derby who have not been prosecuted, but if the number suggested by the hon. Member is even approximately accurate it points strongly to the evil which results from the failure to enforce the law. I am in communication with the watch committee of another town on the same subject, but I know of no other large towns where the police have so entirely failed to enforce the orders of the justices as they have at Derby.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that dogs are bred specially for the purpose of vivisection at the Brockwell Hall and other farm laboratories; and if he will cause a Return to be made of the places at which dogs are being specially bred for this purpose, the laboratories at which experiments are performed on them, and the nature and purposes of such experiments.

I have made inquiry, and I understand that dogs have been bred at Brockwell Hall, and that some of the dogs so bred have been used for experiments in the laboratories. I do not think it is of material importance whether dogs which are used for purposes of experiment are bred on the premises or imported from elsewhere; and, as it is not a matter over which I have any control, I fear I cannot undertake to furnish the Return suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board Whether, if the report of the official to be sent by him to inspect the cheap cottages at the Garden City should be favourable, he will take steps to modify the model by-laws issued to district councils; and whether the Report will be circulated to Members.

I do not think I can express any opinion as to whether any modification should be made in the model by-laws until I have received the report referred to. I will consider the question whether the report should be issued as a Parliamentary Paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Equitable Life Assurance Society has deposited with two British trustees £100,000 as special security for policy holders; and, if so, can he state their names.

I am informed by the company that they have £100,000 worth of securities deposited in the names of Lord Kintore and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the statement of the chairman at the annual meeting of the General Shipowners' Society that the present position of the Port of London was most unsatisfactory, and that whatever Government might be in power one of its first duties would be to set these affairs in order; and whether he proposes to deal with this question in the next session of Parliament.

Yes, Sir, I have seen a report of the speech referred to. It is too early to say yet what legislation will be proposed next session.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the danger of a general strike in the cotton trade in Lancashire and elsewhere, and whether he proposes to take any action in this grave matter.

The Board of Trade are fully aware of the circumstances referred to in my hon. friend's Question, and if we have reason to believe that our intervention is likely to be useful we shall at once take the steps which seem to us best in accordance with the Conciliation Act, 1896. In the meantime I feel strongly that the longest period possible should be secured for negotiations. As the position stands at present I am informed that the notices which have been given do not all expire on the same date, and I earnestly hope that steps may be taken with the approval of both parties to secure that all the notices shall terminate on the latest date.

Does not the Conciliation Act provide for the intervention of the Board of Trade in the event of a strike being apprehended?

Certainly we have that power, but we are only to act if we think our action will be useful.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to increase the salary of the Reading Clerk in the House of Lords; and if he can state the grounds on which such an increase of salary is to be made.

I am informed that the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices have recommended an increase in the salary of the Reading Clerk in the House of Lords in view of the substantial share taken by that officer in the Judicial Sittings of the House of Lords, both during the session and in the autumn, in addition to the discharge of the duties properly belonging to his office.

What is the amount of the increase?

From £1,000 to £1,200.

Does not the third clerk in the House of Lords hold the same position as the third clerk in this House?

I must ask for notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that the Highlands and Islands Commission, reporting in 1895, recommended that no less than 1,782,785 acres within the crofting counties of Scotland should be scheduled for new holdings, for the extension of existing holdings, and for moderately sized farms, and that a very large proportion of this acreage was then included within deer forests; whether he is aware that between 1898 and 1904, fifty-two wholly new deer forests have been formed, extending to 424,957 acres, while only 15,485 acres appear to have been taken from deer forests for other purposes; whether he can state what is the total number of acres provided for new holdings, or extension of holdings, or moderately sized farms by the Crofters Commission since 1895, and what number of acres so provided were taken out of deer forests; and whether he will consider the advisability of legislation next year to check the extension of deer forests, and to give effect to the recommendations of the Highlands and Islands Commission.

The figures in the first two paragraphs of the Question appear to be correct. I am informed that between January 1st, 1896, and December 31st, 1904, the Crofters Commission have assigned 411 acres of arable land and 12,006 acres of pasture land in enlargement of existing crofters' holdings. Of this amount 907 acres were taken from a deer forest. I may inform the hon. Member that the Crofters Com- mission have no power to form new crofters' holdings or moderately sized farms.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of amalgamation of schools, the principal of the girls' school, if appointed assistant in the amalgamated school, will retain the same pension rights.

This matter is at present under consideration, and I am, therefore, not in a position to make a definite statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will say for what positions an examination was held on July 27th, in the Albert College, Glasnevin, by the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; the names of the candidates who presented themselves for examination, their religion, and nationality; whether the competition was an open one; and whether advertisements were inserted in the Irish papers announcing the competition; and, if so, would he state in what papers.

This examination was held to test the fitness of persons for employment as agricultural instructors. The number of qualified Irishmen is at present insufficient to meet the demands of county committees, some of whom were unwilling to wait until those Irish students now in training should become qualified. The Department, therefore, held the examination to ascertain whether the qualifications of persons who were recently awarded the National Diploma in Agriculture were such as to enable the Department to approve of their employment in the event of any of the county committees offering them employment. The number of persons who submitted themselves for examination was nine. The Department have no knowledge of their religion, or of their nationality, save that they reside in Great Britain. The examination was not competitive, and no advertisements were issued.

Why have men been brought over from England to fill these appointments? Why not give Irishmen an opportunity of competing for them?

We have made every effort to get the beat men as instructors. After all, the actual appointments rest with the county committees.

Is it not the fact that there is only one Irishman on the whole teaching staff?

The Department had to go further afield because there were not a sufficient number of qualified Irishmen for this special purpose.

And there never will be under English rule.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any charges were made within the last four years to the Inspector-General of Constabulary against Constable Leslie, Luggacurran, Queen's County; if so, what were the nature of those charges, and whether he can state the result of the investigation into them.

Three complaints of a trivial nature, each of which emanated from the same source, were made against this constable upwards of two years ago. The Inspector-General, who inquired into the complaints, was satisfied that they were unfounded and due to vindictiveness on the part of one person.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that Constable James D. Leslie, Luggacurran, Queen's County, was, after his marriage with Miss Dunbar, national school teacher, removed to Mountrath, he can say for what reason, and through what influence, Constable Leslie was transferred back to Luggacurran; and whether, under all the circumstances which have been brought to his notice, he will arrange that Constable Leslie shall not remain at Luggacurran.

The constable was re-transferred to Luggacurran on his own application. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the qualifications of the two recently appointed auditors of the Local Government Board; and what were their previous occupations.

The two recently appointed auditors, Messrs. Reddy and Bryan, have satisfied the Civil Service Commissioners as to their qualifications. Their previous occupations are stated in Parliamentary Paper No. 100 of this year.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state the decision of the Inspector-General regarding the recommendation of the Belfast Corporation that a Royal Irish Constabulary band should be established in Belfast.

The question of the formation of a constabulary band in Belfast is engaging my personal consideration, in consultation with the Inspector-General, and I hope it will be found possible to comply with the wishes of the corporation. At the present moment I am not in a position to make any more definite statement in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at a recent meeting of the Ballinasloe Board of Guardians it was resolved to give outdoor relief to the families of the men convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment at the late Galway Assizes; and will he say whether he has sanctioned this outdoor relief; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.

The persons referred to are not eligible for outdoor relief, as they do not belong to any of the classes enumerated in Section 1 of the 10 Vic. cap. 31. Any relief afforded to them outside the workhouse would be liable to surcharge by the auditor.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet appointed the Commissioners to inquire into the subject of arterial drainage in Ireland; and, if so, will he now state their names and qualifications, and give the terms of reference.

I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will now state the names of the Commissioners and the terms of reference in connection with the Commission proposed to inquire into the question of arterial drainage in Ireland.

The names of the gentlemen constituting the Commission about to be appointed are: Sir Alexander R. Binnie, President-elect of the Institution of Civil Engineer, England (Chairman); the right hon. Thomas Andrews, Chairman of the Down County Council; Mr. Stephen Brown, Chairman of the Kildare County Council; Mr. James Dillon and Mr. John H. Ryan, Members of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Ireland. The terms of reference to the Commission will be to inquire into and report upon the methods of initiating, executing, and maintaining schemes of arterial drainage in Ireland under the statutes now in force, and their practical working; whether any reforms or alterations of the existing methods, or consolidation of existing statutes, are desirable; and, if so, what legislation is necessary for carrying them into effect.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why an application for a gun licence forwarded by Mr. James Flynn, D.C., Gosbrook, Mountrath, Queen's County, to Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, R.M., and accompanied by a certificate signed by ten local magistates testifying to the character of the applicant, has been refused.

I am making inquiry in this matter, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, as promised, he has inquired into the irregularities connected with the Auxiliary Asylum at Youghal; if an assistant to the medical superintendent has been appointed; if qualified attendants have been appointed to take charge of the insane patients; if the chaplain has surrendered the house built for an assistant medical superintendent; and if the resident medical superintendent of the Cork Asylum is now permitted to visit the Auxiliary Youghal Asylum.

Yes, Sir, inquiry has been made and the Government are now in correspondence with the committee of management on the subject. No resident medical assistant has been appointed, a visiting physician being still in charge. The institution is managed by a community of nuns assisted by ordinary asylum attendants. The Answers to the two remaining Questions are in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what was the cost on the rates for the support of the poor in workhouses in Ireland for the half-year ended 30th June, 1905, and for the previous ten years: and will he state the average number of people in receipt of outdoor relief in Ireland during that period.

Information on these points will be found in the published annual Reports of the Local Government Board. The figures are brought down in the Reports to September 30th, 1904; later figures are not yet available.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state, approximately, when the applications of Margaret Frazer and Thomas Kent for reinstatement in their holdings on the Kingston Estate will be considered by the Commissioners, especially in view of the fact that the farms of these evicted tenants are in the occupation of the landlord; and whether it is the intention of the Commissioners to take any steps to acquire the untenanted land available on this estate to provide allotments for some of the labourers in Mitchelstown.

This estate will be inspected in due order of priority, but it is not at present possible to name an approximate date. When dealing with the case the Commissioners will consider the matters mentioned in the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of Section 23 (11) of the Land Act of 1903, which provides that on sales of estates to the Commissioners, in the case of a vendor nominating his land agent and land clerk, each shall receive a certain percentage respectively, if this arrangement is approved of by the Commissioners, he will take steps to secure that these percentages shall be paid to the land agent and land clerk respectively, as part of the expenses of the Land Commission, provided the total amount of the percentages does not exceed the scale fixed by the Commissioners with the assent of the Treasury.

Until some experience of the working of the Act had been obtained, it was not practicable to fix the scale of percentages as contemplated by the section quoted. The Government are in correspondence with the Treasury on the subject, and I hope that the matter will shortly be settled.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to publish the correspondence which took place between the Treasury and the Commissioners of National Education as to the withdrawal of fees for teaching the Irish language; whether it was the Treasury who first called the Commissioners' attention to the increase in fees for Irish and subsequently directed the Commissioners to withdraw the fees altogether; whether it is true that the Commissioners asked the Treasury not to withdraw the fees and urged the advantage of retaining them as most useful educationally, as the Irish language was an important factor in Irish education; whether it is true that the equivalent of the fees so withdrawn by the action of the Treasury can be used by the Commissioners for any other educational purpose; and whether, under all the circumstances, he now withdraws his statement in the House that the withdrawal of the fees "was a suggestion on the part of the National Board."

I have nothing to add to the statements already made by me in this matter.

asked if the attention of the national board of Education had been drawn to a speech delivered by a National School teacher at Bambridge, at an Orange Lodge meeting, in which he said he would do everything he could to destroy the power of Rome. Did the Board consider these proper sentiments to be given utterance to by a national school teacher.

said the attention of the Board had not previously been drawn to the matter, but he was now inquiring into it. Teachers were enjoined to avoid political meetings and abstain from political controversies. One case recently occurred in which a man's salary was withheld because he had taken part in a political meeting.

Yes, and in that case the teacher was a Nationalist.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the attention of the Board of Works has been called to the decayed condition of St. Mochta's House, behind the ruined Abbey of Louth, which is said to contain the most perfect specimen of early Irish stone roofing; and whether the Board could expend, under their grant, a sufficient sum to save so ancient a monument from further destruction.

The attention of the Board of Works has been called to this ruin, but in the absence of any proposal from the owner to vest the ruin in them they cannot act. The county council have also power under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, Section 19, to take over the custody of the ruin with the owner's consent.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that some years ago the Customs authorities at various ports in Ireland issued weekly lists of the imports and exports into and from these ports; and, if so, in view of the importance of securing accurate returns regarding Irish commerce, and the recent declaration of the Board of Trade that they have no objection to separate returns of Irish commerce being made public, the Customs authorities will be instructed to furnish separate returns, as is done in regard to the commerce of the Isle of Man and other places.

The Board of Customs inform me that they have no knowledge of the issue of such weekly lists as are referred to in the Question. Nor am I able to trace the separate returns of the commerce of the Isle of Man to which the hon. Member refers. Particulars of direct imports from and direct exports to places abroad are shown for Irish ports in Vol. II. of the Animal Statement of Trade, in the same way as for other ports of the United Kingdom, inclusive of the Isle of Man.

If I assure the right hon. Gentleman these returns are obtainable in Cork, will he inquire further?

If the hon. Member will send me one of the statements to which he refers I shall understand what he does allude to. But I confess I cannot trace what he appears to desire.

My Question refers to a weekly return. I have seen many of them, and they give the imports and exports of the port.

I am under the impression the lists referred to by the hon. Member are compiled from the bills of entry, and, if so, they would not give an accurate return of the trade of the port.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid-Tyrone, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he has yet decided to give an extension of two hours in the despatch of the mails from Derry, via Greenore, by the 5.15 p.m. train from Derry; is he aware that the suggestion to send the mails via Fleetwood at the same hour would not benefit the intervening towns from Omagh, Dundalk, and Newry, and the whole of the intervening districts; and if he will accede to the desire of all the inhabitants of the north-western and south-eastern districts of the North of Ireland to have this improved mail service.

I propose to establish a mail from Londonderry to London by the 5.15 p.m. train from Londonderry. I fear that the amount of correspondence available is insufficient to warrant the establishment of mails from the smaller towns in the districts referred to by the hon. Member; but I am making further inquiry. I would, however, remind him that Newry has had a despatch to England by the Greenore route for some time.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Colonial Conference to be held next year will be free to discuss the policy of the introduction of Chinese indentured labour into the Transvaal Colony, and the question of Asiatic immigration generally.

As I have on several occasions stated to the House, the conference will be a free conference.

Then it will be entitled to discuss that subject?

Certainly. That seems to me to be the direct corollary of freedom.

Will they publish their views?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury if, in the event of no separate Royal Commission being appointed for Ireland or Scotland, he would take care that a full and searching inquiry into the whole Poor Law systems of both countries would be assured by the investigations of the promised Royal Commission for England.

I think the reference to the Commission will enable it to make a complete survey of the whole problem of the relief of distress.

Will there be only one Commission?

Yes, Sir, that is the direction in which I incline at present. I believe the common opinion inclines in that direction also.

said that he hailed with satisfaction the announcement of the Prime Minister to appoint a new Royal Commission to inquire into the administration of the Poor Law. There were, however, one or two points he would like to suggest for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman before the Commission was constituted. The great Poor Law Commission of 1834 consisted only of nine members, and he suggested to the Prime Minister that this new Commission should be a small body composed of competent and independent men. He had been a member of the Labour Commission, and he thought that of all the Commissions that ever sat this Commission was perhaps the most completely smothered by its constitution and the amount of evidence it received. The accumulated amount of evidence was enormous. Personally, he believed that no human being ever read a word of it, and there was no outcome of its work except the enormous expense that it cost the taxpayers. He suggested also that the Prime Minister should take care to see that some women familiar "with the administration of the Poor Law were appointed on the Commission. In his judgment the inclusion of women would promote the success of the inquiry. On the Second Reading of this Bill the Prime Minister made a speech in which he said that—

"His Majesty's Government posssess the confidence of this House, and we do not think that, while we possess the confidence of this House, it can be justly charged against us that we lack authority to deal with home, foreign, and colonial affairs. I repudiate as utterly unconstitutional the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Member for East Fife, that the Government of the day derives its authority from anything but the majority of this House."

That was a proposition which he traversed. It was devoid of authority as far as experience and constitutional law could show. A notion prevailed, not confined to the Press only but held by some Members of the House, that there was a constitutional right possessed by the Government of the day or the Parliament of the day that the House should sit for a period of seven years. The Septennial Act simply said "may sit"; there was no obligation. In America there was an obligation that the President should be in office for four years, and other constitutional countries had their own periods of tenure of office for the Executive of the State and for the Legislatures. But we had no such doctrine here. There had been twenty-six Parliaments summoned and dissolved during the ninetenth century, and of this number three only had sat for six years. The limit which the practice of the country had laid down had been that Parliament should not sit for seven years. The strength of our Parliamentary institutions depended upon their being in sympathy with, and representative of, the opinions of the electorate from whom their authority was derived. He suggested to the Prime Minister the consideration of a sentence in a speech of the late Lord Salisbury which drew the distinction which existed between this country, which had no written Constitution, and those countries that had a written Constitution defining the duration of its Parliamentary and administrative authority. Lord Salisbury said—

"We must remember that we live under a system of unwritten law. Your Parliamentary Constitution, of which you are so proud, is written in no statutes; it rests on long traditions and understandings honourably observed."

They had a right to ask the Prime Minister that these "long traditions" should be honourably observed; and he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that, when it was clear from almost unanimous evidence that the House was out of sympathy and out of touch with the opinions of the electorate, the duty fell on the Ministry of the day to terminate the existence of such a House. The Prime Minister said that it was sufficient for the Government to possess the confidence of the House of Commons. But the authority of the House depended on the people. The final Court of appeal and supreme authority was the electors. There was a catena of authorities on this question who had stated the present difficulty and what they held to be the constitutional position. Mr. John Richard Green, the historian, had written—

"It is impossible, indeed, to provide for some of the greatest, dangers which can happen to national freedom by any formal statute. Even now a Minister might avail himself of the temper of a Parliament elected in some moment of popular panic; might simply by refusing to appeal to the country govern in defiance of its will. Such a course would be technically legal, but such a Minister would be none the less a criminal."

Professor Dicey on the Law of the Constitution said—

"The reason why the House can, in accordance with the Constitution, be deprived of existence is that an occasion has arisen on which there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House is not the opinion of the electors. A dissolution is allowable or necessary whenever the wishes of the Legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation."

Referring to the dissolutions of 1784 and 1834, Professor Dicey said—

"The essential point to notice is the principle that the authority which ultimately determines the right of a Cabinet to retain office is the nation. The authority of the House of Commons is derived from its representing the will of the nation, and the chief object of a dissolution is to ascertain that the will of Parliament coincides with the will of the nation. The greatness of Chatham and of his son lay in their perceiving that behind the Crown, behind the Revolution families, behind Parliament itself, lay what Chatham calls the 'great public,' and what we should call the nation, and that on the will of the nation depended the authority of Parliament. The precedents show that in modern times the rules as to the dissolution of Parliament are like other conventions of the constitution, intended to secure the ultimate supremacy of the electorate as the true political authority of the State."

The Secretary to the Board of Education in his work on the constitution had stated distinctly that where there was evidence that Parliament had not the confidence of the nation there ought to be an appeal to the country. He would quote finally two Prime Ministers who had grappled with the difficulties of the situation. Mr. Gladstone said—

"It is repugnant to my feelings and not compatible with the best interests of the country that a Government should continue to govern when there are daily increasing evidences that it no longer represents the will and opinion of the constituencies."

What was the date of that?

1874.

After the election?

Yes. He would quote one who, for the Prime Minister and hon. Gentlemen opposite, was a higher authority still. Lord Salisbury, speaking on October 22nd, 1884, at Dumfries, said—

"A dissolution is the only appeal the people have against a Prime Minister who is not act- ing according to their wish. I deny that he has a right to interpose his will and say, the people may storm and object, they may think that my course is wrong, but so long as I can control the majority in the House of Commons, elected under my auspices, controlled by my machinery, so long I will not permit an appeal to be made to the people against myself. That does not seem to me to be true constitutional law."

On these grounds he submitted that there ought to be an appeal to the country in existing circumstances. It might be, as one Minister had been courageous enough to assert, that the country was not disposed to change the present Ministry—that an overwhelming majority of the country would return the present Administration to power. But that was not the view of the Prime Minister himself, because the whole of the argument by which the right hon. Gentleman justified his course was that he would be succeeded by men who were incompetent.

When did I use that argument?

said there appeared to be some dispute as to what the right hon. Gentleman said at the Foreign Office, but undoubtedly, in rather strong language, he intimated last week that in his opinion there was no man on the Opposition side of the House, except the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, who throughout the session had spoken with anything approaching a sense of responsibility.

What does the right hon. Gentleman say was my opinion?

That no man on this side of the House had made a speech, which indicated his sense of responsibility.

That is not exactly what I said. But the right hon. Gentleman himself has spoken very little this session.

said that if he defended any one from the charge of incompetency it would not be himself, but his colleagues who were not present. In their absence he would say that there were men who had sat through ten sessions on the Opposition side of the House and who were not wanting in ability, competency, administrative experience, or patriotism; men in whose keeping the honour and interests of the nation would be as perfectly safe as in the hands of any man on the Treasury Bench. The Prime Minister's argument was that there would be a political danger in a change of Government at the present time. But if that were so, ex hypothesi the men whom the Prime Minister held to be incompetent had the confidence of the country. Who was to be the final authority of competency? Not Gentlemen on one side of the House or the other, but the constituencies. If the constituencies were going to commit the blunder of placing the affairs of this country in the hands of other Ministers, that was their affair. They were the final Court of appeal. If the Prime Minister believed what he said, he should welcome a dissolution. What strength it would give him? He declared that now in all the Chancelleries of Europe and in all the Colonies there was anxiety with respect to a change of government. All that anxiety would be swept away if the right hon. Gentleman was returned again with a large majority. He would speak with an authority which he did not now possess. There would no longer be any necessity for extraordinary whips to his supporters, or for the withdrawal of Bill after Bill, until the Statute-book of the session had been reduced to less than the size of a sixpenny magazine. It was because the country was not behind the present Administration that its authority was weakened abroad and its usefulness impaired at home. There never was a crisis in modern times when it was so clearly the duty of the Ministers of the Crown to advise His Majesty to refer to the sense of his people and trust to them to clothe them with a real authority which they themselves admitted they did not now possess, and the absence of which was weakening the country in Army administration, in foreign affairs, in colonial administration, and in home administration. The straightforward, the patriotic, the wise course to take was to ask the country to utter its verdict, not so much upon the past administration or the past or present intentions of the Government, but upon what was, after all, the supreme and, he believed, would be the principal, controversy at the general election.

The right hon. Gentleman has replied to-day to a speech which I made two days ago. I do not complain of the course which he has adopted. He courteously informed me last night that he did propose to answer that speech, although he did not inform me what part of the speech it was which had roused his controversial indignation. I now learn that it is that part of the speech which dealt, I must say extremely briefly, with the constitutional point which was raised not two days ago for the first time, but which was thoroughly threshed out a fortnight ago, when I ventured to lay before the House in considerable detail the actual constitutional precedents which governed our action at that time, and which will, I hope, govern the action of our successors when they come, in due course, into office. Now, what has the right hon. Gentleman to say against the conclusion which I then laid before the House? The conclusion was this—that the absolutely invariable course of precedent showed that no Government in this country had treated a single division of the character of the division in which the Government were defeated on the Irish Estimates on Thursday fortnight, as by itself conclusive as to the course which should be adopted. Every Government since the Reform Bill of 1832, and, I doubt not, every Government before it, has taken a very different course. I regret that I have not investigated the whole series of precedents which might be elicited from a study of constitutional history, let us say, since the beginning of Mr. Pitt's first Administration; but I remember perfectly well, without referring to that series, that Mr. Pitt himself was defeated on a great issue, and defeated again and again on a great issue, and never thought of resigning on that account. But I think the House would regard it as sufficient if I base my views of the course which Governments ought to pursue—for it is not an individual question or a question relating to this Government alone—upon the history of this country since 1832. Now, those precedents are, as far as I know, quite unbroken. Every Government that has existed for more than a very short time has suffered on some subject or other a defeat in this House. The number of long Conservative Administrations since 1832 has not been so great as the number of Liberal Administrations, but they have also suffered defeats. I do not, however, base my argument on the course that the Prime Ministers at the head of those Governments pursued, because it is more effective when you are arguing as between Parties to draw your illustrations from the conduct of the Liberal Prime Ministers. I do not in the least intend to imply that the constitutional view of Liberal Prime Ministers has been essentially different from that of Conservative Prime Ministers, but I think if you will compare Lord Melbourne's Administration, Lord John Russell's Administration of 1846, Lord Palmerston's Administration of 1868, Mr. Gladstone's Administration of 1868, Mr. Gladstone's Administration of 1880, and Mr. Gladstone's last Administration of 1892—I have deliberately chosen Administrations which had a long period of office except the last one—you will find that they suffered a great many more defeats during their time of office than such an Administration as Sir Robert Peel's of 1841, Mr. Disraeli's Administration of 1874, which was the next longest Conservative Administration, Lord Salisbury's Administration of 1886, and the Administration which began in 1895, of which the present occupants of this bench may be regarded as the successors. If you examine all these long Administrations which have been in office since 1832 you will find that the Liberal Administrations have shown themselves far more patient of defeat, far more tolerant of adverse by-elections, than have the Conservative Administrations which held office during the same lengthened period of time. Now, if that be an accurate historical statement, and I do not believe that it can be contradicted, what is there to put on the other side? I have quoted the statesmen; the right hon. Gentleman has quoted the thinkers. But the thinkers are not all on one side, because my right hon. and learned friend the Lord-Advocate, whose resource on these occasions is illimitable, has supplied me on the spur of the moment, with a readiness which I infinitely admire, with a passage in Hallam's "Constitutional History" which I will not quote, but which really is worth reading. It is to be found on page 317 of the third volume of that classical work; and there Mr. Hallam points out, as the moral to be drawn from the constitutional history of this country, that the object and purpose of the Septennial Act which we ought to keep in view is that the House of Commons should have a tenure which does not depend necessarily upon what are interpreted—and I will say very often wrongly interpreted—as the contemporaneous moods of popular thought but that, in the interests of continuous administration, the Septennial Act is a most valuable part of the constitution and should not be interfered with unnecessarily. But I am not going to pin my faith upon any thinker; I prefer to go to the actual practice of that long succession of statesmen on both sides of the House who have governed this country for the last seventy or eighty years. I remember that when we were discussing this matter three weeks ago some gentleman opposite—I am not sure that it was not the right hon. Member for East Fife—said that the Melbourne Administration were no doubt constantly defeated, but that everybody admits that they were in the wrong and that they showed a great weakness in not either resigning or dissolving before the inevitable end came. Well, I need hardly say that the Parliamentary history of this Government is very different from the Parliamentary history of the Melbourne Government, and no possible parallel can be drawn between the two; but the Melbourne Government consisted of some of the greatest constitutional authorities, Whig authorities, that we have ever possessed—such as Lord Melbourne himself, Lord John Russell, Lord Macaulay, the Lord Lansdowne of the Reform Bill. There were others, but I mention those whose names will always be remembered as men whose opinion on constitutional questions was not an opinion to be despised, and who certainly had no desire, for any sordid or personal reasons, to remain in office.

But Lord Melbourne's Government did resign and a new Government came in, and then the difficulty arose in reference to the ladies of the Household, after which Lord Melbourne came back to office.

Yes, what the right hon. Gentleman says is perfectly true; but Lord Melbourne's Administration may very properly be divided into two parts by the brief Administration of Sir Robert Peel. It was soundly beaten in both halves. It was well beaten before 1839, and still better beaten after.

The Parliament was dissolved in 1837 by the death of the Sovereign.

NO; the right hon. Gentleman, is confusing two things. He is confusing the dissolution of Parliament, which necessarily occurred within six months of the demise of the Crown, as the constitutional law then stood—he is confusing that with the resignation of Lord Melbourne's Ministry. He did not resign in 1837.

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to get the facts right. Sir Robert Peel's Administration wasdefeated in 1835 after a general election. Then Lord Melbourne formed another Administration, which remained in power, and was not, I think, defeated between that date and 1837. There was then a dissolution, and the constituencies returned Lord Melbourne to power. About twelve or eighteen months afterwards Lord Melbourne's Government was defeated in this House. Thereupon he resigned, and Sir Robert Peel was sent for and endeavoured to form an Administration. A difficulty then arose between him and the Sovereign, and Lord Melbourne resumed office. Then, I grant you, between 1839 and 1841 there were defeats, and after a vote of want of confidence was carried by a majority of one, Lord Melbourne dissolved Parliament in 1841.

Yes, Sir; most of the facts, but not all of the facts, recited by the right hon. Gentleman are accurate, and the two facts which he has wrongly stated are the material facts. It is not accurate to say that Lord Melbourne was returned to office in 1837 after a general election. He was Prime Minister when the dissolution occurred, and he remained Prime Minister after the country had given its verdict. It was one unbroken Administration from Sir Robert Peel's resignation, on the question of the Speakership, I think in 1835, till 1839; and during that period of Lord Melbourne's Administration the Government—and this is the second error the right hon. Gentleman has made—was several times defeated—a good deal more often than we have been, at all events. What is the use of quoting text-books of constitutional history when you have against you the unbroken verdict of every considerable politician on every side? I do not rely even on Mr. Hallam; I rely upon two things. I rely, in the first place, upon the unbroken precedents since the Reform Bill of 1832; and, in the second place, upon the obvious and underlying principles which should regulate the conduct of Governments in these matters. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that it is part of the duty—I would say the main duty—of the Government to watch carefully the stream of public opinion, and either to square the action of the Government precisely - with the temporary public mood, or else to resign and to allow that public mood to show itself at the polls. I deny that altogether. I do not think that is the way in which representative institutions can best be managed, and I do not believe that any serious thinker will take that view. How are you going to test this movement of public opinion? That is the first question. [AN OPPOSITION MEMBER: By-elections.] By-elections are very fallacious. I remember very well, in the relatively early experience of my political life, that during Mr. Disraeli's Government of 1874–1880 the elections had not been going very strongly against the Government, but there was just before the general election a by-election vehemently contested, which the then Liberal Opposition were confident of winning. It was, as a matter of fact, won by Sir Edward Clarke, and that election was regarded as a very strong indication of the way that popular feeling was running. Mr. Disraeli dissolved, and the elections had not gone on a week before it was perfectly evident that the stream of popular opinion was running in precisely the opposite direction, and the great defeat of the Tory Party took place in 1880. I think if any hon. Gentleman will look at the forecasts that were made at an earlier period with regard to Lord Palmerston's dissolution, I think on the China question, in 1857—an election which absolutely wiped out the so-called Radical Manchester school—he will find that the general feeling was that the constituencies took a very different view from that which, as a matter of fact, it was proved they did take when the general election actually showed conclusively and numerically what public opinion was. By-elections are necessarily misleading; but that is not the only consideration which ought to be taken into account. It is quite obvious, it is one of the familiar commonplaces of politics, that any Government in office by the mere fact that it is in office turns many lukewarm supporters into enemies, and many firm supporters into lukewarm supporters, very often because of what it does rightly, sometimes because of what it does wrongly. It is an inevitable process, not very difficult to explain, which every Government and Party suffers from or gains from in turn. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will be the last to deny that. At what particular stage of that process are you to say an election should take place? Hon. Gentlemen hope to come in at the next general election. As soon as they come in the natural process of decay which I have described will set in; I think myself it will probably set in with great violence. The hopes which they have raised will find instantaneous disappointment; Bills which they have vaguely shadowed will lose their charm when they are brought out in the crude details in which a draftsman necessarily has to indulge; hopes will be disappointed; it may be even that individuals will be disappointed. What will be the result of that? On the right hon. Gentleman's own principles the Prime Minister of the day would immediately have to set to work to calculate exactly what is indicated by the loss of such and such a by-election, whether the diminution of the normal majority of the Government from such and such a figure to such another figure indicates that they are really losing touch with the country, and at what point is he going to determine that he has not got the confidence of the country? There is one plain test whether the Government can carry on the business of the country, and that plain test is whether the House of Commons supports them. I do not believe any other plain test can be provided. Every other test is open to doubt, is open to qualification. Those who are defeated at by-elections are always rich in explanations why that particular disaster should have happened. The conditions under which a by-election is taken are very different from those which obtain at a general election, and necessarily different, and, if the Prime Minister or his Government has to undertake the duty not merely of gauging the opinion of the House of Commons, not merely, to the best of his ability, of carrying on by the help of that House of Commons the general policy of the country at home and abroad, but has to make the very existence of his Government depend on what may be a temporary wave of popular feeling, it seems that you reduce the British constitution to an absurdity. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, who acts as the Chief Whip on the other side, was once asked, when he was a Minister, at what time a general election would occur. He gave a concise, but perfectly lucid reply. It was, I think, in a speech he made in Leeds. He said, "The general election will occur at the time most disagreeable to the Tories and most agreeable to ourselves," or words to that effect. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, if he were Prime Minister and if there were a great feeling, perhaps a temporary feeling, upon some question of policy which his Government through their fault or misfortune had raised, would say, "Dear me! The country does not seem to like this last act of ours; this is a Bill which is not popular; this is an administrative procedure which raises a great deal of feeling; let us go to the country at once." Is that going to be the case? I think the right hon. Gentleman complained that that was not my policy.

You yourself were not satisfied that you possessed the confidence of the country.

I am supposing a case which has happened in the right hon. Gentleman's experience in connection with Liberal Administrations, and may happen again, in which there is a very violent public feeling raised by a particular action of the Government. Take such a case as the abandonment of Gordon. I am not going to raise an old question. I mention it as being sufficiently far back not to touch present issues, and yet within the memory of most of those here. Supposing Mr. Gladstone had said, "Evidently the country is against us, If there was an election now we should be beaten; let us dissolve." Would that be common sense, would that be in conformity and harmony with the British constitution? I say it would not; I say that this constitution, like the American constitution, provides, though in a less direct and obvious manner, for some stability of administration apart from the temporary movements of public opinion. Of course, every Government and every Party depends, and must depend, on public opinion, and on public opinion alone, for its final and ultimate success, for carrying its policy to a conclusion or administering this vast Empire. That is obvious, that is true, and there is not a man on either side of the House who will deny that that is a fundamental and essential characteristic of the modern British constitution. But to say that whenever by-elections are going against you you are therefore, and for that reason alone, immediately to dissolve the House and seek the opinion of the country is not only not in conformity with the essential principles of the British constitution, but, in my opinion, it would be the greatest blow that could be dealt against free representative institutions, because you would emphasise the essential weakness, perhaps the only weakness, of free institutions—namely, that they are subject, however you arrange them, to violent flows backwards and forwards of popular opinion. I remember a fortnight ago, when this question was raised, saying I regarded the action which the Government then took as being not merely one dictated by precedent or in consonance with Party interests; I said that, in my opinion, it was a vital and essential part of the British constitution, whichever Party was in power, and I ventured to look forward to a time when perhaps we and those who sit with us shall not be the occupants of these benches; when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will have thrust upon them the responsibility of power, and when they will find that, if they are to carry on any connected policy, or to deal upon any connected plan with higher and permanent admininistration and foreign policy, they will have to hold themselves, as their predecessors have held themselves, above the chance division, it may be engineered division, which the right hon. Gentleman appears to think ought to be the sole test of the continuance of a Government in office. I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in the view I have mentioned. That is the last observation I shall make. I differ from him in thinking that by-elections are the true test of whether a Government should or should not appeal to the people. I differ from him in the second place in thinking that divisions, such as those that were taken the other night, should be the signal to a Government that the time had come when it should ask the Sovereign to relieve it of its functions. And I must say—I have not dwelt upon this topic before, because it is outside the strict constitutional argument in which we have been engaged—that if in future Parliaments and future sessions this plan, which has now come into favour, of so arranging business that the Government may be defeated not because the House of Commons differs from it, but may be defeated because matters could be so arranged that those who supported it were away, and those who were against it were present, is to be followed, you will do a great deal to injure the actual working of Parliamentary institutions, and of the Parliamentary machine, not a very easy machine to work under any circumstances. I said to the right hon. Gentleman, by way of interruption in the middle of his speech, that he had spoken so little in the course of this session that I did not bring him within the mischief of the general charge which I made against some of his colleagues—that their speeches never seemed to me the speeches of men who expected to have responsibility and power thrust upon them, and only of politicians who desired to find some weapon wherewith to wound their political adversary. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is open to that charge, speaking generally. I would ask him, therefore, to consider the events of this session and the last few sessions, if he will do so, in the light of the general observations which I have ventured to lay down, and I think he will see that by throwing the weight of his great name and his great experience into the scale of those who criticise the Government for what they have done, and who would attribute what they have done to motives certainly not amongst the highest which ought to actuate politicians, he has been doing a very ill-service to his own Party, and, what I am convinced will influence him still more, has been doing a very ill-service to that constitution of which I know in his heart he is the greatest upholder.

said he did not think that the House devoted so much time to the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill as it ought to have done, and it was reasonable, therefore, that more time than usual should be given to-day to the Third Reading. Another reason why the Bill should be discussed was that the Budget was now enormously larger than in previous times, and that there had not been the opportunities this year for the discussion of the Estimates which were afforded in previous years. Many of the Estimates had been passed without any discussion whatever. On the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill his hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford rose to make some remarks; he had no intention of speaking at particular length, but he had not been speaking for more than three or four minutes when the Prime Minister rose and moved, "That the Question be now put." He himself had had twenty-two years experience of that House and he must say that he really never saw the leader of a Party treated with such scant courtesy.

No reflections are possible on the closure. That is the action of the House, and the hon. Member is not entitled to discuss it.

I will not discuss it, but I say on my own behalf, and on behalf of my own friends, that we resent the discourtesy of the treatment which he received, and perhaps other opportunities may arise for expressing our views.

The last thing intended was discourtesy to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said he desired to call the attention of the House to a matter of great importance and urgency in connection with the Volunteer force. For more than three years the fate of 60,000 men, including officers, being 25 per cent. of the force, had been hanging in the balance, and from what the Secretary of State for War had said on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill he thought that that state of matters still continued. He did not at all concur in the criticism which had been directed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite against the recent circular, issued by the Secretary of State for War, asking for information in regard to the physical condition of the Volunteers. He believed that in connection with the Volunteer force there should be stringent conditions in all respects as to efficiency, and that one of the very first conditions of efficiency was the physical condition of the men enrolled. He thought that in the futur earrangements for the Volunteers an essential condition of enlistment should be that the men should possess the requisite physical condition. As to the point which he wished to raise in regard to 60,000 of the Volunteers being in a state of suspense, the hon. Member reminded the House that in their able and comprehensive Report issued last year the Royal Commission warmly eulogised the services rendered to the country by the Volunteers, and that the whole tenor of their recommendations was to the effect that until we had a more complete and comprehensive system of military training, the Volunteers should be maintained at least at their present numbers, and that their efficiency should be increased. The recommendations of the Commission had to come under the considerasion of a very able and sympathetic Secretary of State for War. He was sorry there had been insinuations that the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman was not entirely in favour of the Volunteer force. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had been doing what he could in connection with the Volunteers. The Government had laid it down as their policy that the Regular Army was maintained principally for the purpose of service abroad while they looked to the Volunteers for the defence of these islands. When the Secretary of State for War was sympathetic to the Volunteers and when the Government recognised the importance of the force, what malign influence had been at work to cause the action of the Government in this matter? The country and the Volunteers were absolutely astounded after the Report of the Royal Commission when at the end of last session the Secretary of State for War came to this House and stated that the Government had resolved to reduce the administrative strength of the Volunteer force from 347,000 to 200,000, and the effective strength from 250,000 to 180,000, and that there were other drastic proposals for the reduction of their position. They could only surmise that the professional element at the then War Office, and now in the Army Council, had prevailed. It was believed that some members of the Council considered that every penny devoted to the Volunteer force was so much subtracted from the Regular Army, and that anything done for the Volunteers was, in fact something done in opposition to conscription of which they were enamoured. The plan of the War Office at that time was not to increase the grant to the Volunteers, but actually to decrease it by £300,000. He was glad to say that the strong and determined expression of opinion in that House and throughout the country prevented the decrease of the grant from being carried out, and that the Government now intended to carry on the force with the same amount of grant, but differently distributed. It was to be given to a smaller number of men. The force was in many respects in a very unsatisfactory condition. Though the strength of all ranks had been maintained to the extent of 248,000 men, the deficiency of officers amounted altogether to 2,770—a deficiency which made the force at the present time almost ineffective. He quite concurred with the stricture made by the present Secretary of State for War, that a large number of the Volunteers were under standard and not available as soldiers, but under the circumstances what was going to be the policy of the Government? As the Secretary of State for War had said, the whole question was one of funds. In order to give effect to the recommendations of the Norfolk Commission additional expenditure would be necessary, and the right hon. Gentleman thought that at present there were no funds available for that purpose. The Norfolk Commission deprecated any changes which would nullife the spirit which this force had cherished, or any fundamental change in its position, except some comprehensive measure which would replace both the Militia and the Volunteers, and which, while giving greater military efficiency and at least equal numbers, would also render permanent that sympathy between the nation and the Army which before the raising of the Volunteer force was undoubtedly defective. What was wanted in connection with this recommendation of the Norfolk Commission was that the Volunteer force, consisting of 248,000 men, should be made much more efficient by grants necessary for that purpose. At present there was being expended on the Volunteer force the very paltry sum of £1,250,000, To carry out the recommendations of the Norfolk Commission would require only £500,000 more. If the grants to the Volunteer force were increased by £2 per head on the average with a minimum increase of £1 per head rising to a maximum of £3 according to the degree of efficiency—he believed there would not be that dissatisfaction in the force which had existed for so long a time, and which acted so much to its detriment, but the greatest enthusiasm. He hoped the Government would make up their mind to give the Volunteer force that increase. A few years ago the Imperial Yeomanry was a despised and in many respects an inefficient force, but now it was one of the most splendid forces which the Empire possessed, consisting of between 20,000 and 30,000 men. He had been told by capable officers that the Yeomanry would stand favourable comparison with the Regulars. What had caused this immense improvement in the Yeomanry? It had been the liberal terms afforded to them. What was asked for was that the Volunteers should be provided with a very little addition to their grants and facilities—an increase which would be paltry compared with what was spent on Regular Army. If the grants to Volunteers were only increased to £1,750,000, they might have a well-trained force, capable of being compared with the men of the Line, which would be able to defend this country from invasion and would be able to go anywhere. He commended that suggestion to the Secretary for War, and hoped that during the recess the right hon Gentleman's attention would be directed to this important question. It was now proposed to reduce the grants, except in exceptional cases; but he trusted that those responsible for the administration of the Volunteer force would go into this subject in a liberal spirit and raise the Volunteer grant by £500,000. If the right hon. Gentleman did so, he would not only satisfy a just demand, but would make an enthusiastic force of 250,000 men efficient in every respect, and very little inferior to any Army in the world.

said he regretted that there was no Scottish representative of the Government on the Treasury Bench, because he had matters to discuss which might easily occupy an hour or two. He had sent for the Lord - Advocate, and he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would find his way into the House in due course. Now that he was present he wished to appeal to him to urge the Secretary for Scotland to follow the example of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, when Secretary for Scotland, who visited the remotest parts of the Island of Lewis, to inquire personally into the condition of the people. That was the only way in which an administrator could get any true idea of the conditions of life in that part of Scotland. That was the course which had been adopted in Ireland by the late Chief Secretary and his predecessors. Only the other day a Return had been made which showed that between 1898 and 1904 nearly half a million of acres of land had been added to the deer forest area in the Highlands. In fact no less than fifty-two new deer forests had been created during that period. What had the Congested Districts Board been doing? They seemed to have been asleep and to have taken little or no interest in the welfare of the people in the most congested part of the crofting area, viz. the Island of Lewis. Lord Balfour of Burleigh obtained a very full and complete Report in 1903 in regard to the social condition of the people in the island; but no action whatever had been taken upon the recommendations in that report or of the suggestions put forward by the local committee as far back as 1903. That was what he complained of. He knew that the present Secretary for Scotland was new to office, but he was obliged to complain of the inaction of the noble Lord because he was responsible for the administration of the Congested Districts Board the Fishery Board, the Scottish Local Government Board, and nearly every other Board in Scotland. Opportunities for bringing matters relating to the condition of the people of the Outer Hebrides before Parliament were very few, and be complained that Highland questions did not receive the attention to which they were entitled. Take the question of the line fishing in the Island of Lewis. The catch had diminished during the last fifteen years by one half owing to the depredations of illegal trawlers. That was a very grave situation for the poor fishermen. He could not understand the patience of the Highland people. If he himself were a crofter and suffered loss through the deer destroying his crops he would not hesitate to trap them if on his croft and cut their throats. If the authorities were more energetic, alien millionaires would not dare to come to the Highlands and take the law into their own hands. He appealed to the Scottish Office and to the Lord-Advocate, to make an inquiry into these matters and bring about some remedy. The time had more than arrived when some prompt, sharp, and decisive action should be taken to stay the extension of the deer forest area.

said there was nothing he regretted more than that at the last moments of the session he should detain the House. But there was a question which affected his constituency, which it was incumbent on its representative to bring before the Government, in order that they might consider what action they might take to remedy a very grievous evil. He referred to the very inadequate provision made in regard to the education rate. The local authority, it was said, had refused, to administer the Act, and that that action prevented the Government from legislating to give them relief. He wanted to do all he possibly could to enable the Government to see what could be done to afford the necessitous districts relief. The relief had come, as announced by the Secretary to the Board of Education, and it amounted to 1½d. in the £! That did not amount to much in East Ham. The resolution of the local authority not to administer the Act had been rescinded on the understanding that relief would be given. It was absolutely in the power of the Board of Education to give relief to the necessitous districts; but they had given relief to districts where the rate was only 5d. or 6d. in the £, while exactly the same relief was given to districts where the rate was 2s. 6d., 2s. 10d. and 3s. in £. In fact, they gave relief to the strong and withheld it from the weak. This was not the correct method of dealing with a national obligation. Districts did not educate their people for the benefit of the district, but for the country at large, and therefore it was only just and right that equal treatment should be meted out to all to enable each to meet its obligations. It would have been a perfectly simple matter to have given a graduated scale of relief to the various districts. It was because the relief had not been given so as to ensure that those who required it most got an adequate amount that he now appealed to the Government to see, when they reconsidered this question, that the distressed districts got more than the others which did not need so much. He hoped early in the coming session the Government would deal with this matter, and do what they could to remedy the great injustice that had been created.

asked the Secretary of State for War to see that the Volunteer artillery were furuished with a proper equipment and guns. A controversy had arisen as to whether this force should be trained as field artillery or garrison artillery, but whichever they were to be they should have new guns, because it was quite impossible for the men to do their training properly with their present equipment, their guns being quite unfit for use and almost dangerous. He also asked the right hon. Gentleman to see that something more was done with regard to giving out orders for bayonets as between the Governmeut factories and the trade. Ordinarily, he said, the orders for bayonets were equally divided between the two, but early in this year it was laid down that owing to the small demand for these weapons the whole of them should be made in Government foracties. Happily the decision had not been adhered to, and a small order had given out to the trade. He submitted that whether the number required was large or small the orders should be equally divided, and he hoped the Government would see their way to do that in the future.

asked what steps the Chief Secretary was going to take with reference to the complaints of the staff in the Irish Agricultural Department. The grievances complained of by the clerks in the Veterinary Branch of the Department had been repeatedly brought to right hon. Gentleman's notice by Question during the session. Did he intend to order an independent inquiry into the status and treatment of those officials? If not then he would hear more about the matter. The different public bodies in Ireland, amongst them the Dublin Corporation, had pronounced unanimously in favour of the claims put forward by those officials; and taking into account that the working of the Department depended upon the good will and support of the local bodies in Ireland, would he (the Chief Secretary) say whether he was prepared to grant the inquiry asked for?

said the hon. Gentleman had asked this Question many times and he could only give the same reply that he had given before. He had satisfied himself that there was no foundation for any complaint, and he did not intend to hold any inquiry into the matter.