laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Derby Gas Bill; Peterborough Gas Bill; Southampton Gas Bill; Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz.:—Charing Cross, West End, and City Electricity Supply Bill; London Electric Supply Corporation Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time. Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Bill; to be read a second time upon Monday next. Burry Port Gas and Improvement Bill; Pontefract Corporation Bill; Read a second time and committed. South Lincolnshire Water Bill; Read a second time, and committed. Huddersfield Corporation Bill [by order]; Read a second time and committed. London County Council (General Powers) Bill [by order]; Macclesfield and District Tramways Bill [by order]; Read a second time, and committed. West Middlesex Roads Bill [by order]; Read a second time, and committed.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what was the average number of men employed per week in building the battleships "Dreadnought" and "Britannia" at Portsmouth since 1st October, 1905, and what number worked overtime in each case. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The proportion of labour employed on the "Britannia" and "Dreadnought," respectively, since 1st October has been 1 to 2·01. Practically no overtime has been worked on the "Britannia," as the time originally fixed for her completion, and the consequent contractors' dates for supply of material, fittings, etc., rendered it unnecessary; but she is in advance of her time, and will probably be ready two months earlier than the official date originally fixed for her completion. No reason existed in the case of the "Britannia" (being the last ship of an approved type) for asking the contractors to anticipate their contract dates for delivery of material, or for their work on the ship, hence there was no necessity for special overtime; but in the case of the "Dreadnought," the first vessel of an entirely new and very novel type, the Board of Admiralty decided, in order to try her at sea as soon as possible, to use every effort for her completion with the utmost despatch. With that object a large number of men, about two-thirds of the labour, employed on such work as the riveting of the hull and preparing of the launching ways, etc., have been working overtime, with the result that the ship will be completed for sea in advance of her original date, and at less cost than anticipated. It is not proposed, nor will it be necessary to have recourse to any such special efforts in future vessels, but in the case of the "Dreadnought" it was essential, in the interests of the public service, to take steps for getting her quickly to sea; very satisfactory results have thus been obtained, both in economy of construction and in rapidity of completion. The "Dreadnought" will probably be ready for sea in about fifteen months from the date of laying the keel.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of making inquiry respecting the sale and transfer of the English line of steamers on the Nile to a German Company, with the view to taking steps to see that the interests of this country in Egypt are not prejudiced. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) We understand that the Hamburg-American Steamship Company has joined with the Anglo-American Nile Steamer and Hotel Company in establishing a service of steamers on the Nile, and that the new Company will be known as the Hamburg and Anglo-American Nile Company. The establishment of this Company does not appear to be open to any objection, and the matter is not one in which any inquiry on the part of His Majesty's Government would seem to be necessary or in which they could interfere.

To ask the First Commissioner of Works, when it is proposed to complete the decorative work by filling in the two vacant panels in the Outer Lobby. (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) No provision for this work has been made in the ensuing year's Estimates, and I cannot

To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he has any official information showing the average prices of beef and mutton respectively in the United Kingdom prior to and since the year 1896, when restrictions were placed upon the importation of live cattle into this country; and whether the Agricultural Department has prepared any index numbers by which a comparison may be made between the variations in the prices of beef and mutton and those of commodities generally, say, during the past thirty years. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No official information is available to show the average prices of beef and mutton in the United Kingdom for the period to which the hon. Member refers, but the following table gives the average prices of cattle and sheep in the Metropolitan Moat Market for the years 1880–1892 and 1893–1905. The year 1892 has been taken, for the reason that Canadian cattle were first subjected to the requirement of slaughter at the port of landing in that year, although the requirement was not made a statutory one until 1896.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that the contemplated removal of H.M.S. "Satellite" from the Tyne will not only inflict inconvenience on the men of the Royal Naval Reserve resident on Tyne, side, but also deprive an important port of a ship which is extensively used, both as a recruiting depôt for His Majesty's Navy, and as a drill ship for naval reserves of all classes, he will consider the desirability of retaining her in commission for a further period. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Admiralty have decided to lend H.M.S. "Satellite" to the Tyneside Division of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, on the understanding that the expense of her upkeep and maintenance, together with any dock dues and local charges that may he levied, will be borne by the funds of the Division.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if legislation is required to give the Metropolitan Police one day's rest in seven instead of one day's rest in fourteen as now prevails. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The leave of Metropolitan Police is not regulated by Statute, and could no doubt be altered without legislation; but I may say that the alteration suggested in the Question would involve a very large augmentation of the force, and that the cost would be so great that it could not be met without exceeding the limit of 9d. fixed by The Police Act, 1868, to the Metropolitan Police Rate.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will, when drafting the Equalisation of Rates Bill, make it apply to the whole of the Metropolitan Police area. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) It is proposed that the Bill should provide for an amendment of The London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894. Hence it must necessarily be limited to the Metropolis.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give any information as to the approximate cost of maintaining the aged poor of the United Kingdom over sixty-five years of age by means of indoor and outdoor relief; and what is the average cost per head respectively of the two methods of relief. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I regret that I am not able to give the information asked for, and I fear that it would not be practicable to obtain it. The jurisdiction of the Local Government Board only extends to England and Wales, so that my Answer must be taken as applying only to that part of the United Kingdom.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a recent ruling of the Government of India to the effect that officers of the Indian Staff Corps who entered the Indian Army on or after the 1st July 1881 shall, on vacating employment, be allowed the option of residing in or out of India until compulsory retirement on account of age; while residing in India officers will receive the pay of their rank, and while residing out of India they will be allowed to take any furlough admissible under the 1886 Leave Rules, and receive unemployed pay at the rate of £500 a year; whether, under this ruling officers who joined after 1st July 1881, and, in consequence of having won the distinction of early commands, are obliged by the rules to vacate their commands for a more or less considerable time before-their compulsory retirement, are forced to choose between spending the time in India or accepting £200 per annum loss if they wish to spend it at home; and whether in view of the fact that officers who joined before the 1st July 1881 could elect on the termination of their commands, to reside in or out of India on the furlough to which they were entitled, furlough pay being £600 per annum for officers of from twenty-four to twenty-nine years' service and £700 for those of twenty-nine and onwards, he will explain why this difference is made in the case of the officer who joined in 1881 and after between the pay they receive in India and in England while they are awaiting their compulsory retirement after relinquishing their commands, and say whether the ruling above quoted can be reconsidered. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The right of residing in or out of India after vacation of appointment has been extended to the officers who entered the Indian Army after the 1st July 1881. The conditions are, as regards officers under the Leave Rules of 1886, correctly stated in the second clause of the Question. As regards the remainder of the Question, I must explain that the officers appointed to the Indian Army before the 1st July 1881 possessed a prescriptive right to remain in the Service and a certain claim to continous employment; and, when the latter was taken from them in 1881 (on the occasion of the limitation of tenure of regimental command), they necessarily retained the right of residence in India on Indian pay. To these officers, at the time, was given the option of remaining in India on this pay or of completing their service at home on furlough pay, i.e., half Indian pay, or (during the period 1381–86) about £400 a year. In 1886 new Leave Rules came into force, and officers who elected those Rules necessarily became entitled to leave pay under them in place of their furlough pay under the older Rules. The above concession was expressly limited to the officers who entered before the 1st July 1881. The other officers have no right to remain indefinitely in the Service, and they were appointed after the limitation of tenure of command had been introduced, and therefore they have not the same claim to special treatment as those officers whoso conditions of service had been changed for the worse by the limitation. They have not hitherto been allowed the concession of completing their service for higher pensions after becoming unemployed, though the Regulations have contained a rate of unemployed pay applicable to them, viz., £360 a year, wherever residing, and it has no doubt been understood that they would not be compelled to retire before attaining the age for superannuation. My predecessor decided that the rate of £365 a year was insufficient, and fixed the unemployed pay at Indian pay while residing in India, and a special rate of £500 residing out of India for officers of over twenty-four years' service, and subject to the Leave Rules of 1886. I may add that £500 a year is the unemployed pay of a major-general, and that it would be unsuitable that general officers should draw smaller unemployed pay than officers of inferior rank. Officers under the Furlough Rules of 1875 are entitled to half Indian pay only while residing at home, whether they entered the Indian Army before or after 1st July 1881. I see no reason for reconsidering my predecessor's decision.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the complaint of the Irish tailors that candidates for Army appointments almost invariably obtain their uniforms and outfits in London; whether he is aware that the military authorities furnish the candidates with official papers indicating different places in London to purchase their uniforms and outfits; and whether he will make inquiry, and arrange that Dublin and London shall be put upon equal terms in regard to such supplies. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The selection of a tailor in Ireland, as in England, is left entirely to the discretion of the individual officers who deal with them. Candidates on passing are informed officially by the War Office that they can have forwarded on application the price lists of all those firms in Great Britain and Ireland who have availed themselves of the opportunity of submitting their lists to the War Office for the provision of officers' outfits on cash terms. The reason of this practice on the part of the War Office is that it is attempting to insure moderation in charges. Commanding officers are, however, forbidden to order any young officer to purchase his uniform from any particular tailor.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether Mr. Porter, of the Board of Agriculture, Dublin, was originally employed in the Army or Navy; whether he was in the employment of the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, for how long, and at what salary; how long and at what salary was he in the employment of the Land Commission; and whether Mr. Porter has been employed in any other Government Department in Ireland or England. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Mr. Porter was formerly a sub-lieutenant in the Navy, from which service he retired with a pension of £45 12s. 6d. He has been continuously in the employment of the Irish Government since 24th November 1887, when he was appointed as Lay Assistant Commissioner under the Land Acts. His salary in that position was £800, including subsistence allowance. His qualifications are stated in Parliamentary Paper 177, of 1891. On 21st December 1891, Mr. Porter was appointed to be Superintendent of the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission, at a salary of £1,000, including subsistence allowance. Whilst so employed his services were utilised, from 1892, in connection with the operations of the Congested Districts Board for the improvement of agriculture in the Congested Districts. His salary was borne on the Vote for the Land Commission, which department, at that time, managed the Congested Districts Board's agricultural operations. In 1900, Mr. Porter was transferred to the Department of Agriculture in pursuance of Section 22 (1) of the Act establishing the Department; but he continued to be employed upon the work of the Congested Districts Board up to the 31st March 1904. During the two latter years of such service one-half of Mr. Porter's salary was defrayed by the Congested Districts Board, the remainder being borne by the Department of Agriculture. A reduction from Mr. Porter's salary of the amount of his naval pension has been made throughout his service. I have no information that Mr. Porter was ever employed in any Government Department in England.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the speech made on the 29th January, by Colonel W. T. F. Davies, at the annual dinner of the Imperial Light Horse, in which speech the Prime Minister and his colleagues were spoken of in terms of opprobrium; whether Lord Selborne was present on that occasion; and whether he made any remonstrance at the use of such Ianguage. (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The; Secretary of State has noticed the report of the speech to which the hon. Member refers. It is very natural that persons of excitable character who apprehend that their monetary interests may be prejudicially affected by the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to Chinese labour should express themselves strongly, particularly after dinner. The Secretary of State does not propose to attach undue importance to such I criticism; though it be regretted that Lord Selborne should have been subjected to the annoyance of hearing it offered in his presence.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will grant a Return from the Army Clothing Department depôt ofthe total cost of material issued for any contract to the contractor, and the total amount received by the contractor for the same clothing. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I fear the mischief arising from the publication of the information asked for would probably exceed the good which might result. There is, however, another mode of dealing with the evil which I think the hon. Member has in view. This mode the War Office is about to adopt as the result of a conference held last week with a labour deputation, which approached the War Office and the Admiralty on this and other subjects. If the hon. Member will speak to me privately I will tell him what steps are being taken.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will grant a return from the Army Clothing Department dopôt of clothing made at their factory, and compare cost with that made by contractors. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The full details as to the cost of clothing made in the Royal Army Clothing Factory will be found in the accounts of that establishment which are annually presented to Parliament. The further point raised by this Question falls within the Answer which I have already given to the hon. Member.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he can, in reply to this Question or by the issue of a Parliamentary Paper, state the daily hours and annual periods during which the representative chambers of the United States, of the principal European countries, of Japan, and of our self-governing Colonies meet in session, i.e., the approximate dates in the year when they are usually convened and discharged from their duties, and the hours of the day when such respective bodies ordinarily meet and adjourn; whether he can give similar information in the case of the House of Commons, say from the middle of the eighteenth century up to the present time; and, if it is not practicable to fully furnish this information without undue trouble and delay, will he give such of it as is more readily available to Government officials. (Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman.) The information asked for in the first part of this Question will be found in Parliamentary Paper Cd. 907. With reference to the duration of daily and yearly sittings of the House of Commons, I will see whether a Paper can be laid giving the greater part at least of the information required.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is proposed to re-engage the workmen recently discharged from Government dockyards.

As far as the requirements of the dockyards can be foreseen at present, it is not anticipated that there will be any opportunity to re-enter the workmen recently discharged.

Is it the intention of the Admiralty to discharge any men from the dockyards in March next?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he authorised General Sir Ian Hamilton to publish a book upon the Russo-Japanese War.

The book in question was published before the present Government came into office. I had personally nothing to do with it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of soldiers, if any, now incarcerated in civil prisons undergoing punishment for military offences, and the number of soldiers now undergoing punishment in civil prisons for civil offences; and whether any soldiers are now undergoing punishment in civil prisons whose sentence does not carry with it discharge from the Army.

The number of soldiers in civil prisons for military offences is twenty-one, and for civil offences 252. There are sixty-seven soldiers in civil prisons whose sentence does not carry with it discharge from the Army

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the petition to His Majesty in favour of self-government for Ireland, passed by the Commonwealth of Australia Federal Parliament, has been received; whether it will be printed and circulated for the information of Members of this House; and also whether a Resolution of similar; character has been received from the West Australian Parliament.

An address to the King from the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in favour of granting Home Rule to Ireland, and a Resolution of the Commonwealth Senate to the same effect have been received. The Secretary of State has not received any similar Resolution from the Parliament of Western Australia. I shall be very glad to lay the Resolutions on the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of Kaffir labourers employed in the Transvaal mines at the close of each of the years 1901–2–3–4 respectively and for each of the months of the year 1905 separately, so far as he has the facts.

The number of Kaffir labourers in the Transvaal in employment on last day of each month were as follows:—

Is it not the fact that Kaffir labour was steadily increasing until it was gradually displaced by Chinese labour?

asked for notice of the Question.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether coloured persons in Cape Colony are admitted to the franchise on the same terms as whites, and how many natives, British Indians, and other coloured persons are entitled to exercise the franchise.

The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The number of natives on the list of voters in 1902 was 19,505, of British Indians 399, of Malays 747, and of Chinese 67.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the population in the Transvaal of natives, of British Indians, and of other coloured persons, respectively; whether all these persons pay taxes for the support of the Colony; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to secure representation for these persons in any Constitution that may be granted to the Colony.

The population of aboriginal natives in the Transvaal in April, 1904, was 945, 498: the number of all other coloured persons including British Indians was 23,891. They all pay taxes. In accordance with the terms of surrender, the question of granting the franchise to natives will not be decided until after the introduction of self-government.

asked whether the term "natives" in the Vereeniging Treaty had any relation to British Indians.

I supposed it covered all but Europeans; but I will look into the point.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the reasonable amount of notice required before a Chinese coolie can obtain leave to be repatriated at Government expense.

It is not yet possible to make a statement on this matter. The regulations are being carefully considered.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is expected that the elections in the Transvaal will take place.

The elections in the Transvaal cannot conveniently take place until the form of Constitution, the basis of the franchise and other fundamental questions have been determined, and the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to name a date.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the regulations by which Chinese coolies are kept in compounds are to be rescinded.

It is not at pre sent proposed to rescind the regulations of the first Labour Ordinance by which the Chinese coolies are kept within the premises of the mines. They are not kept in compounds.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any official information showing that, in relation to some disturbances in Natal, the kraals and crops of the natives implicated have been destroyed; and, if so, can he say how many women and children were rendered homeless and foodless by this action.

I have no information, official or other, to this effect.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the conditions of electoral franchise in the Orange River Colony will be the same as those conferred on the Transvaal.

This Question is among those which are now under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and concerning which it is proposed to obtain further information.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the adult male population of the British and Dutch races, respectively, in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.

I am unable to give figures. The census does not make any distinction between races of European origin.

Will you take steps to get the information?

This is among the subjects as to which the Government propose to make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the total value of the gold output for the months of December in each of the years 1901–2–3–4, respectively, and for each of the months of 1905 separately, so far as he has the facts.

The figures are as follows: Value of gold output in Transvaal—

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further authentic information to give about the disaster in Northern Nigeria; and whether any punitive expedition will be necessary.

In telegram, dated February 16th and received at the Colonial Office on the 20th, Sir Frederick Lugard, the High Commissioner, stated that a Mahdi had arisen near Sokoto and had completely defeated one company of (native) mounted infantry on February 14th; and that three British officers, mentioned by name, were reported killed. Of these, two were civilians and one a military officer. One medical officer was severely wounded. A further telegram has now been received from the High Commissioner reporting as follows:—"Further news from Burdon, Sokoto, states no room for hope that either of three British officers living; position of garrison quite safe, awaiting arrival of reinforcements; 150 will arrive about February 28th; local chiefs loyally co-operating in suppression. Disaster due to horses bolting, breaking square. Total native troops reported killed, twenty-five. Position of affairs gives me much less anxiety." So far as Lord Elgin can judge, the circumstances are not such as will necessarily call for a punitive expedition in the ordinary sense, but it will doubtless be necessary to reinforce the troops in the district and to take measures to arrest and punish the promoters of the disturbance. A further telegram has been received to-day from Sir F. Lugard saying that he has heard from Major Burdon that all the white men in or near Sokoto are safe except those already reported killed.

I beg to ask the Secretary- of -State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Physical Deterioration (1904) Committee to the effect that a Bill should be brought before Parliament at an early date, having for its object the prohibition of the sale of tobacco and cigarettes to children below a certain age; and whether he is now in a position to say that this recommendation will be acted upon in the present session.

I am aware of the recommendation in the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee, and I will give the matter my careful consideration; but I am not yet in a position to make any statement as to legislation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will present a Return giving such information as to the operation of the Licensing Act, 1904, during the year 1905 as he is empowered to require from compensation authorities under the seventh section of that Act.

I have in preparation, and hope to issue before very long, a volume of licensing statistics. This will include the information asked for by the hon. Member, among much other material which will, I hope, be found useful.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the fact that neither the preliminary nor the final examination for the office of factory inspector includes, as obligatory subjects, hygiene, chemistry, machine construction and drawing, applied mechanics, steam, and electricity; and whether, in the interest of efficient factory inspection, he can give any promise that the present form of the examinations referred to shall be revised.

The present scheme of examination for factory inspectorships is the result of a recent revision, the object of which was to bring it more into accord with the ascertained needs of the Factory Department. Those needs are so diverse in their character that technical and scientific training, valuable as it is, is not, taken alone, found to be sufficient to make a good inspector. Thoroughly good general abilities are always required, and the object of the present scheme of examination has been to obtain such men, by drawing upon as wide a field as possible of candidates with the best modern education which the country affords. The hon. Member will not have failed to notice that candidates of technical and scientific attainments are provided with an entry to the inspectorate by the inclusion of chemistry, physics and practical mechanism among the optional subjects of examination, while sanitary science is made an obligatory subject in the deferred examination; the reason being that this subject is found to be most thoroughly acquired in the course of the actual work of inspection. The highly technical questions connected with the use of electricity in factories are now dealt with by an electrical inspector specially appointed for that purpose. I do not therefore think that any further alteration in this examination is required, but should experience of its results show that modifications are necessary, I shall be prepared to make them.

Is it not a fact that, according to definition, factories are places where power is used, and should not, therefore, a candidate for examination have the requisite knowledge of power?

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to use the January syllabus for the next examination?

I think it will be used. In the last two or three days I have been asked to give a definite and final opinion on this matter. As, however, the question has been under consideration for fifteen months I am not prepared to give a final answer after fifteen days consideration of the subject. I will see how the system works and then form my own opinion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the police of the West Hiding of Yorkshire are making a charge of one shilling daily for the storage of passive resistors' goods; under what authority they make such a charge; will he give directions for the return of the charges thus made; whether they have his sanction as being in accordance with the scale of charges fixed by the Act, 57 Geo. 3., cap. 93.

On the 11th January, 1905, a table of fees payable to constables of the West Riding of Yorkshire, containing a fee of one shilling per day for keeping possession of goods under distraint, was submitted by the Standing Joint Committee and approved by the Secretary of State acting under the powers given to him by section 23 of the Police Act, 1890. A legal question has since been raised, namely, whether the scale of charges fixed by the Distress (Costs) Act, 1817, (57 Geo. III., cap. 93), as extended by the Distress (Costs) Act, 1826, (7 and 8 Geo. IV., cap. 17) applies in certain cases to the exclusion of the fees approved under the Police Act, 1890. This question can only be determined by the courts of law, and I have no power to decide it or to give any directions of the nature suggested. I understand that the question has actually come before a county court, and that there is to be an appeal to the High Court.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the representatives of the public Press are admitted to attend the proceedings of the Alien Immigration Boards; and, if not, whether he will take steps to assure such admission if desired.

I believe that in most cases, if not in all, the representatives of the public Press have not been admitted to attend the proceedings of the Immigration Boards. This is a matter which, with other points of procedure as settled by my predecessor, has been left by the regulations to the discretion of the Boards. It is engaging my attention.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that two labourers living at Wrangley, in Lincolnshire, named Harry Blythe and Charles Blythe, have been committed to prison for twenty-one days, for failing to obey the order of the guardians of the Boston Union, each to contribute 1s. a week to the guardians for the maintenance of their parent, and to obey the order of the magistrates to pay 2s. 6d. a week each for arrears; and whether, seeing that three out of the five magistrates of the North Holland Bench sitting at Boston, who made the order to commit, were Members of the Board of Guardians that prosecuted the case, he proposes, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent magistrates adjudicating in cases in which they are so interested.

I have made inquiry in the case and am informed that of the magistrates who issued the committal orders two were guardians. There appears to have been sufficient evidence that the defendants, neither of whom was married, were in a position to pay the monies due from them in respect of their mother's maintenance. The two guardians who adjudicated in the case appear not to have been more interested than any other ratepayers would be in recovering the debt due to the common fund of the Union; and the facts at present before me do not suggest the desirability of any new legislation on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether certain members of the staff of the Local Government Board devote their whole time to the administration of the Housing Acts, or whether the administration of the Housing Acts is carried out by members of the staff to whom is allocated other work connected with the Local Government Board.

The work devolving on the Local Government Board under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts is, together with other sanitary business, dealt with in the Sanitary Administration Department of the Office. No members of the staff of the Board are required to devote their whole time to this work.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of arranging an annual official audit of the manner, and securities, in which the capital funds of British insurance companies are, invested; whether he will also enquire; into the expediency of establishing a Government guaranteed insurance company enabling a moderate system of premiums for fire, life and accident upon the lines of an institution carried on by the responsible Government in the New Zealand Colony.

I fear I am not at the moment in a position to advise the adoption of either of the very far-reaching proposals suggested by my hon. friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point in the immediate future, seeing that this plan has been adopted in New Zealand?

There is a good deal to be said for the first Question. I will consider it carefully.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he proposes to introduce the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act.

I am still in communication with representatives of the shipping interest on one or two points I wish to elicit their views on, before the draft is finally settled, but I hope to be able to introduce the Bill in the course of the next few days.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will accelerate the mails to and from Cleator Moor, Egremont, Frizington, and other places in that neighbourhood, to enable the population in that district to receive their letters and communications before nine and ten o'clock each morning.

Some inquiry has recently been made on this subject, but it was found that certain proposals made by the District Councils concerned were impracticable. I am, however, considering whether the object in view can be attained in any other way.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a decision has been arrived at in the matter of the new plans for building national schools in Ireland; and, if so, whether he can say when the details of these plans will be published.

The matter is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what progress has been made by the Departmental Committee on epizootic abortion in cattle; whether any interim Report will be issued; and whether any systematic inquiries have been made to ascertain the prevalence of the disease at the present time and during, say, the past ten years.

The Committee have obtained the use of suitable laboratory accommodation in the neighbourhood of London, where scientific experiments are being carried out with the object of determining whether epizootic abortion is contagious, and, if so, the nature of the contagion, and the manner in which the disease spreads. It is not proposed to issue an interim Report. No systematic inquiries as to the prevalence of the disease have yet been made, but there is no doubt that it is the cause of very considerable loss to stockowners, and that, outbreaks are of frequent occurrence.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that application has been previously made to the Congested Districts Board for assistance in the construction of a road from Cahersavane to Clooghvoola, in the rural district of Caherciveen; and whether, seeing that its construction is urgently required, the Congested Districts Board will now undertake it.

In October last the Board postponed the consideration of the application referred to until some members of the Board should inspect the route. No opportunity for such inspection has since occurred, but the first convenient occasion will be taken.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the next Sitting of the head Land Commission will be held in County Clare.

The date has not yet been arranged, but the matter will come up for consideration by the Judicial Commissioner concerned on his return from circuit.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many districts in Ireland cases have been listed for five years before being heard?

I am not aware of that fact.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of placards, giving notice of a lecture about to be recently given in Dungannon Club, Carrickmore, were repeatedly torn down or defaced by the local constabulary force; (2) whether instructions were forwarded from Dublin Castle to have this done; (3) whether the constabulary were further instructed to send to Dublin Castle the name of any person whom they could identify as having posted the placards; (4) and whether he will arrange that the right of free discussion will be preserved in Ireland.

The local police, acting on their own responsibility, took down several of the placards referred to in the vicinity of Carrickmore. The reply to the second and third inquiries is in the negative. I trust that the right of free discussion in Ireland will be preserved.

I beg to ask the chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Thompson (Clonfin) Estate, in North Longford, there are 600 acres of untenanted demesne lands at present let in grazing to surrounding occupiers; whether he is aware that this estate is insolvent and in the hands of the mortgagees, the Scottish Provident Assurance Company; and whether, as untenanted land for the settlement of evicted tenants in county Longford is scarce, he will direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the desirability of acquiring this estate for the benefit of evicted tenants in county Longford.

No application or request in respect of the sale of this estate has been made to the Estates Commissioners, and they have no information on the subject. They inform me, however, that they will communicate with the owners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Congested Districts Board have purchased an estate from Dr. Kenny of Longford, county Galway; if so, a what date, and when may the tenants o small holdings in the neighbourhood expect that it shall be divided amongst them.

The Congested Districts Board's offer for the purchase of Dr. Comyn Kenny's estate at Longford, count) Galway, was accepted on 11th August 1904, but the property has not yet been vested in the Board. Until that is done the lands cannot be resold to the tenants. The matter is being expedited as much as possible. Asked by Mr. FIELD as to the reason for the great delay in re-selling to the tenants, Mr. BRYCE replied that the work of the Congested Districts Board was very heavy and that might account for it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Armagh Urban Council refused permission for a monument to be erected in Armagh to the memory of the Royal Irish Fusiliers who were killed during the late South African war; whether he is also aware that a force of police was drafted into Armagh to protect certain persons in erecting and unveiling a monument to the memory of a man called Carbery, who was killed when fighting with the Boers against British troops; and will he say what was the cost to the ratepayers for the extra police, and what action, if any, does he propose taking in the matter.

On the 5th instant, the Armagh Urban District Council refused to grant a site opposite to the Court House for the purpose mentioned in the first part of the Question. On the 8th June, 1902, an extra force of 102 police was drafted into Armagh for the preservation of the peace in connection with the unveiling, in a cemetery, of a memorial to the person mentioned in the second part of the Question. The cost of the extra police, which fell on local rates, was £20 12s. 2d. The Local Government Board have no power to interfere with the discretion of the district council as to granting a site.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police have received information of an attack made upon the house of a man named Kearney at Ballinderreen, near Gort, in the Athenry district, on the night of the 19th instant, or of the fact that six shots were fixed into the man's bedroom; and will he say whether Kearney grazes a farm from which the former tenant was evicted, and have the police any clue to the perpetrators of the outrage.

The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. Mr. Kearney is the occupier of a small grazing farm, but it is not an evicted farm. Three men have been arrested and remanded in connection with the offence.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Inspector-General, Royal Irish Constabularly, has received an application from the clergyman of Desertmartin, county Derry, asking for additional police to protect the lives and the property of the people of the district; whether he is aware that during the past three months the houses of Catholics have been wrecked, shots fired through windows, and hayricks levelled to the ground, and that two men, named McKenna and McGeehan, are now lying dangerously ill, the result of being waylaid and beaten on the road; and if steps will be taken to protect the lives and property of the people in this district.

The Inspector-General received the application referred to on the 20th instant, and he is carefully considering what steps may be necessary for the preservation of the peace in this district, either in the way of strengthening the police force at neighbouring stations or forming a temporary post at Desertmartin. It is a fact that some offences such as are mentioned in the Question have recently been committed, and four men are at present awaiting trial for seriously assaulting the men McKenna and McGeehan. I think it better to make no statement on this latter case while proceedings are sub judice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have sanctioned the works in connection with the Ballinacurra sewer at Limerick; and, if so, will he use his influence with the Board of Works to have the loan advanced with as little delay as possible, so that this work may be carried out.

On the 16th instant, the Local Government Board gave their sanction to the Limerick No. 1 Rural District Council for a loan of £1,500 for the purpose mentioned. It is open to the council to contract for this loan in the open market or to apply to the Board of Works for it. I am informed by the latter Board that they have not received an application for this particular loan, but that in the case of another loan applied for by the same council they have found it necessary to point out that, owing to the repeated failure of the council to fulfil their undertakings on existing loans, the Board of Works will be precluded from making further loans unless they receive reliable assurance of punctuality in future payments.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the names of the Bills he proposes to introduce this session.

I am not at present in a position to state what Bills I may be able to introduce this Session.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are to be the instalments of the "larger policy"?

I suppose the hon. Member refers to the instalments connected with land purchase. I can say no more at present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if further grants of money will be proposed to facilitate the operation of the Land Purchase Acts.

There is, and will be, a willingness on the part of His Majesty's Government to provide such further sums of money as may be from time to time needed to facilitate the operation of the Land Purchase Act.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any probability of the Report of the Royal Commission on Church Discipline being received within the next month, so as to be in the hands of Members prior to the discussion on the Church Discipline Bill.

I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Prime Minister last week to a similar question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to give the House any information regarding the promised Royal Commission on Canals, and particularly whether he can state its constitution and terms of reference.

This business is in a forward state, and the Prime Minister hopes very shortly to make the necessary arrangements for taking His Majesty's pleasure thereon.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will make a statement as to the proposed alterations in the Procedure Rules.

My best answer is to say that I propose to-morrow, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to move for a Select Committee to be appointed to consider the question of procedure in the House of Commons, and to report as to the Amendment of existing rules and any new rules which may be considered desirable for the efficient despatch of business.

Will the Committee have the power to inquire into the period of the session?

That is the intention.

thought the Department ought to give an explanation why there was this increase of £130. It was in his opinion necessary to study economy, and he did not therefore think he need make any apology for drawing attention even to this small increase. He wished to know why it was that the original provision had not proved sufficient.

said the excess was due to the appointment of a second Assistant Registrar, rendered necessary by the great increase in the amount of work. The actual salary was £600 a year, rising by annual instalments of £25 to £700. He thought his hon. friend might rest assured that no extravagant expenditure would be incurred.

said he desired to give the Financial Secretary an opportunity of giving the Committee any information he might have with regard to the work of the War Stores Commission and the prospect of the presentation of a Report. It was appointed by the late Government to investigate into and report as to allegations made by the Committee presided over by Sir William Butler; and it was also entrusted to inquire as to the responsibility of persons concerned in the waste of stores in South Africa. He understood that the Commission had appointed some representative of its number to go to South Africa to take evidence, but up to the present time they had not had anything in the nature of an interim Report. He wished to know whether any such Report had been presented. The right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, some information to justify the arrest a short time ago of a number of non-commissioned officers, but he should be glad to know what further action the Government proposed to take in the matter. The Commission dealt with a public scandal, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure them that the matter was present in the mind of the Government, and that a Report would be soon presented. He had another question to ask. He understood the Motor Car Commission had concluded taking evidence, and he wished to ask whether they could have any information as to whether a Report would be presented. Another very interesting Commission was the Local Government Board Redistribution Commission, appointed by the late Government, without any authority from the House, with a view to obtaining advice as to a Redistribution Bill to be presented. At the time their conduct was very much criticised, and it was generally recognised to be a political expedient and nothing else. He therefore thought they were entitled to ask how the money had been spent and whether the Commission was still in existence.

said the Motor Car Commission had completed its labours and the Report was in course of preparation. The Redistribution Commission had also concluded its labours, but he thought the subject of its investigations was of a confidential nature, and he could not give that fuller information which hon. Members would like.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the Members of the Commission, whether they are going to Report, and what they have done with the £1,200?

I do not know their names; I have not seen their Report; I understand the last Government have dissolved them; and I would suggest that there the matter should rest.

said that in his opinion it was infamous to demand that the public should be asked to pay for this device for prolonging the late Administration. In the very last stages of the existence of the late Government they were looking about for some pretext for living a few minutes longer, and one of the devices hit upon was to start the question of redistribution, with special reference to the Irish representation. The whole object was to cut down the representation of Ireland and not to reform the system in either England or Scotland; and was it reasonable that the public should have to pay for the designs of a mere political club organised in the Conservative interest? It was a most extraordinary thing that the President of the Local Government Board should not know anything about the Commission. He could understand documents relating to foreign affairs being kept private, though they were always made known to successive Ministries, but by what right had the late Government withheld the documents of this Commission from the present President of Local Government Board, and how was it that he regarded them as deserving of being treated as confidential? He did not object to the late or any Government keeping private their documents if they did not ask the public to pay for them, but to compel the country to pay for a partisan document seemed to him to be the most impudent thing he had known since he entered the House twenty years ago, and, as far as he was concerned, he had no intention of allowing the documents to remain private, so long as the demand was made that they should be paid for by the public purse. If Mr. Balfour would arrange with the right hon. Gentleman to pay for this out of the funds of the Carlton Club, he would raise no further objection. He might then keep the documents for they would interest him no more, but they would interest him very much if he found the demand that they should be paid for out of the public purse was persisted in.

said he thought the House was entitled to some further information from the President of the Local Government Board. Why was this called a private document? The appointment of the Commission was announced in the House, and the names of its Members were read out by a Minister, one of them being an officer of the Local Government Board, who gave his public time for the preparation of the Commission's Report. He could not understand the ground on which they were told that the document was a private one, that they had nothing to do with it, and that they were not to see it. There was at least one if not two officers of the Local Government Board on the Commission, and it could not surely be fairly argued that the House was to have no knowledge of the Report.

said that what they ought to know was who had had the money and how much they had each had; and, if the right hon. Gentleman could not that day give them the information, he thought they should postpone the matter. The transaction must be known to somebody in the Local Government Board, and they ought not to pass it over without receiving the fullest information, especially as they were told that it was a mere electioneering dodge. If anyone could prove that it was not, they would have the opportunity, but no one had risen yet on the Opposition Benches. He had no doubt that they were ashamed of the expenditure themselves. They had now a Liberal Government in power, pledged to economy, and he consequently hoped that they would have the fullest information on the matter, otherwise he should feel obliged to vote against the Estimate altogether.

said there was one point which had not been cleared up by the President of the Local Government Board. Had the Commission completed the work for which it was appointed, and had any member of the Government a complete Report as to the work? They wanted to know whether the country had got anything at all for the £1,200 they were now asked to vote. There might be schemes of redistribution hereafter. Would the findings of this Commission be of any further value? Would they be any contribution to any such scheme?

said it seemed to him that they would be creating a rather dangerous precedent, if they voted money spent by somebody, they did not know who, and spent in some way, they did not know how. He considered the only way was to move that the Vote should be reduced by £1,200.

said he understood the matter did not come in the cognizance of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he was not in any way responsible for it. He did not think they could blame the Government at all, but this was the only opportunity they had of protesting against public money being spent in this fashion. The Commission originated in the failure of the late Government to pass certain Resolutions brought before Parliament, and it was appointed to give an indication to the public that they really meant business with regard to redistribution. It was evident that the late Government meant nothing by it; it was a Party expedient, and it was the duty of the Committee to protest against it. It was true that Mr. Gerald Balfour was nominally responsible for the matter, but he could not help expressing his surprise that no Member of the Front Opposition Bench had thought it his duty to say a single word on behalf of the late Government. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer must have some explanation as to how it came about that the expenditure was authorised. He would like to know the reasons which induced him to give his authority. Did he really believe the Commission was appointed in the public interest? The appointment of the Commission was an attempt to get round the House of Commons, and the matter was of importance from the point of view of precedent. How far was the Government going to be justified in spending public money without the authority of the House? This Commission was appointed to deal with a matter which was never accepted by the House. All that the House knew about it was that the late Prime Minister brought forward a series of resolutions before he had taken the trouble to study the procedure. The Commission was therefore an investigating Commission, just as if they had appointed a Commission of the Carlton Club; it was a mere fishing Commission appointed to gather sufficient information to justify the then Government in bringing in a Bill the next year. If they did not protest, where was the matter to stop? Would the Government be justified in appointing twenty Committees and in spending thousands of pounds without the authority of the House? He could imagine the protest that would come from the opposite side of the House if twenty Committees were appointed in connection with the Bills promised by the present Government. He thought the Members of the late Government, if they were not disposed to defend their own action in the matter, might give them the advantage of the information they had obtained. They were told that the papers were private, but why were they private? Perhaps the facts were against their own case, and that it was owing to that that the Report was to be kept secret. He would, however, appeal to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he had not some information to give them with regard to the matter.

asked if it was not time that such questions as those relating to the redistribution of seats should be referred, not to a partisan Committee, but to some judicial Committee, representing all interests. There was a principle involved in the matter, and if they considered the question impartially and brought out a Report not partisan at all they would be taking a step forward. Then there was the question of spending money without the approval of the House. In extreme cases they might be inclined to excuse that sort of thing, but he did not see that this was an extreme case. He could understand also that if they were dealing with some great international question secrecy might be of vital importance in the public interest, but this was entirely a civil or domestic matter, and they ought to be placed in full possession of all the information.

said he had a great deal of sympathy with the principles enunciated by the hon. Member who had just sat down, though he differed from him in the belief he had that they applied to the facts of the present case. The Commission could not be described as a partisan Commission, for it was composed, he believed, entirely of officials.

There were two officials.

said that at any rate two members of the Commission were excluded by their public service from being active partisans.

The third gentleman is known to be an authority on local government.

continuing, said that it would also be found, when the name of the third gentleman was mentioned, that his appointment was not of a partisan character. Therefore, although he agreed that it would be not merely wrong, but something of a scandal if they appointed a partisan Commission when they sought information on which to found legislation, he absolutely denied, and he was sure he would be supported by Gentlemen opposite who knew the facts, that the Commission appointed was partisan. If the hon. Gentleman opposite objected to the appointment of Departmental Committees, he must use his influence with the present Government to alter their ways, for, although they had been in office only a few months, they had announced an unusual number of Commissions and Committees, the expense of which the House would be asked to authorise.

We shall get the Reports.

It does not follow that the money will be spent first.

said that as far as the Government could tell, the House was committed to the expenditure before it was asked for its sanction. He did not complain, but the hon. Gentleman opposite below the gangway, if he wished the principles he had named to be followed, must exert very active influence on the Government. The first principle the hon. Gentleman had laid down was, he understood, that when a Commission had concluded its work, the information should be made available for the House, unless the public interest necessitated its being withheld. It was a fact that every Government and every Department had from time to time to appoint Departmental Committees, and in some cases their Reports were necessarily of a highly confidential character, and could not be published without injury to the public interest, and without, in fact, making it impossible to conduct similar inquiries successfully in future; but the Commission they were considering was not a Commission of that kind. It was a mistake to say that the House of Commons refused to pass the Resolutions submitted by the late Government. The Speaker ruled that it would be necessary to break them up into such a great number of propositions that it was impossible to proceed with the matter in the then state of business, and the Government accordingly appointed the Commission, not for a partisan purpose, but for the sake of gaining information which it was necessary to have if the seats in the House were to be redistributed more in accordance with the claims of population in the country. They appointed the Commission to ascertain the facts upon which they could subsequently ask the House to act, and if they had retained office they would of course have asked the House to act upon the Report, and would have supplied the information upon which their Bill was framed to the House. The responsibility had now passed from them, and it was no longer for them to say whether the information should be forthcoming or not. He had felt it his duty to explain that they had acted not only in consonance with an unbroken line of precedents, but in accordance with the common dictates of common sense.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Commission completed its work or whether its work was broken off in the middle?

That is a question which ought to be addressed to the President of the Local Government Board.

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman had entirely misunderstood the force of what had been said on the Ministerial side of the House. They did not say that this was a partisan Commission so far as the individual members of it were concerned, but that it was appointed for partisan purposes, that it was in fact done to save the faces of the Ministers then in office. They did not dare face the House of Commons with their Resolutions, and they therefore held a meeting at the Carlton Club and decided to withdraw them. Then behind the scenes they appointed a Commission. What he wanted to ask the President of the Local Government Board was whether he would suggest that the £1,200 ought to be levied on the right hon. Gentlemen opposite instead of asking the House to vote the money.

asked if there was not a precedent against the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Surely he was right in saying that on a previous occasion a Commission or Committee was appointed to inquire into redistribution proposals by a Liberal Government and that, although they went out of office before the labours of that Committee were completed, they left those labours, in view of the fact that they were performed in the public interest, to their successors. If that was so, it was a very strong precedent. He urged that when public servants were appointed to do public work their Report should be brought before the House, except when it was against the public interest that that course should be taken.

thought that Irish Members should protest against this waste of public money. It was not necessary to raise the charge that this was a partisan Committee, but he said that the action of the late Government was of a partisan character. There was no question of urgency and no demand from Parliament, or any considerable section of Members, for the step. The whole thing was sprung upon the House at the fag end of a session without notice. It was part of the selfish and woeful mismanagement of the House that a Resolution on this subject should be brought forward which resolved itself into twelve or thirteen motions. He supposed that the money having been spent, all they could do was to register their protest, but if there were any practical means of securing it he would say that the members of the late Government who appointed this Commission without the assent of this House should be called upon to pay the money. This was a warning that Ministers should look before they leaped. The whole scheme was hastily and ill-considered and upon a partisan basis. It reflected no credit upon His Majesty's late Government.

said the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had not told them what they wanted to know, and that was, who got the money.

I have no access at the present time to the official records. Perhaps those who have access to those records can answer the Question.

said the money was paid by the late Government, and surely they had got receipts for it. He thought this was an illustration of the careless way in which the affairs of the country had been administered by the late Government, under whom the expanses had increased by £50,000,000 per annum. What they wanted to know from the President of the Local Government Board, or some other official, was who had this money. These permanent officials were enjoying a handsome salary, but they appeared in addition to have got this money. The Committee were entitled to know how every penny of the public money had been spent.

considered that there was a much more important question to consider than where the money had gone to, and that was where the Report was to be found. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he knew nothing about its contents, but if it was not in the office of the Local Government Board, where was it? Had it been taken away by some of the late Ministers and was it now to be found in one of their houses or in one of the clubs they frequented; or was it in the possession of the hon. Gentleman who ought to have it, the hon. Member for Waterford?

said it was perfectly obvious that from time to time Governments must change, and that there were a good many matters of legislation which required to be looked into and upon which the different Departments of the Executive were bound to collect evidence and make inquiries. He desired to point out to the House how exceedingly inconvenient it would be if, whenever a change of Government happened, it were possible for the new Government to propose to leave hon. Members who had been acting upon a Committee of this kind in the position that their expenses would not be paid. This was a storm in a tea cup, and an attempt to cast discredit, upon the late Government for matters in which they were acting strictly within their rights. The desire seemed to be to call into question expenses incurred in a perfectly regular manner. Hon. Members had asked where was the Report, but it was conceivable that there was no Report, and their demands, therefore, were perfectly futile. It was perfectly obvious that there was no use in cross-examining the President of the Local Government Board as to where the Report was, becaus he said he knew nothing about it. The discussion, therefore, seemed to him to be altogether absurd.

explained that whatever money was disbursed in connection with the investigations of this Committee, hon. Members could rely upon it that it had been properly paid by the Local Government Board. It would be a mistake to imply that anybody had anything to do with the expenditure in the way suggested. This Committee was appointed by the last Government, and the present Government was in no sense responsible for it. The Committee was appointed, presumably in the public interest, for a definite public object, to deal with the question of whether or not there should be a redistribution scheme. Of its scope he knew nothing, and that also applied to its object, although they might have their suspicions. As to its conclusions, he was a child in these things, and he knew nothing about them, and he could not tell whether the Report was at the Local Government Board or not. He had been otherwise and better engaged than in searching through the archives of his office to find out what the late Government had done in regard to redistribution, and he had not seen the Report. He believed the Committee sat and did some work, and reported in some way, though he knew not what way. The expenses they incurred were the amount included in the supplementary Estimate now submitted. If hon. Gentlemen thought that by postponing this question they would be able further to elucidate the questions which had been addressed to him, he should be pleased to comply with their request, but so far as he was concerned, and until he was released from what seemed to be his duty as President of the Local Government Board that afternoon, he construed that the document was confidential, and it seemed to him that it would be unjust to his predecessors, unless the Department was released from the confidence attaching to the document, to publish it. To publish it would be unfairand unbecoming, but in the event of the late Prime Minister's being returned that day for the City of London, and questions being put to him on the subject—he could not conceive that the right hon. Gentleman could have anything to hide in the matter—if the right hon. Gentleman was willing to assent to the publication of the document "Barkis is willing," and he was ready to assent to its production. He had nothing to add to what he had said to the effect that this document must be regarded as confidential, and pending further inquiries, he might ask to be allowed to adhere to the terms of the answer he made yesterday.

thought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had made a very fair proposal, namely, that until the late Prime Minister returned to the House he should not be released from what he considered his obligation of honour towards his predecessors. He was sure that everyone would respect and sympathise with the feelings which led the right hon. Gentleman to adopt that view, although with great respect he took a somewhat different view from him in regard to this matter. He knew nothing more than the right hon. Gentleman about the Report. He did not know what it contained, nor did he know if the Report was a concluded one. The suggestion, however, that the Report was to be of a partisan character was one, however, which must be repudiated at once. It was a Report asked for by the Department, not in a partisan sense, but in order to obtain information which was necessary, if redistribution proceedings were to be continued, and the suggestion that it was partisan in any way must fall upon the gentlemen composing; the Committee. He could say of the Local Government Board that there was no Department in the country to which one could go with such confidence to get not an ex parte, but an independent statement. Therefore he was convinced that there could be no reason whatever why, if there was a Report, it should not be made public. He gathered that the President of the Local Government Board had been occupied in very important duties and had not had time to ascertain whether this Report was in the Department or not. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should make inquiries in the Department. He would find whether the Report was there, and it was in his own discretion and that of nobody else to decide whether that Report was to be made public. There were many Reports prepared in our public Departments which, in the public interest, could not be published, but he did not know whether that consideration applied to this case or not. He was quite sure that Mr. Balfour was not desirous of any secrecy whatever in the matter.

said the valuable suggestion had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the Committee should postpone the further inquiry into this Estimate. He hoped it was not proposed to postpone it for an indefinite period. It might well be postponed until the President of the Local Government Board had found out whether the document was supposititious or whether, if it was in existence, the right hon. Gentleman could see if it was to the advantage of those by whom the Commission was appointed or those who sat upon the Ministerial side of the House. The question for the Committee was what was the object for which this £1,200 was paid. It was a mere flea-bite to the last Government, but in the present Government they were all financial reformers, and they desired to check all these extravagances; and unless they commenced with these little items of £1,200 here and £3,000 there, presented on this Estimate, they would never accomplish that financial retrenchment to which they were all pledged. Another point was that there were two gentlemen put on this Committee who were public servants, and were earning salaries in other directions. If some one on the Treasury Bench who was responsible for the conduct of the Government would look into all the payments the Committee were now asked to consider, they would see that all the people put into these Commissions were public servants. It had become almost a scandal that public servants should be withdrawn from the ordinary business of their departments and put on Committees or Commissions and made the arbiters upon questions which were closely connected with the duties which they themselves were called upon day by day to discharge. It appeared to him that the whole of the expenditure of the State was controlled by persons whose business was not to decrease the expenditure but to take charge of the services of the State themselves.

said he did not believe for one moment that any hon. Member of the Committee would suggest that he had received any of this money, in spite of what his hon. friend had said, and so far as the Report was concerned he would very much like to see it himself if it existed. The late Government originally intended to proceed by way of Bill for redistribution, but they ultimately decided to proceed by Resolution. That Resolution was brought forward in the form of an en bloc Resolution, but it was found that it could not be put en bloc and it was abandoned, because there was no time to discuss it. In justice to an absent Member it was due to Mr. Gerald Balfour that he should recall to the memory of the Committee the fact that that right hon. Gentleman stated several times that the course the late Government proposed to take was to appoint a Committee of three, of whom two were members of the Local Government Board staff and the third an eminent King's Counsel. Mr. Gerald Balfour stated distinctly that the result of the inquiries of those gentlemen would be confidential to the Government, and that on the information the then Government would be able to modify or mature the Resolution before the House into a Bill, and that then they intended to appoint Boundary Commissioners whose Report would be public property and would be brought before the House. In his recollection the propriety of the Government's course was not contested, and it was only fair that the course pursued by the Government of the day should be at the public expense

said that what the Committee were now asked to do was to pay £1,200 for a Report which no one knew anything about, or whether it was in existence. In his opinion the only way to deal with this item was to postpone further inquiry till the Report stage, and if it were then found that there was no such document in existence, he for one would refuse to pass it. The point put forward, that this document was confidential, was not sound. It would have been if this had been a departmental Committee, but inasmuch as this was not a departmental Committee it could not be said that its Report was confidential.

said the suggestion made by the hon. Member was a reasonable one. There was an obvious desire in some quarters of the House to know more of this Report if it existed, and a desire upon the part of those who sat on the front Opposition bench for further investigation, and therefore, if the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion to reduce the Vote, he would agree to postpone its consideration.

said that as he had not yet moved his reduction he had nothing to withdraw. When the Vote came up for Report he hoped and believed they would have an opportunity given for its discussion. He had asked another question which he thought the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be able to answer with regard to the War Stores Commission.

said that Mr. Justice Farwell had unfortunately been ill, and, in consequence, certain delay had taken place in issuing the Report. He was expecting that the Commission would finally report about the end of March, but it might be delayed a little beyond that time. Their investigation in South Africa had been undertaken by a barrister, Mr. Reeve, who had, he believed, executed his work with extreme skill and energy, and certain arrests had been made in consequence. There had been, however, no official communication yet received upon this or as to whether the trials of the persons charged had taken place.

said he had gathered that a large number of people had been prosecuted, and he would like to know whether in each case the individual who was responsible for giving or conveying bribes was also going to be prosecuted, because it seemed to him that that person was very much more guilty than the poor non-commissioned officer who might have received a bribe.

said he could only repeat that no Report had yet been isssued by the Commission.

said the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that various arrests had been made.

No; I understand so.

Then he cannot say whether they have been in this country?

They have not been in this country.

said he understood certain officers were placed under arrest in this country. Could the Financial Secretary of the Treasury find out who they were and whether arrests were still being made, and, if so, whether any decision had been arrived at?

said he had been informed that there had been certain soldiers suspended, but he did not understand that any soldier had been placed under arrest.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give fuller information on the Report stage?

said he could not promise that, because the Commission was a statutory one, and there was no authority for asking them for information on the subject.

called attention to the item of £100 for travelling expenses for the London Locomotion Commission. Were they expected to believe that the expenses were exactly that sum? It was time that with regard to a number of those items the House should have some information as to the basis on which they were framed.

thought the hon. Member would agree that it would be very undesirable to introduce a supplementary Estimate, say for £60 or £70, which might not be certain to cover the amount, which was, however, not very arge. It referred to a considerable number of people, and although each item might be small the total was roughly put at £100. Of course, if the money were not spent it would be surrendered at the end of the year and would go to the reduction of the National Debt.

said, regarding the total cost of the London Locomotion Commission, that the £1,700 was, of course, in addition to the large sum of money previously voted. What had been the total expenses of the Commission? Who comprised the Advisory Committee, the fees and expenses of which on the supplementary Estimate amounted to £850. These Commissions of Inquiry, especially Royal Commissions, were very expensive, and it would be advisable, if they were to economise public money, that more details should be furnished as to how the money was expended.

said the Advisory Committee was appointed early in 1904. A provision was made in the Estimates of last year of £10,000 for the expenses of the Board, but the whole of that was not expended. This £850 was a re-vote of the sum not expnded last year which was carried to the Sinking Fund. As regarded the total cost of the Commission he would give the figures later on.

asked what was the Feeble-Minded Commission referred to in the Estimate. How had the sum of £3,450 against it been expanded.

said that the expenses covered the investigations of doctors receiving £3 3s. a day for a day's work of eight hours.

said he observed an item of £1,200 for the Poor Law Commission, but there was not the slightest explanation of what it was for. The supplementary Estimate also showed that the total original Estimate for temporary Commissions was £32,804, and a further sum was now required of £36,000. It was an example of how the money of the country was spent, and how to a very large extent it was wasted.

hoped his hon. friend would understand that these Estimates were prepared by the late Government and the information for which he asked was to a certain extent not in the hands of the present Government. The policy of the appointment of these Commissions would be better explained by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Poor Law Commission was appointed List year, and the Chairman was Lord George Hamilton.

asked if any fresh appointments had been made to the Feeble-Minded Commission since the present Government came into office.

said a number of requests had been communicated to the Government to enlarge the scope and personnel of the Commission, and these requisitions had been considered by the Government. The additional names had not yet been decided upon.

Has any fresh appointment on the Commission been made since the present Government came into office?

Not definitely.

said that there was an extraordinary note at the bottom of this Estimate which stated that—

"The expenditure out of this Grant-in-Aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor - General. Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended on the 31st March, 1906, will not be liable to surrender on that date."