To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the desirability of framing new regulations for the position of inspector under the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, with a view to examinations by open competition in the future instead of the heretofore limited competitions governed by religious tests. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Appointments to inspectorships of national schools in Ireland rest with the Commissioners of National Education, who inform me that, under the system which has hitherto prevailed, inspectors have been appointed by limited competition amongst candidates nominated by the Commissioners, half of the staff consisting of Roman Catholics. Examinations for inspectorships have, however, been suspended for some years past, and the Commissioners have not yet made regulations for filling future vacancies beyond providing that teachers of exceptional ability and qualifications are eligible for appointment as sub-inspectors.

To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that many of the residents round Regent's Park are adverse to the substitution of an iron spiked fence in place of the present one of oak timber, as being likely to destroy the present rural character of the park; and whether he will stop the work now in progress and allow the timber fence to remain as it is at present. (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I am aware that many of the residents round Regent's Park object to the substitution of an iron fence for the oak one. I regret that I am unable to stop the work arid allow the timber fence to remain, because it is in a state of decay and past, repair.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Portuguese authorities for South-east Africa have declined to give the same facilities for recruiting native labour in their territories to the Robinson group of mines as are given to the Native Labour Association; and, if so, what stops His Majesty's Government are taking in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Unexpected delays of a renewed and protracted character have arisen in the settlement of this matter. But His Majesty's Government is now communicating directly with the Portuguese Government with a view to securing for the Robinson group of mines the necessary facilities.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have yet decided upon the form of constitution to be granted to the Orange River Colony, and when the nature of it will be made public. (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The various important questions connected with the granting of a constitution to the Orange River Colony are now being considered in the light of the Report of the Ridgeway Committee which has lately been submitted to His Majesty's Government. No definite statement can be made as to the date of any declaration of policy, but Lord Elgin is not without hopes that this may take place before Parliament separates for the Christmas holiday.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an inquiry has been held by the Transvaal Government into the allegations of immorality practised among the Chinese coolies in the gold mines; and, if so, when the results of that inquiry will be laid before tin House. (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) A confidential inquiry has been held by the Transvaal Government. The Report has reached this country within the last few days, and the Secretary of State has not yet been able to give it the consideration it requires; and I am not able to say at present whether he will determine to lay it before the House.

To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the projected sale of Giastonbury Abbey; an whether he can give the House an assurance that the question will be considered by his Department. (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative; the matter is receiving my careful attention, the Acting Inspector o: Ancient Monuments having visited the Abbey on my behalf during the last few days.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when he will be in a position to state the policy of the Government with regard to Rosyth. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I do not anticipate that I shall be in a position to make any statement on this subject during the present year.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now furnish the information promised by him showing what will be the estimated additional cost of insurance in the coal, ironstone, mining, engineering, shipbuilding, and textile industries respectively, resulting from the reduction of the qualifying period in Clause 1 of the Workmen's Compensation Bill from fourteen to three days; and if he can also give the cost of reduction from fourteen to three days. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The following are the estimates which have been put before me of the additional cost which would result, in the industries mentioned, from the reduction of the qualifying period of fourteen days to seven or three days; but various

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that as yet no adequate steps have been taken to confirm the dock regulations, with respect to ladders down ships holds, the unshipping of fore and afters, and the removal of deck winches from close up to ships combings where ladders are situated; and, if so, will he take the necessary steps to enforce the rule dealing with these questions; also when the necessary increase of the present staff of inspectors will be made in order to deal effectively with the regulations now in many cases ignored so far as the discharging and loading of vessels is concerned owing to the lack of supervision.

To ask the President of the board of Education whether he is aware that the Local Education Authority decided, in the early part of this year,

†See (4) Debates, clvi., 407.

To ask the President of the board of Trade whether he is aware that dissatisfaction has arisen amongst traders on account of the delay and expense attending an appeal to the Railway Commissioners; and whether he will consider the advisability of establishing a cheaper and more expeditious tribunal in connection with the Railway Department of the board of Trade. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which was given in a similar Question put by him on 9th July last.† † See (4) Debates, clx., 492.

To ask the President of the board of Trade whether he is aware that the Railway Companies and Shipping Companies compel consignors of goods and live stock to sign an owner's risk rate which practically absolves the carrying companies from liability, and contracts the consignor outside the benefit of the Carriers Act unless an extra rate is paid: and whether he will inquire into this alleged grievance, and also the existing system of classification. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George): I am not aware that consignors of goods and live stock carried by rail and sea are, or can be, compelled to sign a risk note to the effect described by the hon. Member; but if he will furnish particulars I will consider them, as also any observations he may have to offer as to the classification of traffic.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment of Mr. Justice Kennedy in the test case of Ashby's Cobham Brewery Company v. The Inland Revenue ("The Crown" public house, Cobham, Kent), in which the amount of compensation under The Licensing Act, 1904, fixed by the Inland Revenue at £455, was altered and fixed at £1,497 10s.; and whether in view of the effect this will have upon licensing authorities in recommending licensed houses for extinction, His Majesty's Government will direct an appeal to be made to a higher court of justice to reverse this judgment. (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Answer to the first part of the Question s in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government do not propose to give directions for an appeal, as they are advised that as the law at present stands under the terms of The Licensing Act, 1904, an appeal could not succeed; but the matter is one which will not be left out of sight in connection with the proposals for legislation in regard to licensing which they have already undertaken to introduce.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the contemplated increase of British officers to Indian regiments, he will consider the desirability of placing some commissions in the Indian Army at the disposal of the War Office for distribution among subalterns serving in regiments stationed in Great Britain. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The question of opening the Indian Army to officers serving in British units in any quarter of the Empire is under consideration, and I am waiting for the opinion of the Government of India on it.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the last published Report of the Estates Commissioners; and whether in view of the important points of policy dealt with therein, and the difference of opinion among the Commissioners, any opportunity will be given to this House, during the Autumn Sitting, of discussing the Report. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) My attention has been called to the Report in question. The Government are not aware that any necessity exists for a discussion of the contents of the Report during the present sittings, which are intended for bringing to completion the legislative business of the year. Any Question regarding the business of the House had better lie addressed to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was in consequence of special instructions issued by himself or with his authority, that the Estates Commissioners, in their Report upon the working of the Land Act of 1903, for the year ending 31st March, 1906, have expressed their views on questions of price and security in such a way as to discourage sales and create dissatisfaction in the minds of those who have already purchased their farms. (Answered by Mr. Bruce.) The Answer is in the negative, and I may add that, so far as my information goes, there is no foundation for the suggestion that sales have been discouraged or dissatisfaction created among tenant-purchasers as the result of the Estates Commissioners' Report.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the total amount of the advances applied for in connection with purchase agreements lodged under the Land Act of 1903; the amount of advances sanctioned to date; the amount at present available for completing sales; and what further amount, if any, it is proposed to raise before the end of the present year. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The total amount of advances applied for up to 20th instant is, in round numbers, £45,000,000. The amount which has been sanctioned and advanced is £14,292,284. The amount immediately available for further advances is approximately £2,908,000. It is anticipated that this amount will be sufficient to moot advances up to the end of the present year.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the delay in sanctioning advances under the Land Act of 1903 in cases in which purchase agreements have been lodged is occasioning hardship to those concerned, and is likely to discourage sales and hinder the progress of land purchase; whether he can state how far this delay is due to insufficiency of funds in the hands of the Land Commission; and what steps are being taken to raise the money required. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the amount of advances applied for and not yet made is about £30,000,000. The amount at present available for advances is approximately £2,908,000, and the Estates Commissioners anticipate that this amount will have been utilised early in the coming year. I understand that the intention, when the Act was passed, was that not more than £5,000,000 should be made available for land purchase during each of the first three years, and, as I have already pointed out, this amount has been exceeded. The delay in making advances has not be on due to the insufficiency of funds at the disposal of the Laud Commission, but rather to the extremely complicated nature of the operations connected with the sale and purchase of land, which has involved a great expenditure of time.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to deprive Scotland of the Cavalry regiment which has hitherto been quartered in Edinburgh and Glasgow. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This question is under consideration. The ultimate decision must depend, not on local considerations, but on requirements of training and efficiency which concern the Army as a whole. Whether arrangements can be made which will admit of Cavalry training at Edinburgh sufficient to comply with the high standard of to-day remains to be seen. The present decision turns simply on the fact that Piershill Barracks, the only available accommodation, are, from a sanitary point of view, no longer a proper place in which to house a cavalry regiment.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the proposed Order in Council, of which notice has been given by the Privy Council Office with reference to naval officers' half-pay and retired pay being liable to abatement to meet mess debts or other similar debts or liabilities, is intended to cover any civil debts; and whether the Order in Council will clearly define the nature of the debts which the Admiralty are seeking power to pay out of the pensions or pay earned by naval officers.

The Order in Council is sought in order to obtain power to recover debts of a semi-public nature, incurred under Service arrangements of which the Admiralty take official cognisance, and not ordinary civil debts. The Admiralty are advised that the terms used cannot be construed to bear a wider significance, and no necessity is therefore seen for a stricter definition than that contained in the memorial. The powers which it is sought to obtain are similar to those already possessed by the War Office in respect of regimental debts.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, considering the abandonment of H.M.S. "Montagu," and the preparations and programmes of Foreign Powers, he has any announcement to make to the House with respect to the shipbuilding programme or naval policy of the Government, as stated by him in July last.

The Answer is in the negative.

Is it not intended to make any statement?

Not as at present advised.

asked whether there was to be no opportunity of discussing this question, seeing that it had arisen subsequent to the passing of the Estimates.

The only announcement of the policy of the Admiralty subsequent to the passing of the Estimates is the policy affecting the Home Fleet, and it is not touched by this question.

said that the loss of the ship was subsequent to the discussion of the Estimates. The decision of the Government not to replace a lost ship was not in accordance with usual precedent, and the event had occurred subsequent to the discussion of the Estimates. In these circumstances, was the House not to have an opportunity of considering this matter?

Not to my knowledge.

Then I appeal to the Prime Minister.

The right hon. Gentleman speaks of "this matter," but gives a confused view of what the matter is. Is it a discussion on the whole naval policy of the Government?

No, but the replacing of a vessel that has been lost.

I do not think that an individual point of that kind is a matter which requires a special discussion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the non-commissioned officers who have been dismissed the Army on the Report of the South African Stores Commission were first placed upon their trial, and afforded an opportunity of defending themselves; if they were warned by the Royal Commissioners that their answers would be used against them; if they have been deprived of the medals awarded them for service in the field; and, in such case, what authority there is for such procedure.

This Question appears to rest on a misapprehension. The Question is one of discipline in which the Army Council have a large measure of discretion. As a matter of fact the utmost pains were taken not only to investigate fully each case, but to secure that the persons concerned had full opportunity of giving their own explanation. In every instance the officer, commissioned or non-commissioned, had placed before him by the Army Council the portion of the Report of the Royal Commission relating to his case for purposes of enabling him to make such statement as he desired as regards the questions in which he was involved. The merits of these statements were carefully weighed in connection with the evidence before any decision was come to. The procedure by court-martial, oven if it had been appropriate, would have been inapplicable, because under Section 161 of the Army Act nearly all the offences were not cognisable by court-martial, as they were alleged to have taken place more than three years ago. The Act, in appointing the Royal Commission, did not excuse a witness from answering any question on the ground that the answer might incriminate him, nor on the other hand did it provide that cognisance should not be taken of the nature of his reply when his superior officer was estimating his conduct. No one has been dismissed the Army or otherwise dealt with excepting on evidence which appeared to the Secretary of State and the Army Council clear and distinct, and I am satisfied that what has been done has been done in accordance with the principles of justice, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt has been given in every case. Art. 1256 (c) Pay Warrant prescribes that soldiers discharged the service for misconduct shall forfeit their medals.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the cases of men who have shown meritorious conduct in face of the enemy in the field? [Cries of "No."]

When the charge is one of taking money and where that has been established, it is our duty to proceed with severity in the interests of the Army and the nation. I may say that I have divided the cases into three categories—those where money was alleged to have been taken; those in which there was incompetence; and those where there was an honest mistake in judgment. The cases in the first category have been dealt with strictly. The persons coming in the second class have been relieved of their positions; but we felt that we ought to treat them leniently in other respects. As to the third class, where an honest mistake has been made in difficult circumstances, we have proceeded quite differently.

Why was a distinction made between officers and privates—the officers being allowed retiring allowances and the men being refused deferred pay?

No such distinction was made. Wherever an officer was found to have received money, he was dismissed from the Army without retired pay. The only officers who have not forfeited what they had earned in the shape of deferred pay are those against whom no charge of corruption was proved.

Have not officers been asked to retire and been allowed a retiring allowance?

Yes, where there was no allegation of corruption, but only a breach of regulations or incompetence. In no case has an officer touching money been allowed to keep his retiring allowance.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that all the privates dismissed were guilty of corruption?

Every one of them.

asked whether the Royal Commission granted any certificates of indemnity in eases whore the witnesses gave full answers.

No doubt they did, but such certificates protect against criminal proceedings and have nothing to do with the duty of the Army Council to see that improper persons do not remain in the service of the Crown.

asked whether any proceedings had been taken against the South African firms who engaged in this bribery.

Within a few hours of the issue of the Report I read it through, and within a few more hours I had mastered the evidence and communicated with the Treasury Solicitor. The whole of the papers were with the Treasury Solicitor in two days, with instructions from me to proceed with the utmost diligence. The Treasury Solicitor has the matter in hand, and the case is before the Law Officers of the Crown both here and in South Africa. Every stop has been taken that could be taken. I can say no more than that I have done everything to bring everyone to justice, without dealing with the matter in a vindictive spirit on the one hand or with undue leniency on the other.

said that any officer discharged for misconduct forfeited his pension. A court-martial was not possible in these cases because of the interval that had elapsed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in the case of the men who have shown gallantry in the field? [Loud cries of "No, no."]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War at what date the building of the now dismantled forts around London was sanctioned, and what has been the total cost of these forts.

It is presumed that this Question refers to the mobilisation centres round London, some of which are in the form of redoubts. These were begun in 1889. Their total cost amounted to £160,700.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an official intimation was conveyed to the women employed in the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico that a reduction in prices would take place equal in amount to a loss in the wages of the tailoresses of from 4s. to 5s. per week; if so, will he state why an official denial of the same has been allowed to be communicated to the Press; and whether the enforcement of the reduction named will be withheld till an interview has taken place between the representatives of the Government and the employees concerned.

No official intimation has been given to the workers in the Royal Army Clothing Factory that a reduction in prices would take place as suggested in the Question. A fortnight's notice will be given of any reduction which it may be intended to make, and full opportunity will be given to the workers to interview the representatives of the Government on the matter.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire how such information was communicated to the Press? Was it done by any official of his Department?

I have no reason to think so, but I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Henry Drake, formerly engineman in the barracks at Oxford, who, after serving the War Department for more than twenty-nine years, during which time he worked the machinery every day, Sundays included, without absence from duty for a single day through sickness or any other cause, was recently discharged both from his home and his employment with less than two weeks previous notice, and with no reason assigned; whether by the rules of the service such a man is entitled to any pension or superannuation, or only to consideration for a gratuity; and, whether, in view of this man's length of service and consistent good conduct as testified by five commanding officers under whom he served, and of the hardship he has suffered through the suddenness of his discharge, the question of giving him some adequate compensation by way of gratuity or otherwise will be considered.

Mr. Drake was employed as engineman at Cowley Barracks, Oxford, from the 9th January 1877 to the 13th instant. An engine-man's services being no longer required, Mr. Drake was given a fortnight's notice of discontinuance in accordance with Paragraph 12 of the Regulations for Civilian Subordinates. He bas been awarded a gratuity of £53 13s. 0d.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what answer has been sent to the petition of the Hausa population of the Colony of Lagos, Southern Nigeria, praying that they may not be evicted from their homes to make roam for a military recreation ground; and whether he is aware that the population referred to consists chiefly of ex-soldiers and the widows, wives, children, relatives, and descendants of soldiers of His Majesty, who have been in undisturbed possession of their present homes for forty-one years, and that there is ground for their fear that the Hausa Lands Ordinance of August 1906 will entail homelessness, destitution, and hardship on the old people who have spent many years in loyal service of the King and His Majesty's Government.

It is understood that a petition of the tenor indicated has been handed to the Governor of Southern Nigeria for transmission to the Secretary of State; but it has not yet reached the Colonial Office. The matter has been very carefully considered and, with the arrangements which have been made for compensation, there is no reason to think that any one will suffer hardship through this removal which is necessary on sanitary grounds.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Newfoundland Government was consulted and its adherence obtained to the provisional agreement entered into between His Majesty's Government and that of the United States with reference to the Newfoundland fisheries.

The Newfoundland Government were, of course, consulted before any negotiations were begun and were fully informed of their progress at each stage. His Majesty's Government were not, however, so fortunate as to obtain their adherence to the provisional agreement which circumstances rendered necessary.

Is it not usual in the case of self-governing colonies to get their consent to provisional agreements?

Matters which affect the interpretation of Imperial treaties should form the subject of Questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the address of the Chief Justice of the Orange River Colony to the conference of magistrates assembled at Bloemfontein late in September, in which address the Chief Justice took occasion publicly to repudiate the allegations, to which the widest publicity had been given in the Press in this country, that juries in the Orange River Colony were biassed by racial prejudice, and particularly to his declaration that the statements on this subject were absolutely false from beginning to end, and that it was a gross libel on the jurymen of the Colony, who never in a single case in his experience or in the experience of Mr. Justice Fawkes or Mr. Justice Ward allowed nationality to interfere with their duty; and what action he proposes to take.

I have seen the address of the Chief Justice of the Orange River Colony as reported in the Johannesburg Star of 25th September to which the lion. Member draws attention. No action on the part of the Secretary of State seems to be called for in the present circumstances by anonymous publication in newspapers or comment thereupon, but Lord Elgin has noted with satisfaction the testimony borne by the Bench to the impartiality and decorum of the jurymen of the Orange River Colony.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any and, if so, what stops are being taken to promote the interests of British Indians resident in Natal, who, being ratepayers, desire the municipal franchise.

The Natal Parliament has passed a Bill which debars those persons excluded from the Parliamentary franchise under Act 8 of 1896 from exercising the municipal franchise, unless exempted from the operation of the Ace by an Order from the Governor in Council. The persons so debarred are persons who, not being of European origin, are natives or descendants in the male line of natives of countries which have not hitherto possessed elective representative institutions founded on the Parliamentary franchise. This Bill is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was in consequence of any representations made by him, or at his instance, that the contemplated visit to Russia of a deputation, composed of Members of this House and others, to present an address to the late Russian Duma was abandoned; whether he has received any representations, verbal or otherwise, on behalf of the Russian Government on the subject; and, if so, what was the purport of those representations.

The proposed deputation was quite independent of His Majesty's Government, and I can say nothing about it. The Russian Government wore aware of this, and made no official representations respecting it.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any representation to the Gentlemen who were to compose the deputation.

I regarded the deputation as quite independent of His Majesty's Government, and therefore I took no official action whatever in respect to it. If the hon. Gentleman desires to know more about the deputation I think it ought to be ascertained from the Members themselves.

asked whether the British Ambassador had informed him that the address, signed by 300 Members of the House of Commons, had been welcomed with gratitude in all parts of Russia; and whether there was not evidence that the mere intention of presenting the address had strengthened the good feeling of the people of Russia towards this country.

I have not been associated with the deputation in any way, or with the address; and I have no official information in regard to it. I think it is desirable, when the Government have not been connected with a particular matter, that they should not be expected, save in exceptional circumstances, to express any opinion about it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of Stale for Foreign Affairs whether any written or other representations have been made to him either by the British Embassy in Vienna, or by the representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in England as to the recent official visit of a deputation of the Eighty Club to certain political organisations in Hungary.

The Answer is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now say whether Russian troops are still in occupation of the Aland Islands.

The latest information is to the effect that the Russian troops sent to the Aland Islands have been withdrawn, with the exception of two officers and fifteen men.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether the conditions under which the administration of the Imperial Chinese Maritime Customs were granted by China during the currency of the Chinese loans of 1896 and 1898 are being duly observed.

When the loans of 1896 and 1898 wore raised, the Chinese Government undertook that the administration of the Maritime Customs should remain as then constituted during the currency of the loans. By the Imperial Edict of May 9th last, the Customs administration was transferred from one Chinese Government Department to another, but this does not necessarily imply more than a change of form, and it has not so far made any difference to the administration of the Customs service by Sir R. Hart.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, at Bristol, on the 11th ultimo, regretting that nothing had been done by the Departmental Committee on Income Tax to remove the unsatisfactory features in the law and practice as they now exist, and expressing the opinion that the time has arrived when the whole of the Income Tax Acts should be reconsidered and codified; will he say whether he will give consideration to the views expressed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce.

I have received a copy of a resolution, passed at the meeting referred to, to the effect that the meeting was of opinion that the time had arrived when the whole of the Income Tax Acts should be reconsidered and codified, and I have replied that this expression of opinion should have my careful attention.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the increase in the staff at the Estate Duty Office in Somerset House during the past six years; will, he explain why the staff, which numbered 194 in 1899–1900, when the revenue was £16,159,463, was increased each year until it reached 390 in the Estimates for 1906–7, the revenue for 1905–6 being only £14,880,616, and the average revenue for the six years £14,985,357; and will he explain why the staff has been more than doubled, notwithstanding that the work of the Department, as represented by revenue, has been diminished.

The staff of the Estate Duty Office has been increased to the extent indicated because the board of Inland Revenue satisfied the Treasury that such increase was necessary if the work of the Department was to lie performed with thoroughness and promptitude. It may be observed (1) that the amount of revenue collected is by no moans an exact measure of the amount of work to be performed; the general tendency of the yield of the Estate Duties is certainly not downwards, although it is true that 1899–1900 was a record year; and (2) that, although the numbers have been increased by 100 per cent., the increase of cost is only a trifle over 50 per cent.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government board whether he is aware that motor buses in wet weather are not under the control of their drivers owing to side slips; and whether, under those circumstances, he proposes to withdraw the licences of these vehicles seeing the number of accidents caused therefrom, and the danger arising to the public.

I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I am aware that in certain states of the pavement due control over these vehicles can be exercised only by great care and skill on the part of the drivers on account of the tendency to side slip. Inventions are now being tried which it is hoped may provide a remedy or at any rate reduce the danger. I do not think it would be within the power of the Commissioner to withdraw all motor omnibus licences on the ground suggested. A general prohibition of the use of motor omnibuses would require the authority of Parliament.

asked whether no farther licences would be granted until the vehicles could be run under conditions of greater safety.

said the Department was now doing their utmost to secure greater safety. He was not prepared to say anything more at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he has received information that 15-ounce packets of soap, made up by firms in the Soap Trust in the form in which one-pound packets were formerly made, are being sold without any reduction in price; and whether, for the protection of the public, he will direct the attention of the inspectors of weights and measures to the matter.

I have no official information on this subject and I do not gather that the packets are or ever were sold as one-pound packets. There would appear therefore to be no ground for any action on my part. I notice, however, in the Press this morning a statement to the effect that the manufacture of 15-ounce tablets have been abandoned and that the tablets are now being made of full one-pound weight.

asked whether any of the soap used in the House of Commons was supplied by the Soap Trust.

I am afraid that the question of soap does not in any way come within the province of my Department.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department if his attention has been called to the wanderings throughout Great Britain of a band of sixty German gipsies, admitted under his authority in the spring as desirable immigrants, and in defiance of the provisions of the Aliens Act; and if, having regard to the expense caused to local authorities by repelling their invasion and harrying them onwards, he will forthwith arrange for their deportation to the lands whence they came.

At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that some 300 German and other gipsies were allowed to land in Scotland in the spring of the present year, that they have since been wandering about the country to the annoyance and danger of every district in which they have stayed and causing considerable extra police expenditure in order to control their movements; and whether the Government proposes to take any steps in order that these undesirable aliens shall be repatriated and a repetition of this grievance prevented in the future.

I have already explained how a considerable number of alien gipsies—it is believed between seventy and eighty—landed in Scotland in the early part of this year. It is incorrect to say that they were admitted as desirable immigrants, and still more so to say that they were admitted in defiance of the Aliens Act. There was no question of admission. They came in small parties on non-immigrant ships, and the Aliens Act, therefore, imposed no restriction on their landing. I have also stated how I brought pressure to bear on the shipping company which was carrying these aliens, with the result of stopping their further arrival. As regards those now in the country, the Aliens Act gives me no power save as regards any individual case in which a certificate has been given by a Court under Section 3. One certificate recommending the expulsion of one of those aliens has been received.

asked whether the alien gipsies were not now wandering about without ostensible means of subsistence, contrary to the provisions of the Aliens Act.

said his hon. friend must know quite well that this was not a question for the Home Office, but for any magistrate before whom the aliens might be brought.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider the question of introducing an Amendment of the Aliens Act so as to deal with this particular annoyance.

asked if there was anything in connection with these gipsies which placed them outside the laws of Christian hospitality.

asked if the local authorities would be recouped the expense they had been put to by these gipsies.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table particulars of the expenses incurred?

I will inquire into that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has asked for and obtained a report of the refusal by the Thornbury Bench of Magistrates to grant a certificate for exemption from vaccination to Mr. Alfred Williams on 18th July last; and whether he will furnish a copy of such report; and what further action he proposes to take.

I communicated with the Justices in August last, and was informed that a certificate of exemption was refused because the Justices were not satisfied that the applicant conscientiously believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of his child. In these circumstances I regret that I have no power to take any further action. It would be contrary to practice to give a copy of a letter from magistrates to the Secretary of State.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a petition handed him from the inhabitants of Staple Hill and Mangots-field, Gloucestershire, setting forth the danger to life, limb, health, and property which is the result of the proceedings of the Staple Hill Colliery Company, Limited; and whether, having regard to the fact that the inhabitants of the neighbourhood have been excited by increasing fears of what may happen, and there is grave danger of a breach of the peace, he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to a prosecution if deemed necessary.

I have had under consideration the petition referred to in the Question and have obtained a report from the Inspector of Mines as to the mining operations that are being carried on by this company. The proceedings of which complaint is made in the petition appear to be outside the jurisdiction possessed by me under the Mines Regulation Acts; but I am making further inquiries into the matter, and will communicate later with the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state on what grounds the British delegate to the Convention of Berne declined to sign the treaty prohibiting the use of yellow phosphorus in the manufacture of matches; whether this treaty has been signed by the representatives of France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands; and, if so, whether, in view of the risks involved in the handling of yellow phosphorus, His Majesty's Government will follow the example of those seven countries and adhere to the treaty.

The Convention prohibiting the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches was signed by the representatives of the countries mentioned in the Question. The grounds which led His Majesty's Government to instruct the delegates to abstain from signing the Convention do not admit of being stated within the compass of an Answer, but they will be fully explained in papers which I shall shortly lay upon the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the withdrawal of the British delegates from the International Labour Conference at Berne during the discussion of the proposed interdiction of white phosphorus in match factories; whether he gave orders for such withdrawal; and if not, what action, if any, he proposes to take to bring the views of his Department upon the subject before the nations represented at the Conference.

My hon. friend has been misinformed. The British delegates did not withdraw from the Conference when the proposal to prohibit the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches was under discussion. On the contrary, they stated fully the views of the British Government on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether his attention has been drawn to a letter, dated 13th July, by the Commissioner of Police, in which this officer stated that, owing to the weight of public opinion, he intended to exercise more stringently his powers and to show less indulgence to owners of motor cars who broke the law in respect to petrol smoke, noise, and speed; whether he has at any time given the Commissioner of Police a discretional power in this matter; and, if not, will he instruct this officer that his duties are to administer the law as enacted by Parliament.

I am aware of: the letter referred to by the hon. Member. It seems to me that the Commissioner of Police is bound to administer such powers as he possesses with discretion, and that in the early days of motor cars defects might be condoned which if found at a later date to be avoidable would properly cause the withdrawal of the licence. I agree with Sir Edward Henry's view that the circumstances now call for a more stringent enforcement of the law.

This Answer was given six months ago.

No.

Well, the letter was written six months ago.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing numbers of traction engines pass through the streets of the metropolis at night, shaking the houses and disturbing the sleep of the people, he will say why the police do not prosecute the owners of such engines, seeing that Section 13 of the Locomotive Act of 186 enacts that no locomotive shall be used upon a highway as to cause a public nuisance.

It is not the practice of the police to take proceedings in the case of a nuisance of this kind. The matter is usually left to the persons aggrieved, or to their representatives, such as the be rough council, which has power to take action under the section referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Royal Commission on Vivisection is to be enlarged by the addition of one or more medical men who are known anti-vivisectionists; whether he has been approached by representatives of the anti-vivisection movement with a view to so enlarging the Commission; and whether it is the intention that the proceedings of the Commission shall be open to the public and the Press.

I have received and considered a certain number of representations, but I do not propose to enlarge the Commission, which is, in my opinion, fairly constituted as regards all parties interested. It is for the Commission to decide whether their proceedings should be public, and they have, I see, informed the Press this morning that they have decided to sit in private, but to supply copies of the evidence from time to time to certain representative bodies interested in the inquiry.

asked whether it was not the fact that the majority of the Commissioners believed in vivisection.

replied that out of ten Commissioners four, including two distinguished medical men, were suggested to him by anti-vivisection societies.

asked whether it was not the case that there were three expert vivisectionists on the Commission, and no expert anti-vivisectionists at all?

replied that he did not know what his hon. friend meant by "expert anti-vivisectionist," but in the constitution of the Commission great care i was taken to secure that all sides should be represented.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the Commissioners recommended by the Anti-Vivisection Society.

No, Sir, I cannot do that.

I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of Miss Pankhurst, who was on Wednesday sent to prison for fourteen days at Westminster Police Court for alleged disorderly conduct; and whether, seeing that the only evidence against her was the uncorroborated testimony of a single policeman, while three women who were called to give evidence for the defence contradicted the policeman's statements in every essential particular, he would give instructions for her immediate release.

I have read in the papers what happened, and since receiving the hon. Gentleman's letter giving notice of the Question I have directed inquiries to be made as to the facts of the case.

intimated that he would repeat the Question on Monday.

I beg to ask the President of the board of Trade whether he has now completed his inquiries into the complaint made to him that four lads who, by apprentice indentures, became apprentices to Messrs. Gibson and Clark, of Glasgow, and in July, 1905, joined the ship "The Pass of Killiecrankie," were on the voyage from Antwerp to Los Angelos treated with cruelty by the second officer, that proper medical attendance was not afforded, that sufficient and proper food was not supplied, that the captain neglected to properly supervise his under officers, that the log-book is defective, and that the master's reports are incorrect; and can he state what action the board of Trade is taking in the matter.

The case to which the hon. Member calls attention is still engaging the careful attention of the board of Trade; but as the ship "Pass of Killiecrankie" has not yet returned to this country, it has not yet been possible to obtain all the necessary information. The case has been referred to the Public Prosecutor, who will advise whether legal proceedings can be taken as soon as he is in a position to do so.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General when he will be able to lay a Report of the proceedings of the Berlin Conference on Wireless Telegraphy upon the Table of this House; and whether he will arrange to afford an opportunity for discussing the action of the representatives of His Majesty's Government at that Conference.

The Conference has not yet completed its labours, and I am not, therefore, in a position to answer the Question of the hon. Member. Perhaps he will repeat it at a later date.

Shall we have an opportunity of discussing this subject before the end of the session?

asked for notice of the Question.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to put down Amendments to the Street Betting Bill by which betting in post offices, whether by telegraph or otherwise, would be prohibited.

Betting by the Post Office staff is regarded as a serious offence, entailing liability to dismissal. I do not intend to put down any Amendments to the Street Betting Bill.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has caused inquiry to be made into the accommodation provided for the staff and the performance of their duties at the Stoke-on-Trent Post Office; whether any report has been made as the result of such inquiry; and what action, if any, he proposes to take to meet the immediate needs of the locality.

A new office is to be provided at Stoke-on-Trent, and I am endeavouring to expedite the settlement of the case, for I know from personal observation how much they are required. It is essential that the office should be close to the railway station and the negotiations with the railway company have unfortunately been somewhat protracted.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government board whether he is aware that between 19th July, 1906, and 13th September, 1906, 418 tons of meat were seized and condemned at Smithfield Market, 395 tons of which were described as putrid; what proportion of this meat came from the United States and the Argentine Republic respectively; what system of inspection is in operation at Smithfield Market; how many officials are engaged upon the work; and whether the inspections are made periodically or merely on the occasions of surprise visits.

I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the Question. Of the 418 tons of meat referred to, about 24 tons came from the United States and about 232 tons from the Argentine Republic. The inspecting staff at Smithfield Market consists of five inspectors under the direction of a chief inspector, and help is occasionally given by men not on the permanent staff. The market is divided into sections for purposes of inspection, and the inspector for the time being in charge of a given section makes systematic tours through the salesmen's stalls. For further information relative to the system of inspection I would refer the hon. Member to a Report made to the Local Government board by Dr. Buchanan, one of their medical inspectors, a copy of which I will send him.

Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate any steps to prevent the importation into this country of putrid meat?

I hope the Bill now before the House may prevent a repetition of this and rectify deficiencies in the law as it now stands.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government board whether he has received, during the present year, any applications from local authorities to reduce the speed of motor cars in their areas to ten miles an hour; and, if so, will he give the names of the authorities who have made such application, and if he has sanctioned the same.

I have during the present year received applications of the kind referred to from three local authorities, viz., from the Carnarvonshire County Council as regards the roads in a part of the urban district of Llandudno, from the West Suffolk County Council as regards parts of roads in the urban district of Newmarket, and from the Essex County Council as regards the main roads in the urban district of Ilford. I have not felt able to comply with the first of these applications, at any rate to the extent proposed; the others are at present under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the feeling which exists throughout the country in regard to the numerous fatal accidents caused by motor propelled vehicles; and whether His Majesty's Government have in contemplation the introduction of legislation at an early date with a view to restoring to all classes of the community the safe use of the public roads and highways.

My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The Royal Commission on Motor Cars have in their Report made various recommendations for the amendment of the Motor Car Acts. The recommendations are receiving my consideration, but it is not intended to propose legislation on the subject during the present session.

I beg to ask the President of the board of Education why the Government are appealing to the House of Lords against a decision of the Court of Appeal which declares the law to be in accordance with their own policy; whether the Act to which the decision applies is not superseded by legislation now before Parliament; what the appeal will cost the public; and in what form an Estimate for the expense of this dilatory proceeding will come before the House.

I wish also to ask whether the Cockerton judgment was submitted to the review of the House of Lords; if not, and seeing that the board of Education then adapted its administration to the findings of that Court of Appeal, why did not the board of Education now adapt its administration to the recent findings in the Court of Appeal in the case of the West Riding judgment?

The Petition of Appeal has been lodged because of the practical difficulties of an administrative character occasioned by the decision of the Court of Appeal. Local authorities find themselves unable; to know what is their legal position in I respect of many important points, such as (a) whether they are bound to make any deduction in respect of religious instruction in the voluntary schools; (b) in respect of how many hours devoted to such instruction, and of what kind of instruction, such deduction should be made; (c) what personal liability they would individually be under in the payment of salaries under existing agreements; and so forth. These considerations appear to render a decision of the Final Court of Appeal obviously desirable in the interests alike of the local authorities; the teachers, and the public generally. It is a mistake to suppose that the decision in question will shortly be superseded by any legislation now before Parliament, since the whole of the year 1907, under the terms of the Government Bill, is a transition period during which the Act of 1902 will in very many places still be in operation. In reply to the third and fourth paragraphs of the Question, the question of costs is a matter entirely in the discretion of the Court. In so far as they may fall upon the Exchequer they are included in the ordinary law charges. It is public and common knowledge that the Cockerton judgment was not carried to the House of Lords. I do not know what reasons determined that decision, but my imagination is capable of suggesting some. In the Cockerton case all the judges—the two Judges in the Court of King's Bench and the three Judges in the Court of Appeal— were unanimous, and consequently I can imagine that the Law Officers of the Crown did not think it needful to recommend an appeal to the House of Lords. In the West Riding case, however, the three Judges who heard the case in the first instance and one member of the Court of Appeal were all of one way of thinking, and two Judges of the Court of Appeal were of the other way of thinking; but the decision of the two Judges who wore members of the Court of Appeal very properly overruled the decision given by their four judicial brethren. In the face of a judicial disagreement like that, I see a distinction between the Cockerton judgment and the other case. The Cockerton case, no doubt, affected the board of Education and also the local authorities. As far as the board of Education is concerned, it was able to alter its administration, while in respect of the local authorities, the House came to their relief by passing a Bill to continuo and carry on the Cockerton schools. The West Riding decision affects the administration of education by the local authorities, and that is why we thought it well to relieve the state of anxiety by endeavouring to obtain a final decision.

gave notice that he would move a Resolution protesting against this waste of public money on lawyers.

I beg to ask the President of the board of Education whether his attention has been called to a statement of the Chairman of the Small Arms Company of Birmingham, that the adoption of a miniature rifle by the Government for use in schools had been notified and that the delivery of such rifles to the schools would commence shortly; and, if so, can he state on what conditions such rifles are to be supplied, whether on application from the school managers only, or whether such school managers will be compelled to accept such rifles and train the boys in warlike exercises; and whether it is proposed that military instruction is to form part of the curriculum of public elementary education.

I have no knowledge of any statement of the kind referred to in the Question, and I can certainly state that so far as elementary schools are concerned, in regard to which the honourable Member asks me, I am quite j sure that no rifle, miniature or otherwise, has been adopted by the Government for use in such schools, nor any arrangements made for their delivery.

asked whether such a permission to use rifles had been given in the case of secondary schools.

said that he could not answer for what was being done by public school authorities.

asked whether or not the board of Education had definitely sanctioned the use of rifles in elementary schools, and whether serious misadventures had not arisen through the use of rifles by boys, and at least one fatal accident.

said that he was sorry to hear of a fatal accident, but such an accident had oven occurred in regard to chemical inquiries. There had been no general authority given to elementary schools to practise rifle shooting in any general terms. Permission had been given to the authorities under well-defined conditions in certain cases to allow children of a certain ago to be taught how to shoot. But rifle shooting, as it was carried out in these miniature ranges, was by no means a good form of physical exercise, and it was part of the terms that this practice in shooting should not interfere with the most important subject of the physical development of the children.

But the board of Education has sanctioned rifle shooting in elementary schools?

Under certain conditions, yes.

May I ask whether there is any objection in principle to teaching the use of the rifle subject to proper safeguards?

Any hon. Member can answer that Question for himself.

Is the rifle instruction being paid for out of the public funds?

So far as it is part of the public curriculum, it certainly is.

Well done.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether arrangements have been made, or negotiations are proceeding, between His Majesty's Office of Works and the London County Council, or other parties, as to providing the cost of removing the three houses at Charing Cross, the removal of which is necessary to complete the Charing Cross end of the Mall improvement; and whether he proposes that the cost of removing these houses shall be met wholly or partly by His Majesty's Government, the London County Council, or others.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the negative. In reply to the second paragraph I can only say that I am not making any proposals in the matter. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on this subject on 4th July.†

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken steps of any sort or kind to secure the removal of these houses?

No Sir, I have not.

Do you not propose to?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what is the reason for the alteration of the fencing of Regent's Park, and to what extent such alteration is proposed to be carried; and whether it is possible to preserve the present fencing, and so avoid destroying a valued feature of the locality.

†See (4) Debates, clx.,38.

The timber fence is so decayed as to be past repair: it is only proposed at present to replace some 480 yards of it with iron fencing, it being impossible to erect a new oak fence except at very great expense. In answer to a further Question the right hon. Gentleman said that the best portions of the fence which had been removed were utilised for repairing the remainder of the fence.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable amount of feeling in the locality on this subject? Will he stay further operations until Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing it?

When the work has been completed the people in the locality will be in a better position to express an opinion.

Is Parliament to have no control over the matter?

Parliament has control over my salary.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister what was the date upon which the British Government decided to refuse the bequest of the late Mr. Stibbert, of Florence, of his collection of art and other property to the British nation, the reasons for such refusal, and whether he will lay upon the Table of this House a copy of Mr. Stibbert's will, as well as of the correspondence on the subject of this bequest between His Majesty's Government, the Italian Government, the Municipality of Florence, and others.

I have been asked to reply to this Question. The bequest was declined in August last, because it appeared to His Majesty's Government, on examination of the will, that they would have practically no power over the administration, under the conditions laid down by the testator, and would be involved in rather wide financial liabilities. Neither under the terms of the bequest, nor under the Italian law, could any part of the collection have been transferred to this country. The renunciation of the bequest by us transfers it on exactly the same terms and conditions to the Commune of Florence, and therefore those desiring to see the collection will do so exactly as if we had been in nominal custody of it. I do not think it is necessary to lay Papers on the subject, but I will show the hon. Member and others interested any of them they may wish to see.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now able to give information regarding the approximate number and total acreage of agricultural holdings in Scotland below £50 annual value.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, approximate information is, as I informed him on 1st August last, to be found by reference to: 1. Poor Rates (Scotland) Persons Assessed Return to House of Commons, dated 6th July. 1891. 2. Table VI of the Annual Returns of Acreage in the Agricultural Statistics, 1905. I have nothing to add to that information.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the potato crop in the west of Ireland has been a failure this year; and, in view of that failure, if he will state what steps the Irish Government intend to take to relieve the distress that is certain to ensue.

I regret to say that the crop has partially failed in some parts of the west of Ireland, but the extent of the failure has not yet been ascertained, and until it is more fully known and the amount of the distress likely to arise can be foreseen, no statement on the subject can with advantage be made. Exceptional distress does not at this moment exist, and if any should unhappily arise (as I fear in some places it will) that can hardly be before the end of the present year. The Government have been giving, and will, of course, continuo to give, the closest attention to the matter, and they are considering the action proper to be taken.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, in consideration of the unwillingness of lord-lieutenants of certain counties to further the appointments of county magistrates in order that the evil, of which the Lord Chancellor is aware, may be remedied as soon as possible, he will take further measures by which the necessary investigations as to the qualifications of persons recommended, and the appointments may be made without having recourse to the lord-lieutenants.

It is not the fact that the lord-lieutenants as a rule have shown any unwillingness to assist the Lord Chancellor in the matter referred to. On the contrary, they have furnished information in regard to persons recommended which; has been of great assistance. The position of Justice of the Peace involves judicial powers of an extended character and of great importance. The Lord Chancellor is responsible that none but suitable persons should be appointed, and considers that it is neither practicable nor desirable to dispense with the assistance which the lord-lieutenants have for the most part most cordially given.

asked what steps could be taken to get magistrates appointed in districts where the Bench was mostly Conservative.

I do not know what the particular form is, but application ought to be made, I presume, to the Lord Chancellor, and the names submitted to him, when he will make such inquiries as he thinks necessary.

We have done all that, and still have no satisfaction.

I am aware of this fact—that the Lord Chancellor has devoted an infinity of time and labour to the investigation of this matter, which requires a certain amount of patient investigation.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister what course it is proposed to pursue in order to carry out the announced intention of the Government to place the Public Trustee Bill upon the Statute book in the course of the present session.

This is a measure which seems very suitable for consideration by a Grand Committee, but no definite determination has yet been come to on the subject.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will give facilities for the discussion of the Motion on the recent alterations in the House and the interference with Members' seats and privileges.†

I think that an opportunity should be given to the House for discussing this matter before we rise. My right hon. friend was mistaken in the impression which he conveyed that there would be a special Vote during these sittings. There will not be a special Vote, and I am considering in what form such an opportunity can best be provided. I take it that there will be no desire on the part of the House to discuss the question at great length, and that in the prospect of such an opportunity, daily Motions directed to the presence of strangers will be discontinued.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that important alterations were now going on and that one was made last night after this Motion was set down.

†The Motion referred was in the following terms:—" That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report to the House upon the recent alterations in the House whereby an obstruction has been erected preventing Members using about ten seats to the right of Mr. Speaker, heretofore appropriated to the use of Members, and whereby strangers are being introduced into a portion of the House not hertofore used for such purpose; and, further, the recent alterations in the House to the right under the Gallery whereby Members' privileges of securing the introduction of strangers under the Gallery have been curtailed by one-half."

They cannot be alterations affecting the general policy of the new arrangement of seats.

said that the Bill was not a good one. As with another Bill before the House, it was class legislation, in that the rich man was favoured as compared with the working man—he referred to the Street Betting Bill. Here the well-to-do were at a disadvantage. What was the Amendment before the Committee? It was to defer the operation of the Act from 1907 to 1915. There was, he thought, one subject which would lie in order, and that was the constitutional aspects of the question. He did not think it could be denied by hon. Members of the House that the Bill made a great change, both in theory and practice, in our constitution. It abolished territorial representation. It said that a man should not have more than one vote because he owned property in several different districts. If that were so, let them look for a moment at the practice of other countries, where great constitutional change was contemplated by the Legislature. If they looked at the great republic across the Atlantic they saw that no great change could be made unless the central Legislature approved of that change by a two-thirds majority; and even that did not suffice, but all the Legislatures of the various states had to pass the change by a three-fourths majority. Hon. Members might well say, and perhaps truly, that the United States, though in theory, was not a democratic country in practice. No one, however, would deny that it had a great amount of liberty. But let them look at another republic, one which, though perhaps not quite so much before the eyes of the world, had nevertheless an honourable history. He referred to the republic of Switzerland. No one would deny that the constitution there was not only democratic in theory——

What is or is not done in other countries has nothing to do with the Amendment. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.

said his argument, was intended to show that no change in the constitution of the country should be allowed to take place before an election; and his noble friend's Amendment, if carried, would enable that election to take place. He wanted to show from the constitution—[Cries of "No, no."]

That is not in order.

said his point was that they ought to defer the operation of the Act until 1915, because if it came into operation in 1907 the people of the country would not have an opportunity of saying whether they approved of the measure or not. The question of plural voting was not before the country at the last general election. The Government received a mandate in reference to Chinese Labour, but they had received no mandate as regarded plural voting. In his election campaign plural voting was never mentioned, and he thought his experience was the experience of the vast majority of the Members of the House. In view of these things he asked the Government to accept the Amendment and so enable the country at the next general election to say whether they approved of the Bill or not.

desired to associate himself with the noble Lord, for he also was of opinion that the measure should not come into force until 1915. It was not in accordance with the wishes of the country that the Bill should be passed through the House of Commons except in conjunction with a redistribution of seats. During the debates upon the question the Opposition had been treated by the Government—he would not say in a discourteous manner, but the Government had certainly turned a deaf ear to every proposal that his side of the House had made He would venture to quote the words of a present Member of the Government and one whose authority would be respected on the opposite side of the House. These words were used by the Secretary of State for India some time ago—

"The Government were unable to deal with plural voting in root and branch; to do so would necessitate dealing with the question of redistribution."

said he wished to support the Amendment, not because he desired to delay any just and fair alteration in our existing electoral system which might be shown to be necessary, but in order that the Government might have an opportunity of bringing forward a further measure to complete and perfect what they themselves were forced to admit was an incomplete measure, and so remove most of the objections which they on that side entertained towards the present Bill. He thought it might be taken that, subject to a few exceptions in favour of the Universities and other similar bodies, they on that side had no particular objection to the principle of what was known as "One man, one vote," provided that it was accompanied by such a re-distribution of electoral areas as would secure something like an equal value to each vote which was cast in any election. Plural votes were not the only or the greatest irregularities in our existing system, and they did not see why the Government should pick out and proceed to deal with this one irregularity, just because it told most "against their own side, whilst they left entirely untouched many much more glaring irregularities. As an instance of what he meant, he would like to ask which was the greater injustice: that a small town like Newry in Ireland with its 1,900 electors, should have the same representation in that House and the same voice in the settlement of the affairs of the nation as the Romford Division of Essex with its 45,000 electors or that land and property (which no one could say was over-represented in that House at the present time) should continue to have the same inadequate amount of representation which it now possessed until the whole thing could be put right? But to make the alteration which the present Bill proposed alone would only tend to accentuate and increase the present inequalities, for many of the smaller existing constituencies, like the county of Rutland with its 4,000 electors, would be rendered smaller still by having some of their present voters taken away from them, whilst some of the larger constituencies, such as the bordesley Division of Birmingham with its 16,000 electors, would not have any voters taken away from it, so would remain entirely as it was. He called attention to what a false and invidious position many Members of the present House of Commons would be placed in if this alteration were made. The constituencies which returned them would be entirely changed, and they would cease to represent those who elected them in any true sense of the term. He would only say in conclusion, that he wished the present Amendment to be passed in older that the Government might have time to introduce a further measure which would remedy the omissions of the present Bill and confer upon every householder what they themselves professed to desire he should have, namely, an equal voice in the management of the affairs of his country.

said the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Blackpool was a genuine argument. It was thought to be advisable to postpone the date of the operation of this Bill from 1907 to 1915, in order that a general election might take place and the opinion of the country be taken upon this particular Bill. He himself was only concerned in endeavouring to shew the reason why the date of its operation should be changed. He believed the change would commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they themselves complained in the late Parliament that the then Government had no right to deal with any questions except those connected with the settlement of the war in South Africa, because they had received no other mandate. In the last election there certainly was no mandate for a plural voting Bill. But there were other strong reasons why the Amendment should be accepted. First there was the reason adduced by his noble friend, that a Bill of this sort should not be brought in unless it was accompanied by redistribution. That was a very powerful reason. Then there were other anomalies, and if the Committee were going to make this very vital alteration in the franchise they should see not only that no other anomalies were created, but that as many anomalies in the present law were removed as possible, lie trusted, as there was to be a Report Stage, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to this Amendment.

appealed for more time to consider this Amendment, because to pass through the House legislation in this piecemeal way was not only unwise, but it would not in the long run attain the object the Government desired. He did not see that the argument as to anomalies applied at all. It was said that this Bill was brought in to remove an anomaly. Now an anomaly was a departure from the common rule, and the common rule in this country was that representation and taxation should go together.

reminded the hon. Member that the question was whether this anomaly should come to an end in 1907 or 1915.

explained that this Bill, far from removing an anomaly, was introducing one. It introduced the anomaly of representation without taxation. It was therefore very desirable that this Bill, if passed, should not come into force now, but that its operation should be put off in order to give time for a general Bill correcting anomalies from a broad standpoint. He could not see, if this legislation was proceeded with, that they would do anything else than create further anomalies instead of carrying out the object of the Government, which was said to be to reduce them.

said that one very obvious reason why the operation of this Bill should be postponed was that it ought to be accompanied by a Bill for redistribution, as it would be impossible to say what proportion of electors there would be in the various constituencies. Another important reason why it should not come into operation until a redistribution Bill was passed, was that there were a great number of serious anomalies in the present law which would have to be dealt with. If the Government proceeded in the proper course by means of various Bills to remove those anomalies, then it would be only reasonable that the whole of the alterations should come into operation at one time. Therefore it was desirable to postpone the operation of this Bill. The right hon.