To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the last refit of H.M S. "Philomel" was completed and at what cost; on what date the order was given for her to be put on the ineffective list and dismantled; on what date she was towed round this year to Haulbowline to be refitted; whether the work was commenced; whether the work has now been suspended; and whether the Admiralty are satisfied that all these steps were calculated to increase efficiency.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that passengers from America arriving at night at Queenstown are caused delay and expense owing to the refusal of the Great Southern and Western Railway to carry them by the train bearing the mails to Dublin; and whether, seeing that tourists and others on going out to America via Queens-town are taken to that port by the train bearing the mails, he will see if it is possible to remove the difficulty complained of by those coming in.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has decided to apply an age limit of sixty to the tenure of Post Office medical appointments; and, if so, whether he has considered the hardship involved in enforcing the new rule at short notice on existing holders of these appointments who have hitherto had reason to suppose that their appointment would continue as long as they were able to discharge their duties efficiently.

To ask the Postmaster-General why the medical officer of the Redditch Post Office has been called upon to retire; whether any complaint has been received from the staff under his care as to his discharge of his duties; and, if not, whether, having regard to the hardship involved in applying a new age rule suddenly to existing holders of appointments supposed to be for life or during good behaviour, he will reconsider his decision in the case of this officer.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant a Return, showing the percentage of ex-soldiers employed in the RoyalOrdnance Factories, the postal and customs services, borough and county police forces, railway and tramway services, prisons and asylums, and by municipal corporations and county authorities generally.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the case of Lance-Corporal Gray, a sufferer from paralysis, contracted while in active service in India, who has been discharged as incurable from Netley Hospital; and if, seeing that the best years of the life of Lance-Corporal Gray have been spent out of Ireland and in the service of the Army, he can see his way to make such arrangements for the support of this disabled soldier as will prevent him becoming a charge upon the ratepayers of the union of Fermoy, where he was born.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he knows that a new association, called the Crimea and Indian Mutiny Veterans' Association, has been formed in Manchester for the sole purpose of assisting men who fought for their country at the battles of Alma, Balaclava, Inkermann, Sebastopol, Delhi, Lucknow, etc.; that it is appealing for the sum of £1,600 to assist these old men; what were the amounts contributed by the public to the Royal Patriotic Fund after the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny; how much of those funds still remain; and whether some of this money could not be appropriated to the use of the Manchester association.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the second class examining officers of Customs to whom temporary personal allowances of £7 10s. and £15 per annum respectively were granted as compensation for retardation of promotion due to departmental reorganisations had to serve from thirteen to sixteen years before obtaining the position, while officers are at present promoted in the ordinary course at less than six years, and every officer on completion of eight years' service will receive the salary of second class examining officer if not promoted at that time; and that a difference of eight years' deferred promotion to the seniors represents a loss of £60 per annum for a lengthened period against which only £7 10s. or £15 per annum has been granted for a short period, with the result that, in the event of neither officer obtaining any further advancement in the service, the officer at present promoted will be eight years longer in receipt of the maximum salary, and will receive upwards of £1,000 more than the senior; and, if so, whether the Board of Customs and the Treasury will reconsider the case of those officers whose promotion was delayed through circumstances over which they had no control, with a view to giving a personal allowance until the maximum salary is reached; as a partial compensation for the loss they have sustained.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the tax upon exported coal ceases on the 1st November, he will cause to be continued the system of records made during recent years at the various Custom Houses so that information may still be obtainable as to the various descriptions of coals exported.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent exhibition of mutinous conduct amongst the convicts confined in His Majesty's prison at Maidstone; whether it is part of the policy of the directors of prisons to confine such prisoners within the narrow limits of ordinary prisons; and whether he would consider the advisability of employing such prisoners on the public works prisons, as heretofore. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) There has been no change of policy of late years. For many years convicts, except those employed in quarrying and farm labour, have been kept within the prison enclosure; formerly at Chatten-den, Wormwood Scrubs, and Dover, and now at all convict establishments, and employed in building operations and other trades. Maidstone is not an "ordinary" local prison, but advantage has been taken of the large and favourable site (not required by the local prison) to build a new prison for the detention of prisoners sentenced to penal servitude,

†See (4) Debates, clxi., 164,165.

who are employed in the work of construction—a healthy outdoor labour, similar to that performed by convicts at Portland and Dartmoor. It is pro posed to send only selected cases to Maidstone for this purpose—100 to 200 in number. The rest will go, as usual, to the so-called public works prisons, but at these prisons about 60 per cent, are employed inside the prison enclosure at various trades and industries. Most of the convicts who recently showed an insubordinate spirit at Maidstone had recently been transferred from Borstal, and no other cause can be assigned for the outbreak than dislike of the change, as their labour at Borstal had been comparatively easy, while at Maidstone they had to be employed on work of a more arduous kind.

To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what were the opportunities afforded to the thirty-nine agricultural labourers lately employed by the Crown on the Burwell Estate, in Cambridgeshire (and since dismissed), to acquire small holdings from the present tenants; on what terms they were offered small holdings; and on what terms the same holdings have since been let.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that Mrs. Brachen, of the Hill, Blacklion, whose house is situate less than 200 yards from the post office in the village of Blacklion, county Cavan, only gets delivery of letters at her house on two days in the week; is this in accordance with the rules as to delivery of letters at Blacklion: and, if so, will he take steps to have the rules altered so as to secure a daily delivery of letters at places not unreasonably remote from the post office.

To ask the Postmaster-General, having regard to the fact that the Press rate on telegrams to India is much in excess of the rate to Australia, and that a large population in India are greatly interested in the dissemination of news from this country, will he consider the expediency of communicating with the cable companies concerned, with a view to secure a reduction in the charges on telegrams to India. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The hon. Member must, I fear, have been misinformed. The Press rate on telegrams to India is the same as that to Australia. In regard to the question of a reduction of the rate, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given yesterday by the Secretary of State for India to the Question of the hon. Member for Hythe.†

To ask the Postmaster General if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conditions of the service of the staff of the Keighley post office, inasmuch as some of the clerks say that the duties of the office are unequally distributed and that the night attendances are excessive. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will cause inquiry to be made into the indoor duties of the staff at the Keighley office and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can say what steps are being taken to replace H.M.S. "Montagu."

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that the public have to render returns for income-tax purposes to the surveyors of taxes in whose offices they are dealt with by a clerical staff who are not civil servants; whether he will consider the expediency in the public interest of arranging that such confidential returns should not be dealt with by unestablished clerks or officials, and that duties of so much delicacy and importance should not be discharged by unestablished clerks, while such positions as those of postmen, messengers, and sorters are filled by established officials; will he have the matter considered by a Committee of the House; and will he say if the surveyors of taxes have themselves condemned the present system or made representations suggesting the desirability of a change.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table the copy of Mr. Newcomen's Report of the British Indian Commercial Mission to South-Eastern Persia.

To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that the chowkidari tax, which is levied for the remuneration of village watchmen, presses heavily on the agriculturists of Bengal, will he consider the expediency of communicating with the Government of India with a view to secure its remission.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have yet taken any steps towards effecting the necessary repairs of the National Schools, Freemount, county Cork; are they aware that the present dilapidated and insanitary condition of the building endangers the health of the scholars and gravely affects the average attendance; and, in view of the undertaking that there would be no delay in effecting the repairs, given last May, whether the Commissioners can explain why the necessary work has not yet been commenced.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what progress has been made in the negotiations for the purchase by the Estates Commissioners of the estate of Captain Caldbeck, Ballocolla, Queen's County, 250 acres of which is un-tenanted; can he state what price Captain Caldbeck has asked; and whether the Commissioners have made an offer, and, if so, what sum.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to Aghanville Ranch, near Geashill, King's County, which has been untenanted for the past twenty-five years, and is since the beginning of the present year in the occupation of Mr. James Dunne, Kilbride, Portarlington, and stated to have been purchased by him, whether he can say what price Mr. Dunne has asked for the portion of the estate which he proposes to sell to the Estates Commissioners for the enlargement of small holdings in the locality, and what value the inspector has placed upon the same; and whether an offer has been made Mr. Dunne by the Commissioners.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the actual cost of construction and equipment of each of the forts on the Surrey hills, and how the amounts compare with the original estimates; and whether, if the forts are to be abandoned as useless for military purposes, in view of the fact that the neighbourhood is rapidly developing for building, it will be possible to retain the sites, and any adjoining land now in possession of the Government, as national property instead of selling the same. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The annexed statement gives the approximate figures for land and works in connection with the mobilisation centres round London. They were built by degrees out of three different sources of funds, and it is not practicable without prolonged research to trace the original estimates. But as there are no reports of excesses, the actual expenditure must have teen approximately that of the estimates. As regards the question of the retention of the sites, I would refer my hon. friend to the Answer given by me on Monday last to the hon. Member for West Bristol. †

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to publish Colonel Hobb's Report on the Chicago Meat Yards; and, if not, can he state generally if the Report is unsatisfactory or otherwise; what is roughly the quantity of American tinned meat in stock for the British Army and its cost; and whether His Majesty's Government will send an officer to report on Australian tinned or preserved meats, with a view to supplying the British Army from this source. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is not intended to publish this Report, which is now under the consideration of various Government Departments. No statement can be made regarding it until a final decision has been arrived at. About 3,250,000 pounds of American tinned meat is held at present by the Army, and its cost is about £80,000. There is no present intention of sending an officer to report on Australian tinned meat.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the number of merchant vessels, other than those chartered, which placed themselves at the disposal of the Admiralty during the recent manœuvres; whether all or any of them sailed under convoy; whether any were captured; and, if so, how many.

I am not in a position at present to make any statement on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty still adhere to the refusal to follow the precedent set when Sir William White was authorised to read a paper on the new designs of ships at the Society of Naval Architects; and whether, seeing that the speed of the now ships has considerably increased the cost of the ships, the Admiralty will facilitate discussion and criticism by publishing details of the six alternative designs from which the selection of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" was made.

The Answer is in the affirmative to the first part of the Question, and in the negative to the second part.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to embark the naval reserve of Newfoundland for a cruise this year; or whether this customary practice has been abandoned in consequence of the scarcity of available ships brought about by the naval reductions of His Majesty's Government.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any unusual accumulation of repairs to battleships and cruisers required at the present time; and whether any unusual delay is being experienced in getting such repairs effected.

The Answer to both parts of the Question is in the negative; and it may be stated that the expenditure already incurred on repairs during the current financial year is in excess of that contemplated when the present Estimates were framed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty upon what date and to whom H.M.S. "Montagu" was sold and for what amount; and, if so, whether any and how many of the guns, giving particulars of their displacement, were comprised in the purchase.

The ship has not been sold.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to reduce the number of officers and men serving in His Majesty's fleet.

The hon. Member's Question bears upon the Estimates for the next financial year, and it would therefore be premature to make any statement until those Estimates are presented to the House.

Have the Government any intention of abandoning the two Power standard? Will the hon. Gentleman say that.

I cannot make any such statement.

Are we to understand that there is to be no reduction before next year?

No; the hon. Gentleman is to understand that any questions relating to next year's Estimates are to be postponed until they are presented en bloc.

Is it intended to reduce the number of officers and men serving in His Majesty's fleet?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the £60,000 advance in wages has been distributed in accordance with promise made by him in August last; and whether he is in a position to state what trades or grades of workmen will receive an advance in wages, and the amount they will receive.

I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for Portsmouth on the 29th October, when I stated that full particulars would be published in about ten days time.†

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the War Office has recently agreed to sell a plot of land in the neighbourhood of Fairlight, Sussex, to a brewery company for the purpose of erecting a public-house; whether a similar agreement was previously made with the same company with respect to an adjoining plot of land; whether, on this previous occasion, the magistrates refused to grant a licence owing to the local feeling against the erection of a public-house in that place; and whether, having regard to the fact that this local feeling still exists, the War Office will withdraw their offer to sell the plot of land in question.

It is the case that a plot of War Department land near Fairlight which is no longer required for military purposes, has recently been acquired by a brewery company. The relations between the company and the War Department in this matter have been merely those of buyer and seller. Nothing is known at the War Office of any similar agreement to sell, or of a refusal of the magistrates to grant a licence. The Department is unaware of any general opposition to the-erection of a public-house at this place, but this would appear to be entirely a matter for the licensing authorities. The War Department is not in a position to withdraw from the terms of sale arranged.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he will state the reasons for the repeated refusals of the War Office to allow the Corporation of Bexhill to erect a sea wall in front of the War Office property at that place; whether he is aware that the consequent interruption of the sea wall is not only a source of inconvenience and a disfigurement in the very centre of the Bexhill sea front, but an actual source of danger owing to the erosive action of the sea; and whether he will reconsider his decision in this matter.

I have been in communication with the hon. Member on this subject. The War Department offered the corporation a lease of the land for fourteen years subject to three months notice, but this was declined on the ground that the corporation was not willing to give the rent suggested. If the corporation care to purchase the land, the War Department are willing to consider an offer for it. It is obvious that the War Department could not consent to allow its land to be used in the manner proposed by the corporation as its selling price would be prejudicially affected.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why nurses at Netley Hospital, and in the Army's service generally, are not permitted when off duty, except when on furlough, to take part in public or private dances, seeing that the prohibition does not apply to medical men in the same hospitals; whether a highly trained professional class, such as nurses, are to be placed in a different position on the ground of sex to officers in the Army, who, provided they are on duty at the appointed time have no restrictions placed on their use of time when off duty; and whether he will at once free the nurses from this interference with their liberty.

I have consulted the Nursing Board which contains among its members many ladies of great experience in these matters, and they have advised me to the following effect:—The Nursing Board requires for Her Majesty's Nursing Service gentlewomen who are devoted first and foremost to their work for its own sake and the sake of their patients, and who will, therefore, desire to live quietly and unostentatiously without looking for much gaiety. Occasional attendance at operas, theatres, concerts, and other places of amusement is not incompatible with the due performance of their duties, and is allowed at discretion of the matron; but the late hours involved by attendance at balls and dances, in the opinion of the Board, incapacitates them from giving proper attention to their patients on the following day.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "these matters"?

I refer to the arrangements which have been made for the performance of the duties of the nurses. I may say that in this case the weight of authority of these experienced matrons and highly trained ladies has prevailed over my natural instinct.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has yet come to a decision on the proposal that fishermen in the district of Shoebury, Southend, and Leigh should be permitted to get cockles and to fish generally over the whole of the foreshore in that district vested in the War Office; and whether any regulations to that end are under consideration.

The War Department has purchased the fishery in question, and the issue of regulations in regard to it is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state what reply was made to the offer of the Bengal and North-Western Railway to build a bridge over the Ganges at Godagiri at their own expense.

No reply has yet been given to the offer of the Bengal and North-Western Railway Company to build a bridge over the Ganges at Godagiri, as I am awaiting a Report from the Government of India on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether in view of the promise made by Mr. Brodrick in August, 1905, that Papers on the partition of Bengal would be laid before the House, and of the fact that the partition was effected in the autumn recess immediately following, before Papers could be laid, and in view of the fact that the House has never been afforded the opportunity of discussing the subject, and that the partition has given rise to discontent in India, he will appoint a Select Committee of the House to inquire into and report upon all the circumstances connected with the partition of the province.

I stated on Monday last that it would be contrary to the public interest to present Papers on the subject of the agitation against the recent partition of Bengal;† and I am still less prepared to take any action of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

Arising out of that Answer, may I ask whether we are to understand that this House exercises no control whatever over Indian affairs?

No; I do not think that is at all the inference to be drawn from my Answer.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is possible for the House to give proper attention in regard to this subject if it is not supplied with the actual facts?

No. I should think no deliberative body could exercise deliberative functions usefully unless acquainted with the actual facts?

That is why we want Home Rule.

Were not the papers laid after Parliament rose?

I am not sure.

The facts in relation to the partition of Bengal were, as I have stated, laid before Parliament on some dare in August last year.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that this is an entirely new Parliament, that at least two-thirds, I should think, of the Members know nothing of these Papers, and does he not under the circumstances consider it advisable that the Papers should be re-issued?

So far as I am concerned there is no objection at all to the re issue of the Papers. But they will not throw any light upon the real point. The real point is this: when the present Government came into office they found that the partition of Bengal had been carried out. It then became a question, in our view, largely of political expediency, whether that transaction should be reversed, or whether it should be upheld. The question was whether the disadvantages of setting aside all the operations which had followed did not far more than counterbalance the errors, as we thought them, of the original change. It was, therefore, a question largely of political expediency, and, of course, Ministers took the view I have announced on their own responsibility. In what they have done they may have taken a wrong view, but to appoint a Select Committee to consider the question of the presentation of Papers, such as my hon. friend desires, would really not help the House one atom to a sound conclusion in the matter.

May I ask whether it is not a well ascertained fact that public opinion in Bengal is dead against the partition, and whether, in view of that being the case, an alteration cannot be made in accordance with Liberal principles, and having regard to the views of the people?

Order, order. That Question hardly arises out of the one before the House.

Then I will put one on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to lay Papers relating to Tibet upon the Table of the House?

There are at present no Papers relating to Thibet which could be presented consistently with the public interest. The agreement with China as to the Lhasa Convention has been already published.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in British Central Africa or any other British Protectorate in Africa, any law, or rule, having the force of law, restricts the erection of Christian schools to villages in which the chief and one-fifth of the population consent to such erection?

There is, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, no law, or rule having the force of law, in any British Protectorate in Africa which restricts the erection of Christian schools, except in the British Central Africa Protectorate, where, as a consequence of disturbances in the earlier days of the Protectorate, a notice was issued by the Commissioner to the effect that a missionary must obtain the assent of the chief and of the majority of the people to the building of a church, chapel or school, in villages which have been created—as nearly all have been created —native reserves.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has boon arrived at regarding the question of reducing the area or altering the boundaries of the game reserve at Chiromo in view of further reports received from British Central Africa concerning the difficulty of using the road from Katungas to Chiromo, owing to the loss of human life and of cattle by lions, and the further loss of life by lions in Chiromo, and the consequent interruption to business enterprises in that locality?

The Secretary of State has received a detailed report from the Commissioner of the British Central Africa Protectorate which shows that the area of the game reserve near Chiromo has been reduced, and is now very much smaller than it originally was. It is considered that the present limits of the reserve should be maintained, and the Secretary of State has decided not to direct any further reductions at present. The reserve is intended only for the remnant of the buffalo in that Protectorate, and in no way to protect, lions or other carnivora, which can be shot at any time by any one. The road from Chiromo to Katungas does not pass through the reserve, but quite clear of it on the east side; the railway passes far to the east of it. There has been no loss of life or cattle through lions on the road or in the neighbourhood of Chiromo which can be traced to the existence of the game reserve.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, under an Act recently passed by the Natal Legislature, His Majesty's Indian subjects resident in Natal, many of whom are large ratepayers, will be deprived of the municipal franchise; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to sanction this Act.

At the same time, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to a petition of the Natal Indian Congress lately received, complaining that British Indians resident in Natal are deprived by the Corporations Consolidation Bill, recently passed, of the municipal franchise which they have hitherto enjoyed; and whether, seeing that besides indentured labourers there is in the Colony a free population of some 15,000 Indians, chiefly belonging to the mercantile class, and many of them highly educated, he will say what action, if any, His Majesty's Government proposes to take to prevent this act of disfranchisement.

The Bill excludes for the future from the municipal franchise persons who are disqualified for the Parliamentary franchise unless they are exempted as provided in the Act No. 8 of 1896, but saves the rights of those persons already on the burgess rolls and otherwise qualified. The Petition from the Natal Indian Congress has been received, and it and the Bill are still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of. State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the prospectus of the British West Africa Produce Company, Limited, after referring to concessions covering an area of more than 4,000 square miles, states that with a view to a sufficient supply of native labour the chiefs have under the said concessions undertaken to sow, plant, and cultivate; and whether steps will be taken to insure that these arrangements do not involve forced labour on the part of the natives. I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the prospectus of the British West Africa Produce Company, Limited; whether that company holds from paramount chiefs concessions covering an area of upwards of 4,000 square miles in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone for ninety-nine years from 1901; whether the chairman of that company was Governor of Sierra Leone from 1894 to 1900; whether he can say what is the nature of these concessions, and whether they are such as to give the company the monopoly of rubber production in that area; and whether these concessions have been approved by the Governor of Sierra Leone or the Colonial Office.

At the same time may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the notice of the Colonial Office has been drawn to the statements made in the prospectus filed by the British West Africa Produce Company, Limited, dated 10th October, 1906, under the name of the chairman, Sir Frederic Cardew, described as Governor of Sierra Leone from 1894 to 1900, and other directors, regarding twenty concessions of agricultural and trading rights relating to territories covering an area of upwards of 4,000 square miles in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone; whether he can state how many paramount chiefs granted these concessions; whether they are valid without the sanction of the Government of Sierra Leone; whether these chiefs have become individually responsible to the limited company for the supply of native labourers; and whether they may lawfully force natives to cooperation in labour by virtue of these documents.

The attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been directed to the prospectus of the British West Africa Produce Company, Limited. The concessions in question were not granted or approved by the Government, but the Colonial Office was aware from correspondence with Mr. Brunner that they had been obtained. Sir F. Cardew, who is named as chairman of the company, was Governor of Sierra Leone from 1894 to 1900. The concessions appear to be of the character of agreements with chiefs to the effect that they will cultivate and will sell only to the concessionaires certain agricultural products, not being products already cultivated in their territories, the seeds of which are to be supplied to them by the concessionaires. It is not stated that they give the concessionaires any monopoly or exclusive rights of cultivation or of rubber production in those areas. The concessions appear to be of a kind which does not, under the law of the Protectorate, require the approval of the Governor of Sierra Leone or the Secretary of State for the Colonies. With regard to the supply of native labour, I may say that the chiefs can only act in accordance with their rocognised authority under native law and custom, which does not enable them to requisition labour except for certain established public purposes and to an extent, strictly limited by the consent of their people, upon the chiefs' own farms. These concessions in no way enlarge or affect the powers of the chiefs in regard to such labour. Any chief abusing his powers and oppressing his subjects by illegal forced labour is liable to removal from his office by the Governor, whose duty it-will be to take care that no such abuse occurs.

May I ask whether in order to put a stop to objectionable transactions of this kind, the hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability, when any man is appointed to a governorship of a colony, of imposing a condition on retirement from the governorship that he shall not undertake transactions of this kind or exploit the resources of his colony on the Stock Exchange.

As to whether these transactions are objectionable or not, I am not led to a conclusion by any information put at the disposal of the Colonial Office. If the hon. Member has any information which can prove that these proposals are objectionable in their character, perhaps he will give me the opportunity of showing it to the Secretary of State. As to the general question of persons employed in the public service being controlled after leaving the public service, I must have notice of the Question before I can say whether any general rule can be laid down.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain what individual responsibility to the company these chiefs have undertaken?

I have explained that the chiefs are to sell to the company the agricultural products of certain seeds which are to be given to them by the company. That appears to me to be an operation which is not in itself improper or objectionable, and I think we should hinder the development of Nigeria if we excluded private enterprise when it does not conflict with the already strict regulations which the Government have laid down.

But in what way live they responsible?

The chiefs are responsible in the same way in which every person is responsible for a contract into which he enters.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the Colonies have not yet replied to the request of the Colonial Office to be furnished with the necessary information to enable the Return as to Coolie Labour to be presented to the House in accordance with the Order of February last; and what steps have been taken by the Colonial Office to expedite the furnishing of the required particulars.

Since 29thOctober further information has been received, and the only reply now required is that from the State of Western Australia. All Governments which had not replied within a reasonable time to the despatch which was sent to them on the subject in March last were reminded by telegraph.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the provisions of Section 20 of the Finance Act of 1894 have not been made applicable to the Transvaal.

Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1894, cannot be applied to the Transvaal unless and until the law governing the levying of Estate Duty in that Colony has been modified. It was found impracticable to introduce the necessary legislation during the late session of the Legislative Council, and the question will, therefore, remain to be considered by the new Legislature.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the starvation due to unemployment existing at Trinidad; and, if so, what action the Government has taken, especially in relation to the demand for labour by the Isthmian Canal Commission and the importation of labourers from India to compete with the West Indian labourers.

I am not aware that there is any such distress as the hon. Member refers to, resulting from want of employment in Trinidad; but in view of the private communications I have received from the hon. Member an inquiry will be addressed to the Governor on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Return has been received by the Secretary of State from the Transvaal Government showing that on the 30th June last there were confined in the Transvaal prisons about seven times as many Chinese coolies as either Europeans or natives in proportion to the total numbers of the Chinese, Europeans, and natives, respectively, in the Colony and, if so, whether any part of the extra cost incurred by this excess of Chinese crime has been borne by the mine-owners who imported the criminals, or whether it has all fallon upon the general taxpayers of the Colony.

For the purposes of comparison it is necessary not to contrast the Chinese with the total white population or with the total native population, but with the adult males, and so considered, the European and native rates would appear to be about six per 1,000, or a third of the Chinese rate. The great majority of the offences of the Chinese are breaches of disciplinary regulations which are not in themselves criminal acts, but taking more serious crimes as being those represented by sentences of six months or more, the Chinese rate would appear for such serious crimes to be on about the same level as the European and native rate, the Chinese rate being 4·4 per 1,000. The Legislature of the Colony has not hitherto made any special arrangement for throwing the whole or a part of the cost of Chinese crime upon the mine-owners.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the desirability of continuity of policy and administration in our West African Colonies, His Majesty's Government will take into consideration the advisability of appointing a West African Council principally composed of distinguished officials, retired or otherwise, to confer with the Colonial Office.

The appointment of such a committee has been suggested from time to time; but the Secretary of State does not feel convinced that it is necessary. The joint West African Council of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Manchester, Liverpool, and London, which meets monthly at the Colonial Office affords convenient opportunities for the free discussion of commercial questions between the representatives of commercial interests, and those of the Colonial Office. I should deprecate in the present state of Nigerian development the creation of more elaborate or comprehensive machinery.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Southern Nigeria Proclamation, No. 15, 1903, is still in force; if, under its provisions, compulsory labour without payment can be demanded by district commissioners; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will insist that for the future fair payment will be made to the chiefs for all labour requisitioned from them.

The proclamation referred to is still in force. Under its provisions compulsory labour without payment can be demanded by district commissioners. The obligation to give gratuitous labour for public purposes is one established and recognised throughout West Africa. The only possible substitute for it would be the imposition of rates payable in money, as in this country. The introduction of this change is not at present, in Lord Elgin's opinion, either practicable or expedient in West Africa.

Has the present Secretary for the Colonies given sanction to any such proclamation demanding forced unpaid labour as suggested in the Question, or were these proclamations issued before he came into office?

They belong to an anterior date.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further action has been taken, such as he can communicate to the House, regarding British participation in the Baghdad Railway project; whether the Government has acquiesced in the raising of the Turkish Customs by 3 per cent.; and, if so, upon what conditions.

The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. With regard to the Turkish Customs negotiations are still in progress, and until they are concluded I cannot say what the result will be. Certain conditions have been stated by all the Powers as necessary to their consent.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government has cancelled or amended its edict introducing certain changes into the administration of the Chinese Customs.

The reply to the hon. Member's inquiry is in the negative. I would also refer him to my replies of the 25th and 26th ultimo relative to the edict of May 9th, to the effect that the edict has not hitherto changed the administration by Sir R. Hart.†

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has been received of the increase of piracy in the Canton Delta; and, if so, whether action is contemplated in order to the protection of commerce in these waters.

Reports of several cases of piracy and attempted piracy in the Canton Delta have lately been received by His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Minister at Peking has been authorised to make representations to the Chinese Government, with a view to the adoption of measures for the suppression of these outrages, and to the better policing of the waterways.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a Convention has been signed with France with reference to the New Hebrides; and, if so, whether he will lay such Convention upon the Table, with any correspondence between this Government and the Colonies of New Zealand, Queensland, and New South Wales upon the matter.

The text of the Convention will be laid at once, and correspondence with the Colonies concerned will be laid subsequently as soon as it is complete.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the consent of the Emperor Menelik is still withheld to the agreement concluded between Great Britain, Italy, and France with reference to Abyssinia.

The validity of the agreement between the three Powers is not dependent upon Menelik's consent. The agreement was communicated to Menelik with the object of showing him that his interests were not adversely affected by the arrangements which the three Powers had made between themselves.

Is it necessary to obtain his consent before the agreement comes into force.

No. Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the possibility of reducing the sentence on Jeremiah Power who was sentenced on the 23rd instant at the Old Bailey to six months imprisonment with hard labour for stealing some meat, in view of the circumstances under which the offence was committed, and the fact that the police admitted that there was no previous conviction against him.

I have made inquiry into this case, but find no ground at present for advising interference with the sentence. The case was more serious than would appear from the newspaper report and the statements made by the prisoner in Court are not in accordance with fact. He had been convicted of theft before.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a statement made by one of the women recently committed to Hollaway Prison in default that she was annoyed at night by rats running about her cell; whether he is in a position to state whether any sanitary authority has made an inspection into the sanitary condition and drainage of the prison; if not, will he say who is responsible for the sanitary condition of the building; whether the bye-laws and regulations made under The Public Health Act (London), 1891, are carried out; and when the last inspection into the sanitary condition of the prison was made.

Inquiries have been made as to the alleged presence of rats in this prisoner's cell. The cell and the shaft whence the rats were alleged to issue, were at once examined by the engineer, and no sign of their presence could be detected. I am making further inquiries. The Courts have decided that the Public Health Acts do not apply to prisons as being the property of the Crown. The responsibility for the sanitary condition of the prison rests with the Commissioners of Prisons; and a regular and careful sanitary inspection of prisons is strictly carried out by the staff of the Commissioners. The last sanitary inspection of Holloway took place on the 14th September last.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two ladies of unimpeachable veracity—Mrs. Pethick Lawrence and Mrs. Montefiore—both stated that they were annoyed at night by the presence of rats in their cells?

I have already said that I am making further inquiries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the advisability of purchasing an active cat?

Was not the statement actually made that the rats were in the infirmary, and not in the cells?

I will make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number and names of local prisons in England which are at present used for other than the temporary detention of persons sentenced to penal servitude; and whether the officers of such prisons are paid on the same scale as those of the recognised convict prisons.

Convicts serve the preliminary period of separate confinement, which varies from three to nine months, at the following prisons— Chelmsford, Dorchester, Exeter, Gloucester, Lewes, Stafford. In addition to this, certain convicts selected for their good behaviour, who were sentenced in the north of England, serve their last year at Wakefield. Convicts in local prisons are in charge of the ordinary local prison staff, who are on a different scale of pay from the staff of convict prisons. These convicts being, except at Wake-field, in cellular confinement, and not employed in parties or gangs in the open, do not present the same difficulty of control as in the regular convict prisons, and the duty of supervising them does not differ from that of supervising ordinary local prisoners.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade upon what rule or regulation, either of the railway company or of the Board of Trade, the inspector charged upon the guard in the Salisbury disaster the duty and responsibility for stopping the train when running at excessive speed.

The rule applicable would appear to be number 177 (b) of the Railway Company's Rules and Regulations.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the action of the Midland Railway Company in placing untrained men in charge of goods trains without their having passed the usual examination; and whether, in view of the danger involved to the lives of the men employed, he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter.

No, Sir, I have no information to the effect suggested, but I am communicating the hon. Member's Question to the railway company mentioned and inviting their observations.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the total amount contributed by the princes and people of India to the cost of building the Imperial Institute; what was the total cost of the building; and what proportion of that total cost is represented by the buildings now used by the University of London.

The total amount of the donations received from India for the foundation (building and endowment) of the Imperial Institute was £114,528. Of this sum a small portion was specifically given for additions to the building, the major proportion was paid into the general fund, and it is not possible to make any definite appointment as between building and endowment. The total amount of money expended in building the Institute, including plant, fittings and furniture, etc., was £354,753. The proportions of the whole building at present occupied respectively by the Imperial Institute and the London University may be roughly estimated at two-fifths and three-fifths.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience to litigants caused by the delay in appointing to the vacant post of Railway and Canal Commissioner; and whether an appointment will be made during the present sittings of the Law Courts.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. In the only case in which it was represented to us that a speedy hearing appeared to be necessary I appointed a temporary Commissioner in accordance with the Act, and I should be prepared to take a similar course should the necessity arise before a permanent appointment is made. I hope, however, that a permanent appointment will be made shortly.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the increases in fares on the District Railway, which press heavily upon working-class families; and if he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter, and appoint a committee to make recommendations thereon.

Yes, Sir, I have had this matter under careful consideration. The question whether the workmen's fares now charged by the railway company are unduly high is one that can be dealt with under the Cheap Trains Act, 1883. I am informed by the London County Council that their Housing Committee is in correspondence with the railway company, and that failing a satisfactory settlement, the Council will be recommended to make a representation to the Board of Trade under the Act. Full investigation would then be made into all the circumstances either by the Board of Trade or by the Railway and Canal Commissioners.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. J. and P. Coats, Limited, by combining the sewing cotton businesses of Messrs. Coats, of Paisley, Messrs. Clark & Company, Messrs. Jonas Brook & Brothers, and Messrs. James Chadwick & Brother, have secured a virtual monopoly of the sewing cotton trade of the United Kingdom; that foreign competition is-non-existent in this trade; that it is practically impossible for new British competition to arise; that the cotton trust makes a regular profit of about £3,000,000 per annum on a capital of £10,000,000; and whether, under these circumstances, he can see his way to legislate to secure public control of a trade which affects every working woman in the country. I beg further to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the wall-paper manufacture, a trade little affected by foreign competition, a combination of makers has been formed under the title of Wallpaper Manufacturers, Limited, which absorbed the businesses carried on by C. and J. G. Potter, the Darwen Paper Staining Company, Potter & Company, Huntingdon Frères, the Anaglypta Company, Lightbown, Aspinall & Company, Allan, Cockshut & Company, the Ligno mar Company, Carlisle and Clegg, Osborn and Shearman, John Trumble & Sons, Walker Carver & Company, Limited, W. G. Wilkins & Company, Limited,Mitchell, Arnott & Company, Limited, and twelve other makers; that this great amalgamation amounts to a virtual monopoly of the trade, and that it is subversive of the public interest; and whether he can see his way to take steps to secure public control of the monopoly.

Perhaps I may answer these two Questions together. There is no monopoly of the sewing cotton trade in this or any other country. There are over twenty independent makers of the article whose capital amounts to millions of pounds, including important limited companies and manufacturers who have been in existence for more than half a century, and between whom and Coats there is no connection. The position which Messrs. Coats have established for themselves in various markets for cotton sewing thread is well known. I have no official information as to their profits, or as to the extent to which the Wall-Paper Manufacturers, Limited, have established a virtual monopoly as suggested in the Question. I find, however, that imports of printed paperhangings amounted last year to £133,000 compared with only £34,000 in 1894, the last previous year for which these imports were separately recorded. As regards the last part of the Question I can add nothing to my reply given last Monday†.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has given consideration to the fact that the combination controlled by Messrs. Coats does, as a matter of fact, enjoy what I say is virtually a monopoly? I mean that it absorbs about nine-tenths of the trade. With regard to wall-paper, the amount imported is so insignificant that it has no bearing on the Question.

The hon. Member is making a debating speech.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the expense which will be thrown upon the rates, particularly in agricultural and thinly populated counties, by the requirements of Regulation 1 of the regulations now under the consideration of the Board of Trade, which involve the annual visit of an inspector to the premises or place of trade of every trader, and the verification of all weights and measures in use for trade found at such premises or place; whether he has any official Reports showing that the present system of surprise visits does not afford a sufficient control of weights and measures; and, if not, on what ground the new and more stringent regulation is based; and whether the Board of Trade are advised that farmers are traders within the meaning of the Weights and Measures Acts.

An annual visit to places where weights and measures are in use was already required by the model regulations drawn up by the Board of Trade under the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, and the present draft regulation under the Act of 1904 differs chiefly in empowering the Department to exempt districts where an annual visit would be inconvenient. The Question whether fanners are traders for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts can only be answered by a reference to the definition of 'trade' in Section 19 of the Act of 1878. As a general rule a farmer's dealings will no doubt come within that definition.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for instance, in a county like Hertfordshire this change will involve doubling the staff of inspectors, and add hundreds a year to the rates?

I think the right hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. The change will have a contrary tendency.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will let me show him the papers.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what portion of the grant to the unemployed will be allocated to the county of Lancashire.

Before the right hon. Gentleman allocates any of this money, will he take care to ensure that none of it will be used for pauperising purposes?

My views on this Question are sufficiently well-known not to require any further answer. It is not proposed to allocate any specified portion of the grant to particular counties. The object of the grant is to provide a means whereby the funds of the Central (Unemployed) Body in London, and of Distress Committees elsewhere, derived from voluntary contributions may be supplemented in cases where there may be exceptional need for assistance in the coming winter in meeting the cost of providing or contributing to the provision of temporary work. It appears to me that some of the Distress Committees in Lancashire will probably require such assistance, and in these cases I have informed them that I should be prepared, should they deem it necessary to apply for assistance from the grant, to give consideration to the application.

Has any of the money been allocated to distress committees?

Some of the money has already been allocated, and the process is still going on.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has made, or will make, any computation showing the loss of revenue to the Post Office should it be enacted by the Street Betting Bill that it is illegal to transmit telegrams relating to betting transactions through the Post Office.

I have not made such a computation.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to prevent betting by telephone over the telephone systems controlled by the Post Office.

It would not be possible to prevent the use of a telephone system for the purpose of betting, without instituting a general censorship by means of a staff employed in listening to all conversations, who would also have to decide what was and what was not a betting transaction. I am afraid I do not see my way to undertake such a responsibility.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the increase of the fee for the use of a private box in the post offices in Scotland, from one guinea to two guineas a year, has led to a decrease in the number hired, and a consequent loss of revenue, and to what amount, and what are the reasons for this increase of the fee; and whether he can see his way to revert to the smaller fee, and thus allay the dissatisfaction which has been caused.

The number of private boxes has somewhat decreased since the alteration of charges came into operation. Formerly the charge had not covered the extra cost incurred. Precise figures relating to the number of private boxes in Scotland before and after the change made in the scale of charges are not at present available.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the fact that telegrams sent to Members of Parliament at their own homes and having to be re-directed to the House, when Parliament is sitting and Members are in attendance, are charged for at an extra rate for such delivery; and whether he can see his way, under those circumstances, to have such telegrams delivered without any extra charge.

All redirected telegrams are liable, if any additional service is performed, to an additional charge of 6d. if the two addresses are within the same town and, if the addresses are in different towns, to the full inland rate. Each London postal district is considered a separate town for this purpose. I have no power to discriminate in favour of Members of Parliament.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, if his attention has been called to the prosecution, on 8th October, at the Wakefield Police Court, of Alfred Whiteley, for not sending his two children regularly to school, and to the statement of the attendance officer that the managers of the Cathedral School had in the past allowed certain children to attend free as an act of grace; whether, in view of the difficulty existing in the city, of parents being able to get their children into convenient schools without paying fees, owing to the determination of the managers of such schools to keep them select by charging fees, he will cause inquiries to be made into the state of affairs in the matter of charging fees; and, further, if he will consider the question of making all places free in all schools supported entirely by public money.

No information has reached me either of the prosecution or of the alleged statement of the attendance officer mentioned in the Question; a complaint was received by the Board from Alfred Whiteley in September last at being required to pay fees for the admission of his child to the school named, and on this being brought to the notice of the local education authority a free place was offered to him by the local education authority in St. Andrew's National School about a quarter of a mile from his house. The facts at present before me do not, I think, constitute a sufficient case for an inquiry of the nature suggested. It does not appear that there is any need to consider alterations in the existing law relating to school fees, since it is entirely in the option of the Local Education Authority to require the discontinuance of fees in any Public Elementary School maintained by them, and, as was pointed out to the hon. Member in reply to a Question asked by him on the 12th July,† it is the duty of every local education authority to provide a sufficient amount of public school accommodation without payment of foes in every part of their area.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will ascertain and intimate to this House what arrangements, if any, are being made to remove the three houses at Charing Cross, the removal of which is necessary to complete the Charing Cross end of the Mall improvement; and how the requisite funds will be provided.

I am not aware that any arrangements are being made to remove any houses at Charing Cross. This is in my opinion a Metropolitan matter, and as such appertains to the business of the London County Council.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman intends to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the London County Council.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether one Frank Attwood Huckle was employed by the Treasury to obtain statements from witnesses proposed to be called on behalf of the Crown in the case of Rex v. Fowler; whether Huckle is the secretary of the Reigate Liberal Association and acted on behalf of the hon. Member for Reigate as his election agent at the late election; whether it is usual for the Treasury to employ election agents to get up evidence in a criminal case; and, if not, why the usual course was departed from on this occasion. The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper—

To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether

† See (4) Debates, elx., 1063.

one Frank Attwood Huckle approached the Treasury in May last, five months after the offences alleged against Fowler in Hex v. Fowler; whether any inquiries were then made by the Treasury as to the bona fides of Huckle; and whether it was then ascertained that Huckle had acted as the election agent of the hon. Member for the Reigate Division of Surrey.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General why seven months were allowed to elapse before summonses in the case of Rex v. Fowler were applied for at the Oxted Petty Sessions, on 13th August last, on behalf of Taylor and Flood; and whether the Treasury had all the information, upon which it was decided to proceed, in February, 1906.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury solicitor was aware at the time the prosecution of Fowler was undertaken that reductions of the staff of Ling-field racecourse had been decided upon by the owners thereof in 1903; that in January, 1904, the first reduction of staff took place; that further reductions were decided upon on the 16th March, 1905, and in July, 1905; and that on the 14th December, 1905, and the 23rd January, 1906, the dismissal of some of the prosecutors in Rex v. Fowler was ordered by the representatives of the owners, to whose orders Fowler was amenable.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether one Taylor, a prosecutor in the case of Rex v. Fowler, was called as a witness by the Treasury to prove a conversation in a public-house, upon which a charge brought by the Treasury was based; whether Taylor is known to be and admits he is a deaf man; and whether Richardson, a prosecutor in Rex v. Fowler, has on several occasions been convicted of drunkenness.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the statement of one William Richardson, a prosecutor in the case of Rex v. Fowler, was taken by one Frank Attwood Huckle upon instructions received by Huckle from the Treasury: and whether the statement of one William Arthur Kenward was made to one Hood and sent to Frank Attwood Huckle.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether one Frank Attwood Huckle paid the expenses to London of the prosecutors, Hood and Taylor, in the case of Rex v. Fowler, and took Hood and Taylor to the Treasury.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the statement of William Richardson in Rex v. Fowler was made, on instructions received from the Treasury, to one Frank Attwood Huckle; and whether the statement of William Arthur Kenward was made to Hood and sent to Huckle.

I have communicated with the Public Prosecutor, and he informs me that the prosecution followed the ordinary course. We received a complaint from Mr. Huckle, who had been employed as agent for the Liberal candidate, that statements had been made to him that certain of the electors had been intimidated. Mr. Huckle was asked to produce the materials on which the complaint rested. At his suggestion to the Public Prosecutor, some of the witnesses who complained of intimidation were invited to attend the Treasury. They did so and were examined in person, and their evidence was taken by experienced members of the official staff. I have seen that evidence and I think it undoubtedly constituted a very strong statement as to language of intimidation having been used. Mr. Huckle was then asked whether that was the sole evidence he had to produce. He thought there were other persons who might be able to give corroborative evidence, and he furnished further statements of other witnesses with that object. The whole of the evidence was considered for a considerable period. I was asked to say whether the Public Prosecutor ought to refrain from prosecuting, having regard merely to the difficulty of obtaining a conviction. I told him that he must consider the case on its merits; that he must form a conclusion as to whether the evidence was sufficient and satisfactory, and that if the conclusion was favourable the case ought to be taken before the Court without reference to any difficulty which might attend obtaining convictions in cases of this class. The matter was considered by the Public Prosecutor and he brought the case before the magistrates. Of course he could not anticipate the defence, but the prosecution was not hastily undertaken. There were ample materials to support it.

Was Mr. Huckle employed to obtain statements from witnesses called on behalf of the Crown?

No; only in the sense that on being asked whether the evidence he first produced exhausted his case. He then produced two other witnesses. When an election offence has been committed the person likely to complain is the election agent, who would naturally hear of matters involving a violation of the law.

Was it suggested to him that he should obtain a further statement?

No. He was only asked whether the first evidence produced was the only evidence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table a copy of the statement furnished by Huckle?

said the whole correspondence was privileged, and its publication would be contrary to the public interest.

pressed for a detailed Answer to his Questions.

said the Public Prosecutor informed him that Taylor when before him appeared to be in full possession of the sense of hearing. As to whether one of the witnesses had previously been convicted of drunkenness he thought that if in an election inquiry all persons who had been convicted of drunkenness were to be ineligible as witnesses it would be impossible ever to secure a conviction.

Why were seven months allowed to elapse before the summonses were applied for?

As a matter of fact, only three and a quarter months were allowed to elapse, and that period was devoted to a careful sifting of the evidence, to ensure that no hasty and ill-considered prosecution should take place.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for East Bristol, as Church Estates Commissioner, how much of the £265,767 17s. 7d. mentioned on page 21 of the fifty-eighth Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners represents the rent of agricultural land; what is the area of the lands producing such rent; whether these estates are managed direct or by agency; and who are the agents, if any, and what moneys have been paid to them during each of the last five years for agency work in connection with this agricultural land and also for all agency work.

The gross rents of agricultural lands amount to approximately £250,000 out of the sum of £265,767 17s. 7d., the remainder being chiefly rents of house property in provincial towns and places. The area of the agricultural lands is about 250,000 acres. The Estates of the Commissioners are under the management of the Estates Committee and two firms of land agents are employed, viz., Messrs Clutton, of No. 5, Great College Street, Westminster, and Messrs. Smiths Gore & Co., of No. 3, Little College Street, Westminster. Each firm employs at their own expense local sub-agents or representatives where necessary. The remuneration of each firm for agency and receivership in respect of agricultural property is a commission of 4 per cent. on the rents, and this covers also their services for superintendence of repairs and improvements and new buildings in all but exceptional cases. The total of the payments made by the Commissioners for agency in respect of all the estates vested in them for their common fund is set out each year on the other side of the account from which the figure quoted in the Question was taken.