said that when the Bill was before the House on a previous occasion, on account of the partisan manner in which the directors applied their patronage, and to the fact that they applied religious tests to appointments, the House affirmed the principle that the railway companies were the servants and not the masters of the public, and that the company were making improper use of the powers conferred upon them. He was glad to say, however, that the Board of Trade had effected a compromise by which the company had agreed that there should be no partisanship in the selection of employees and no religious tests, so that, while allowing the Bill to pass, it was with the hope that the directors of the company would in the future use the powers conferred upon them in such a manner that when the measure came back to the House again it would find the Nationalist Members not enemies to it, but friends.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the names and counties of the ninety estates in the Court of the Land Judge for which the Estates Commissioners after inspection refused to make an offer, with the reason for the refusal in each case. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) This Question appears to have been asked under a misapprehension. In their last annual Report the Estates Commissioners, referring to estates for sale in the Land Judge's Court, make the following remark: During the period inspections were made of ninety estates, in three of which the Commissioners refused, after inspection, to make an offer. The three estates are:—(1) Francis G. Foster and others, trustees of John Wray, deceased, county Tyrone. The Commissioners declined to make an offer for the purchase of this estate, as less than three-fourths of the tenants in rateable value were willing to sign undertakings to purchase at the estimated price. (2) William Dopping and Antony John Dopping, county Westmeath. In June 1905 the Estates Commissioners refused to make an offer for this estate, having regard to the character of the holdings. They recently reconsidered the matter, and in October of this year made an offer for the estate, which is at present under the consideration of the Land Judge. (3) Jeremiah Dunne, Queen's County. This property was inspected, but the Commissioners decided, in the special circumstances of the property, and in the exercise of their discretion, that they would not make an offer for it.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has received a petition from Lagos, West Africa, praying for the intervention of the Government in regard to a Bill passed by the Legislative Council of Lagos in August last whereby 6,000 persons will be dispossessed of their property; whether the site which the Bill proposes to clear was selected in 1865 by the late Sir John Hawley Glover, the then Governor, for occupation by the men of the Hausa tribe on their return from a military expedition, and was cleared by them, and houses erected thereon at their own expense and have since been maintained by them; and whether, under the circumstances set forth in the petition, the Colonial Office will take immediate steps to protect the petitioners and others interested, who will, if the Bill is permitted to come into operation, in the language of the petition, be cast out in their old age, homeless and helpless. (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The petition to which the hon. Member refers has been delayed in its course to the Colonial Office, no doubt through the absence from Lagos of Sir W. Egerton, who has been on tour in the interior. It has now been received, and will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State. The healthy and ordered expansion of the town of Lagos, the need of improved sanitation, and of regular barrack accommodation for the forces, are all very necessary and desirable public objects. The Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that every precaution is not being taken to inflict no real material hardship or injustice upon poor people inconvenienced by such improvements, but he will call the attention of the Governor specially to the subject.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether having regard to the number of public meetings held in different parts of the country in opposition to the conversion of the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society into a limited liability company, he will order such inquiry as may be considered necessary to ascertain whether or not the members of the society are in favour of such a step being taken.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any, and, if so, what, action has been taken regarding the affairs of the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society; and whether, in view of the action taken by the society's officials and the dissatisfaction of a large proportion of its members, he will order an inquiry into the whole matter. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Perhaps I may refer the hon. Members to the Answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the College Division of Dublin, to which I can add nothing at present.†

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the crews of the Customs launches are the only men in the Customs service who are not included in the forty-eight hours week and do not receive any payment for Sunday labour; and will he consider the advisability of treating these men, as to payment for Sunday work, when employed, in the same way as obtains through the rest of the Customs service. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that the matter is now receiving the consideration of the Board of Customs.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board, if his attention has been called to the fact that owing to the name Distress Committee a large number of unemployed men refuse to register themselves in any towns where such committees exist; that on account of this a full return of the unemployed is not secured; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take any action with a view to a change of name, as also the granting of more extensive powers to such local committees to provide work for the unemployed. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware that in some instances the name "Distress Committee" has been objected to, but it is that given to these committees by the Unemployed Workmen Act, under which they are appointed. An amendment of the Act would be necessary for altering the name of these bodies and also for granting them more extensive powers. I do not propose to

† See Col 122.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, exclusive of the guns of that class destined for the three armoured cruisers now under construction, there exists a sufficient reserve of 45 calibre 12-inch guns (mark X) to meet any emergency. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Board of Admiralty have provided for all requirements.

To ask the President of the Board of Education to what account have been placed the contributions, under The Elementary Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1898, of these teachers who died before reaching the age of sixty-five and received no benefit under the Act; and whether he is able to say when the Report of the present revaluation will be made public. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) All contributions received by the Board of Education under the Elementary School Teachers (Suparannuation) Act, 1891, including these specially referred to in the Question, are paid over monthly to the National Debt Commissioners as required by Section 3 (2) of the Superannuation Act. In reply to the second paragraph of the Question I have to say that no revaluation has yet been decided on, still less begun, and I am not yet in a position to say when the actuarial investigation which is being conducted for the Board of Education and the Treasury will be completed.

To ask the President of the Board of Education if the additional Grant of £1,000,000 will be paid to the local education authority under Section 13 of the Education Bill during the financial year 1907–8, or during the subsequent financial year. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Lichfield on 9th July last, † which was to the effect that a Bill will be introduced next session in which the whole question of the additional Grant of £1,000,000 for elementary education will be dealt with.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can say when the Parliamentary Elections Expenses Return will be in the hands of Members, ordered to be printed by the House on 2nd August. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I hope the Return will be in the hands of Members by the end of this month.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a Departmental Committee, consisting of the principal officers of the Post Office, recommended that as a broad principle in telegraph offices the permanent establishment of an office should be framed to meet the minimum requirements; whether a further recommendation was made that delays of thirty minutes on press work should be ignored, and that the officers who did not comply with the economical requirements demanded were not to be promoted; whether the Committee recommended the use of overtime and temporary assistance and learners; and whether he will state if he has discontinued the policy adopted by the department as contained in these recommendations. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The hon. Member is quoting from the Report of a Committee which sat more than twelve years ago; none of the members are now in the service. This principle does not represent the present policy of the department.

To ask the Chief Secretary

† See(4) Debates clx., 493.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Michael Murphy was elected sanitary sub-officer and collector of labourers' cottages rents by the Lismore Rural Council on 18th May last, eleven members being present and seven voting for him and other candidates; that the Local Government Board in September last informed the district council that they could not sanction Mr. Murphy's appointment; that the district council by resolution passed unanimously, sixteen members being present, requested the Local Government Board to give their reasons; and that subsequently the Local Government Board wrote asking if there was a quorum present when Mr. Murphy was elected; and whether, seeing that the Local Government Board have received a complaint with regard to neglect as to the local water supply of which the sanitary sub-officer acts as caretaker, they will now sanction the appointment made. (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The facts are substantially as stated. An advertisment was issued by the board of guardians inviting applications for the position of relieving officer, and the advertisment contained the following statement: "It has been arranged that the person elected relieving officer will be appointed by the district council as sanitary sub-officer for the district." The guardians elected a man named Higgins as relieving officer by seventeen votes against thirteen given in favour of Michael Murphy, who is referred to in the Question. After the election of Higgins, nineteen members (including, apparently, all Higgin's supporters) left the board room. It was then proposed to make a separate appointment as sanitary sub-officer, there being only eleven members present. At this election only seven members voted, and only four of these votes were cast for Murphy. The remaining four members, including the chairman, declined to vote. If, therefore, Murphy's election were now sanctioned, the result would be that the nominee of only four out of the thirty-nine members comprising the council would be chosen. Having regard to all the circumstances the Local Government Board have informed the district council that they are not prepared to express their sanction to the appointment of Murphy as sanitary sub-officer, unless the proposal be ratified at a meeting of the council of which due notice is given to each member.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what number of lieutenants promoted from the ranks, and also of commissioned warrant officers, in the Royal Navy on the retired list, are now serving and holding Admiralty appointments in dockyards and other home towns; whether such officers receive their pensions in addition to their pay; and also, whether their Lordships will consider the advisability of replacing these retired officers, when vacancies occur, by these on the active list of the same rank and so accelerate promotion.

The numbers asked for in the first part of the hon. Member's Question are, six lieutenants and carpenter lieutenants, and ten commissioned warrant officers. One retired lieutenant receives retired pay and a salary, and four retired commissioned warrant officers receive certain special allowances in addition to pension. The remainder draw the pay and allowances of their rank when on the active list, plus the usual bonus of 15 per cent. allowed under the Order in Council governing the employment of retired officers, but not their pensions. All these officers being on the retired list, I am informed that their employment does not affect the promotion of others.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the six designs of battleships from which the "Dreadnought" was selected comprised any ships of different speed; whether the ships of different speed carried similar armament in respect of heavy guns; and whether the six designs of cruisers, from which the "Invincible" was selected, embraced ships of less speed than the "Invincible" and costing less than £1,750,000 each.

It is not in the public interest to give the information asked for.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been directed to the adverse opinions expressed by Captain Mahan and other experts as to the cost of excessive speed? In the interests of economy would he consider the point?

No, Sir. I should like to have a copy of the article from my hon. friend.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the names of the six battleships to be withdrawn from the Channel, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic fleets and added to the home fleet.

As the vessels in question will not be removed for some months it would be premature to give their names.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman decided on the names?

The removal may not take place for months, and meantime there may be a change.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the names some time before the removal.

Will they be given before the adjournment of Parliament?

Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question and give the names?

I have answered the Question.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question.

I will give the names as soon as the Admiralty thinks I ought to.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a recognised trade union of chainmakers can obtain a copy of the form of tenders for contracts supplied by the Admiralty to firms when invited to tender for chain, cables, rigging, and pitch or block chains, such firms carrying on business within the district of the trade union.

The trade union referred to can obtain a copy of the form of tenders for naval contracts on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress. The union should therefore apply in the first instance to the Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a recognised trade union of chainmakers can obtain a copy of the form of tenders for contracts, supplied by the War Office to firms when invited to tender for chain, such firms carrying on business within the district of the trade union.

A recognised trade union can obtain from the War Office a copy of the form of tenders for Army Contracts, on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress. The union to which the hon. Member refers should therefore apply in the first instance to the Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any provision, and, if so, what, has been made for suppyling a hospital for Tidworth barracks, Salisbury Plain.

Arrangements have been made to re-appropriate part of Delhi Barracks for the purpose of a temporary hospital, and it has been decided to remodel Mooltan Barracks so as to provide a permanent hospital at Tidworth.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the frequent discharges of Government labourers, and the destitution caused thereby, he will cause printed notices to be periodically publicly affixed in the Arsenal, warning men that the employment is probably only of a temporary nature.

If the hon. and gallant Member refers to the labourers employed by the Army Ordnance Department at Woolwich, I would inform him that there are comparatively few men rated as temporary, and they know that they are temporarily employed. As regards the employees of the Royal Arsenal, the suggestion embodied in this Question is, I am afraid, not one which can be adopted, because, as a general rule, the employment in the Arsenal is not of a temporary nature. Hitherto it has been the custom, where men are required for a particular piece of work which is known to he temporary, that they have been individually advised that the employment offered is temporary.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the distress prevailing in Woolwich owing to the discharge of men from the Royal Arsenal, any, and if so, what steps are in contemplation for providing work for the men thrown out of employment.

As far as employment in the Royal Arsenal is concerned, I am afraid that I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member last Wednesday.† As regards the question of other employment at Woolwich, I can only state that it is obvious that the matter is not one with which the machinery put by Parliament at the disposal of the War Office can enable it to deal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of these men have expressed a desire to emigrate to Canada, and would it be possible for the War Office to give them any financial assistance?

I am afraid Parliament has made no provision in the Estimates which would enable us to do that, but I will inquire.

May I ask my right hon. friend whether he has given consideration to the face that the responsibilities occasioned by the discharges and imposed upon the local authority are really Imperial responsibilities, since the Government of the country established the Arsenal?

That Question means, if my hon. friend is right, that the War Office is bound to make provision for the unemployed where it has works. I cannot assent to that view.

Would it not be possible for the War Office to make a grant to these trade unions which pay "out of work" pay so as to encourage trade union insurance against unemployment.

If I were something else than the Minister in charge of the War Office and responsible for bringing the Estimates down to the standard which the House of Commons insists on, I might give specious Answers to these Questions,

† See (4) Debates,clxiii, 1090.

I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the men employed in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, to meet the emergency caused by the African War, were not temporary hands; whether these men have not all long since been discharged; and whether the total number of men now employed in the Arsenal is not less than before the declaration of war in 1899?

The men taken on during the war were not all temporary hands, and these men have not all been discharged. The total number now employed in the Ordnance Factories is somewhat less than before the war. Every care has been taken to avoid making discharges not demanded by public interests.

Has the number of officials been reduced correspondingly?

I can assure my hon. friend that we are looking as closely into their case as into that of the workmen, and we are reducing them wherever we can.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Excise administration of India and to promote reforms therein has now been considered by the Government of India; and, if so, whether he can arrange for its circulation to Members of Parliament during the present session.

I have ascertained from the Government of India that they are considering the report, and that owing to the importance and complexity of the questions involved, some time may elapse before they can come to decisions on the recommendations of the Committee. I quite understand my hon. friend's desire to be put in early possession of the Report, and I will see that it is presented as soon as the Government of India have dealt with it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Report on Excise Administration in Bengal, that the excise revenue for the year 1905–6 amounted to 153 lakhs (£1,019,898), representing an increase of 11 lakhs (£73,326), or 7·9 per cent. on the figures of the previous year; whether he is aware that the Bengal Excise Bill, which was under the consideration of the provincial Legislative Council two years ago, was designed to diminish the facilities for the sale of intoxicating liquors; and whether, in view of the spread of drinking habits among the people, this measure will now be proceeded with.

I have referred to the Report, and I find the evidence in it that the increase in revenue is duo to a considerable extent to increased duties on drugs and heavier license fees. I have ascertained from the Government of India that it is proposed to reconsider the Bengal Excise Bill in the light of the recommendations of the Excise Committee before proceeding further with it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can indicate, even generally, what are the political reasons: that prevent him from re-opening the question of the partition of Bengal, which he admits to be offensive to the nation concerned; and whether he can lay upon the Table any official report or letter which suggests that there is political danger in doing justice in regard to this national grievance.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask, with reference to the expression "national grievance," whether mass meetings of Mahomedans have; expressed their gratification at his statement that this policy is a settled fact, and have denounced the agitation against it as factitious and manufactured in Calcutta; further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Hindu cultivators of Eastern Bengal have expressly protested against, and repudiated the agitation: whether he is aware that the Christians of Calcutta—

Order, order;: this is in the nature of a speech.

I think I had better not intervene in this discussion. In regard to the Question on the Paper, I have nothing to add to what I said on Thursday, † that the production of Papers would in my view be prejudicial to public interest, and that the disadvantages of reopening the question of partition would greatly outweigh any possible advantages. But I should like to remove a misapprehension. It was suggested here on Thursday that the present House has had no opportunity of discussing, with full information before it, the question of the partition of Bengal. That is not the case. The full Papers promised by my predecessor were published in the autumn, and on 26th February last an Amendment to the Address was moved by my hon. friend the Member for West Denbighshire, and debated for nearly four hours.‡ Since that date I have answered some forty Questions on the subject, and I hope hon. Members will therefore recognise that their desire for discussion and information has not been altogether baulked.

May I ask whether in the last fifty years there has been a similar agitation in Bengal, and whether the information of the last eight months would not give some justification for the reconsideration of a decision necessarily taken on very slender information?

As to what has happened in the last fifty years, the hon. Gentleman perhaps knows better than I do. I fail to see what bearing the point has upon this question.

May I ask whether the Prime Minister did not promise that, if further facts were laid before the Secretary of State, he would further investigate the matter?

† See (4) Debates, clxiii., 1316–18.

‡ See (4; Debates, clii., 811 et seq.

. What the Prime Minister said was that he was quite sure that if new facts, on good authority, were placed before me, I should be quite ready to listen to them and weigh them all.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the regulations as regards indentured labour, framed in 1846 for Trinidad, are still in force; whether the expenses of indentured labourers are met in the following proportions—-three-fifteenths from employers applying for labourers, five-fifteenths from the general revenue, and seven-fifteenths from an export tax on produce; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the whole question, in order to decide the advisability of stopping the recruiting of indentured labour for the West Indies at an early date.

The Trinidad Masters and Servants Ordinance of 1846 is still in force; it does not, however, apply to Indian immigrants, who are governed by Ordinance No. 19 of 1899. The proportions in which the expense of indentured labourers are met are as stated. The Secretary of State sees no reason for such an inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statements made that negotiations are now proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia for the delimitation of spheres of influence in Persia; and whether such delimitation would be consistent with the guarantees for the integrity and independence of Persia exchanged between Lord Palmerston and Count Nesselrode in 1838 and subsequently renewed.

Any negotiations with Russia respecting Persia will be conducted on the basis of the integrity and independence of Persia.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State or Foreign Affairs whether a knowledge of the English language is made a condition of all appointments in the diplomatic and consular services.

A knowledge of the English language and British nationality is a condition of all appointments in the diplomatic and salaried consular services. If unsalaried consular appointments are held by persons unable to speak English, it is because no suitable English-speaking residents could be found. Unsalaried consular appointments are made at places where British interests are not sufficient to justify a salaried consular appointment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also be careful to see that the Consuls know the language of the country to which they are accredited?

Under the rules in operation now every candidate for the consular service has to undergo an examination in which a knowledge of the language is, of course, one of the features.

Am I to understand that before any appointment is made of an unsalaried official efforts are-made to obtain a British subject for the post?

As I explained the other day †, unsalaried appointments-are only made when it is considered that the British interests are insufficient to justify a salary. In such cases a choice has to be made from people resident in the locality, and if there is one of British nationality of course we give him the preference.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what fees and emoluments are received by unsalaried members of the consular service.

Unsalaried consular officers either receive allowances

† See (4) Debates, clxiii., 880.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official Report to the effect that King Leopold has conceded territories in the Congo Free State to an American syndicate; whether the Crown demesne has also been leased to an American group; how far the reforms suggested as the result of the Commission of Inquiry have been carried into effect; and whether he could make any statement with regard to the question of the appointment of British or European Consuls.

No information has been received to the effect that territories in the Congo Free State have been conceded to an American syndicate, or that the Crown demesne has been leased to an American group. With regard to the reforms, I have nothing to add to the reply given on November 5th. † His Majesty's Government already have consular representatives at Boma, Stanleyville, and Leopoldville, and they do not at present propose to make further appointments. I am unable to make any statement with regard to the appointment of Consuls by other European Powers, except that a Belgian Consul has recently been appointed at Boma. In reply to Sir GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)—

said that the British Government were represented at the places named in his Answer by one Consul and two Vice-Consuls.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the practice of the Foreign Office, the following members of the Diplomatic Service are British subjects, namely, Count Gleichen, Sir W.

† See Col. 119.

Out of the first list, three only are members of the regular Diplomatic Service, and they are British subjects. Of the second list one i —Mr. Falanga—is only employed temporarily. The rest are British subjects with the exception of Mr. de la Croix, and Mr. de Bruyne, who are Consuls with permission to trade, and were appointed over thirty years ago under a system which is now obsolete.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations are now in progress for a commercial treaty between Great Britain and Servia; and, if so, what precautions will be taken to prevent repudiation similar to that which occurred with respect to the treaty of commerce between the two countries in 1881.

Negotiations have not actually begun, but when they do take place they will be conducted as is usually done between independent States.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign A flairs how many deaths by violence have been reported as occurring in the three Macedonian vilayets respectively during the present year.

His Majesty's Consular Officers have reported 577 deaths by violence in Salonica, 481 in Monastir, and 188 in Kossovo for the nine months ended 30th September.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what punishment has been carried out in connection with the outrages recently committed by Turkish troops at Rodevo.

No information has yet reached His Majesty's Government as to the punishment inflicted, but His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Constantinople was authorised to make representations to the Grand Vizier on the subject, and to report the action taken by the Ottoman authorities.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now consider the expediency of placing a tax on motor cars on a scale rising in proportion to their horse-power.

The Royal Commission have recommended against the taxation of motor cars on the basis of horse-power or cylinder capacity, in view of the administrative difficulties involved and of the fact that the experience of its working in France is not entirely satisfactory (see paragraph 158 of Report [Cd. 3650]). The whole question of the taxation of motor vehicles is being considered in connection with that Report, but I am not in a position to say whether I shall have any proposals to make on the subject until the time comes for introducing the Budget.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received particulars as to the fees charged by registry offices | to male applicants for situations; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take any action in regard to the matter, in view of the information that has been supplied to him.

In consequence of an Answer which I gave in May last† to the hon. Member for Blackburn on this subject I have received from the Caterers' Employees' Union particulars of alleged excessive or fraudulent charges at certain offices, and I am investigating the matter.

† See (4) Debates, clvi., 716.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to stoppages from wages of refreshment catering employees in the shape of fines upon such pretences as glass money; and, if so, whether it is his intention so to amend the Truck Act as to make such fines a penal offence.

I have received a copy of a resolution on this subject from the Caterers' Employees' Union. As the hon. Member is aware, the question of the Amendment of the Truck Acts is now under consideration by a Departmental Committee, and until their Report is received I am unable to make any statement on the subject. In the mean-time it is open to the catering employees to furnish information to the Committee on the matters complained of, and I will refer the resolution I have received to the Committee for their consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that trachoma, from which certain immigrants rejected by the United States and brought back to this country are suffering, is a dangerous and highly infectious disease of the eye, and the third cause of total blindness; whether any steps are taken to segregate such cases and prevent the infection being conveyed to others; and whether he can state by whom the cost of treating diseased emigrants rejected in the United States is borne.

I am well aware of the serious character of the disease called trachoma. I gave particulars last Tuesday, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield, † of the conditions laid down in the single instance in which I have permitted an alien transmigrant reported by a Medical Inspector under the Aliens Act to be suffering from trachoma to remain in the United Kingdom. The cost of the woman's treatment will be borne, I presume, by these who were interested in obtaining permission for her to remain in this country.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say he will not in

†See (4) Debates, clxiii., 885.

said he was awaiting a Report on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee upon the abolition of the railway privilege cab system.

As I said yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for Thanet, this question is one of well-known difficulty, but I am of opinion that it j must be dealt with.†

When?

replied that there were great difficulties in the way, but the question would be dealt with as soon as possible. He thought a solution ought to be found, and he was endeavouring to find one.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any regulation exists whereby the delivery through the post of continental and foreign lottery circulars can be withheld; and whether, failing any such regulation, he will consider the advisability of framing one or introducing some legislation on the subject designed to prevent the postal service of this country being made the conduit for these undesirable alien communications.

When lottery circulars are posted in open covers they are, when detected, withheld from delivery; but when sent in closed covers the Post Office has no cognisance of the contents and cannot prevent their transmission. I do not think that I should be justified in seeking powers to interfere with closed letters.

I beg to ask the Post-

† See Col. 125.

No telegraphic address has recently been registered in the name of Arthur Magnus, and in any case I feel I have no power to refuse to the senders or addressees of betting telegrams the facilities common to other members of the public.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General by whose authority a registered letter, addressed by Mr. E. Stewart of Horsham, on the 18th August, to the overseers of the parish of Cocking, Sussex, was redirected, as stated in a letter from the Postmaster-General to Mr. Stewart, without the authority of the sender, to the assistant-overseer.

I understand that the overseers of the parish of Cocking had requested that all correspondence addressed in the manner stated should be delivered to the assistant overseer; and the registered letter in question was dealt with accordingly. It is not the practice of the Post Office to obtain the authority of the sender before redirecting a letter in compliance with the wishes of the addressee. The delivery of the letter to the assistant overseer was a proper one so far as the Post Office is concerned.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in the event of the authorities of the House arranging to have addressed to Members any cards, not delivered, he will give instructions for such cards to be retained in the Lobby post office until called for by Members; or whether he will confer with the First Commissioner of Works and the authorities of the House in order that other steps may be taken to that end.

I am afraid it would be difficult to arrange to do as the hon. Member suggests, which I understand to be that these cards should be placed with letters to be called for. It is not desirable that cards or other articles which have not passed through the post should be placed with mail matters, and receive treatment only accorded to letters, etc., unless indeed they are to be charged with postage. Perhaps the hon. Member would speak to me on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state how many council school departments there are in England and Wales according to the latest available Returns; and whether he can say in how many of these there are neither religious observances nor religious teaching day by day, together with the name of the local education authority or authorities in the areas of which such schools are situated.

The total number of council schools on 1st January, 1906, was—in England 5,796, and in Wales, 1,004. The return as to religious instruction recently presented to Parliament gave no information as to the number of days in each week on which religious instruction is given in the schools. So far as can be gathered from the answers sent in by local authorities to Question 5 in the Return, it seems that there were seven schools in England and 158 in Wales in which, so far as the local authorities were aware, there was neither religious instruction nor religious observance; but I understand that, from the wording of several of the replies, it seems to be not quite certain whether in some of these schools there may not have been some religious observance as distinct from religious lessons. The schools in question were in the areas of three non-county boroughs, viz., Hyde, Glossop, and Rawtenstall in England and in the urban district of Ebbw Vale in Wales, and in five counties, viz, Carmarthen, Cardigan, Brecon, Pembroke, and Denbigh, in Wales.

Is it not quite incorrect to say that in schools under sixty-eight local authorities there is no religious instruction of any kind? That was the statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

It is a very inconvenient plan to ask questions about statements made in another place.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can say whether it is intended that the Procedure Committee should meet again, in view of the fact that it has not been called together for a long time.

The position of the Procedure Committee is this. We have made two Reports to the House. The House has dealt with one Report The other Report, which is, I think, the more important one—with reference to the constitution and the enlargement of the functions of the Standing Committees —has not yet been considered in the House. I do not see that there can be any advantage in calling the Committee to meet and discuss any further alterations until this matter, which forms a pivot in dealing with procedure, has been settled. The Prime Minister authorises me to state that he hopes the consideration of that Report will be taken by the House before the termination of the present session.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if, in view of the general interest taken in the scheme for conversion of the Burwell estate into small holdings, he will give a Return of the previous residences and occupations of those who have become tenants of these holdings, together with the number in each family and the respective acreage of the holdings.

The information desired by the hon. Member is not in the possession of the Government, and my noble friend doubts whether it is worth while granting a Return on the subject. I am, however, authorised by my hon. friend the Member for Newmarket to say that he will be glad to supply the hon. Member with full particulars, so far as he is able, if he will confer personally with him on the subject.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what was the average weekly wage of the labourers formerly employed by the Crown on the Burwell Estate in Cambridgeshire and since dismissed; and what was the size of and rent asked for the small holdings on the said estate which were offered to the displaced labourers, and which the majority did not avail themselves of.

The average weekly wage of the thirty-two adult labourers who were employed on the Crown farm at Burwell was about 14s. In addition nine lads under twenty were employed, whose average weekly wage was 9s. One of the adult labourers was a woman who was paid 8s. a week. My noble friend has no information on the other matters referred to in the Question, but I have no doubt that my hon. friend the Member for Newmarket will be willing to give the noble Lord the particulars he desires.

May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can furnish the House with more details as to the offer of small holdings said to have been made to the labourers?

Perhaps the noble Lord will confer with the Member for Newmarket who can give him information on that point.

I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the meetings of the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society, on 19th September and 5th October, whereby certain resolutions were purported to have been passed converting the society into a company; and whether he is aware that thousands of members of the society were unable to obtain admission to such meetings and vote and otherwise exercise their right as members; and whether he will refuse to sanction the registration of such resolutions until Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing the matter.

Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin, † to which I can add nothing at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the case of George Kilner, a cutter in the employ of Messrs. Wyman and Company, Government printers, Reading, who has been dismissed, after five years' service, on the plea of slackness, although he has recently joined the trade union, and his place was immediately filled by a non-unionist; and, if not, will he inquire into the matter.

I have communicated with Messrs. Wyman through the Controller of the Stationery Office on the subject of this Question. I am informed that Kilner was dismissed owing to a reduction of staff, and that his place has not been filled.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that Messrs. Wyman and Company, Government printers, Reading, are dismissing some of their employees because they are members of the National Amalgamated Society of Printers' Warehousemen and Cutters; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take any action in regard to the matter with a view to the firm complying with the fair wage clause of the Government.

Messrs. Wyman inform me that the imputation contained in this Question is unfounded.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether

† See Col. 122.

The terms of Section 2 of the Corrupt Practices Act 1883 need revision. There is great difficulty in enforcing the law as it stands and there would be still greater difficulty in giving effect to more stringent provisions. It may, I think, be expected that the reprobation of enlightened public opinion will tend to check the practices to which the hon. Member refers.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the director and trustees of the National Portrait Gallery are satisfied that the alleged portrait of Charlotte Bronte is genuine; and, if not, whether any steps can be taken better to safeguard the expenditure of public money on works of art.

I have not been able to obtain the views of the trustees, but I am in communication with them; and if the hon. Member will put down his Question again later in the session I hope to be able to inform him of their reply to his inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will again consider the expediency of laying upon the Table of the House the Memorandum by Dr. Dittmar, the Local Government Board's Medical Inspector, entitled "Statistical Data presented by the Lews for ten years to 1904," especially having regard to its importance in connection with the Report on Physical Deterioration and the increase of phthisis in the Island of Lewis.

I can add nothing to the Answer recently given to my hon. friend, which was in the negative. As I have already informed my hon. friend, the Memorandum which he desires to have printed does not add materially to the information already published, which is receiving the earnest attention of the Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have it published if I pay the cost?

I should like notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will consider the expediency of requesting the Lewis District Committee to submit a list of the names of cottars and others now resident in the island who are willing to migrate to the mainland if the Congested Districts Board arrange reasonable aid for their settlement.

No, Sir. The Congested Districts Board is not in a position to make any such request, but the Board is willing to receive any such names.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I received the names twenty-four hours ago? Will he put a little more energy into the Scottish Office? [No Answer was returned.]

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, as the result of his recent visit to the Island of Lewis, he is satisfied as to the accuracy of Dr. Dittmar's Report in regard to the insanitary condition of the townships in the island; and, if so, will he state how he proposes to remedy the evils disclosed in the Report.

I beg again to assure my hon. friend that this subject is receiving my earnest attention.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied as to the accuracy of the Report?

The Report is a valuable official document and it is receiving the attention it deserves.

I am glad to have that admission.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the fact that whilst the Local Government Board for Ireland employs one medical commissioner, seven medical inspectors, nine general inspectors, and four temporary inspectors, and two temporary assistant inspectors, the Local Government Board for Scotland employs one medical member, one medical inspector and four general superintendents who are inspecting officers, will he state on what grounds he refuses to approach the Treasury for an additional staff' of medical inspectors for Scotland.

They are not in my opinion required.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the number of foreign trawlers observed fishing in the Moray Firth since the unanimous decision of the Judges of the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh in respect of the Moray Firth foreign trawlers' case.

No foreign trawlers have been observed working in the Moray Firth since the date of the decision in the High Court of Justiciary.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that an inspector from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who recently visited the Island of Lewis, reported that there are a number of insanitary houses in Stornoway; and, seeing that Murray's Court and Pringle's Court consist of houses which are much overcrowded, especially during the fishing season, will the Local Government Board for Scotland take such action as may be necessary to ensure these and other insanitary properties being put in such a condition as will conform with the requirements of the Public Health (Scotland) Act.

I have drawn the attention of the Local Government Board to the Report referred to by the hon. Member and it is now before them.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state why the trawler engaged in trawling within the three-mile limit off Cape Wrath, in the early part of September, was not prosecuted, the number of the trawler having been taken by the lighthouse keeper.

There was not sufficient evidence available to secure a conviction.

Is it not a fact that the lighthouse keepers, although instructed to make these reports, are not allowed to leave the lighthouse to give evidence?

The Northern Lights Commission allow them to help in this matter on condition that they shall not leave the lighthouses and thus interfere with the efficiency of the lighthouse service.

But are they allowed to leave if they are required to give evidence?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Government has been called to the burden imposed on the ratepayers of county Clare by the present arrangements in reference to the Clare Railways; and whether he will consider the desirability of devising some plan which will relieve the ratepayers of this burden; and whether the Government will take some steps in this direction.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative Relief to the rate payers could only be obtained by legislation transferring the burden to other shoulders. I understand that the county council have taken steps to bring the matter before the Viceregal Commission on Irish Railways now sitting, and pending the Report of the Commission on this and similar eases it would not appear to be desirable that the Government should consider the question of taking any steps in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in view of the demand of the Roman Catholic clergymen of Claremorris that no candidate for the vacant clerkship of that district council should be considered by them unless he held a certificate from his parish priest, he will say whether such request was agreed to by the district council; whether he has addressed any remonstrance to the district council against this treatment of candidates other than Roman Catholics; and whether, if the Claremorris Urban District Council should in making the appointment fail to consider all candidates on their merits and apart from their religious professions, he will order a fresh election.

I am informed that the reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. It is not within my province or that of the Local Government Board to address a remonstrance in the matter to the Claremorris Rural District Council. The election of clerk of the union rests with the Board of Guardians, which, however, consists of the same persons as the rural district council. Before the Guardians can elect a candidate, it is necessary that he should be proposed and seconded. If the Guardians should refuse to put to the vote the name of any candidate duly proposed and seconded, it would, I am advised, be competent for the Local Government Board to declare the election to be invalid, but the Board could not interfere if any candidate failed to get a proposer and seconder.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Kennedy, a Protestant lady who lived near Boyle, county Roscommon, had been accustomed for years past to hold religious meetings in her house; that a new parish priest, named Father McDermott, has recently been appointed to the parish, and that he denounced these meetings from the altar; and whether, seeing that as a result of his action a crowd with fifes and a drum surrounded Mrs. Kennedy's house for several nights, that she was boycotted in the local shops, that a person who supplied her with the necessaries of life was in turn boycotted, and that Mrs. Kennedy has now been compelled to leave because of insufficient police protection, he will say what action he proposes to take to secure religious equality in Roscommon and Galway.

I am informed by the police authorities that the facts are not as stated in the Question. Mrs. Kennedy, a Dublin lady, has been accustomed for several years to visit Ballinafad where she has held religious meetings in Protestant farm houses. It is, I am informed, not the case that Father McDermott has denounced these meetings as alleged. On three successive Sunday evenings a fife and drum band played along the public road, but did not surround the house in which Mrs. Kennedy was lodging or, indeed, go within 300 yards of it. It is not the case that Mrs. Kennedy or the person with whom she lodged was boycotted in the local shops; nor is it the fact that Mrs. Kennedy was compelled to leave because of insufficient police protection. The police afforded her the fullest protection during her stay at Ballinafad, and I am informed that no breach of the peace occurred, or was even attempted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that for some time past the landlord on the Coote property and the landlords on the Dicken property outside the town of Kilmallock, in the county Limerick, have been arranging for the sale of those properties to their tenants; is he aware that on both estates there are some 300 acres of untenanted lands; and will he instruct the Estates Commissioners to purchase those lands for division among the poorer town tenants in Kilmallock, as in the case of the Cahirconlish tenants, and for a few evicted tenants, should such be in the locality.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that proceedings for sale in respect of the two estates mentioned have been instituted before them, but the 300 acres of untenanted land referred to do not appear to be included in the sale. The Commissioners, however, will have inquiries made upon the subject of the untenanted land.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, can he say how matters stand as to sale and purchase between the landlord and tenants on the Stafford Delmege property around Knocklong and Glenbrohane, county Limerick; is he aware that on that property there are between 200 and 300 acres of untenanted lands which might be brought into requisition for the benefit of labourers, poor farmers, and evicted tenants; and will he see that as soon as may be convenient the Estates] Commissioners put themselves in communication with the landlord or the agents of the estate, the Messrs. Sanders, of Charleville. county Cork, so as to purchase these untenanted lands in the interest of the landless people of the locality.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that an orginating application for the sale of portion of the Stafford Delmege Estate has been lodged with them, and the estate will shortly be inspected. The untenanted land referred to in the Question does not appear to be included in the sale, but the Commissioners will communicate with the landlord's agents on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, can he say whether the Commissioners have sent an inspector to see after the claims for reinstatement to their holdings of John M'Grath and Thomas Barry on the Cooper property at Knocklong, county Limerick, where negotiations for sale and purchase are in progress between landlord and tenants; is he aware that a Mr. Hatte is making a claim for compensation as a planter while in reality he is only clerk in the office of the agents, the Messrs. Sanders; and will he cause inquiry to be made of Mr. P. Magner, rate collector of Kilfinane, whether it was Miss Cooper, the landlady, or Mr. Hatte who paid him the rates for the evicted farms.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that the documents relating to the two cases referred to have been sent to their inspector who has been directed to inquire into the cases. The Commissioners will ask their inspector when dealing with the cases to inquire into the circumstances alleged in the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a memorial from the ratepayers of the Bawnboy and Ballyconnell Electoral Divisions of Bawnboy Union, county Cavan, praying for relief works in the district, in view of the fact that the potato crop, constituting as it does the mainstay and support of the inhabitants of the district, is a total failure this year, will steps be taken to alleviate the lot of these people, and combat the sufferings consequent upon the impending famine.

I have received the memorial referred to. The Local Government Board have directed their inspector to visit the electoral divisions mentioned and report upon the circumstances of the people. The hon. Member may rest assured that the question of distress in the parts of Ireland where the potato crop has suffered will not cease to engage the attention of the Government.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a lunatic had to be detained for two days in the police barrack at Annagh, Borrisokane district, recently, because two magistrates could not be got to attend to sign the necessary committal to a lunatic asylum; whether he is aware that the Lord Chancellor was asked to appoint additional magistrates for this particular district as far back as March last, and that no appointment has yet been made; and whether, in view of the necessity for more magistrates, he will see that appointments are made as soon as possible.

I am informed that on Saturday, 15th September, the police at Annagh were unable to obtain the attendance of two magistrates early in the day. Two magistrates, however, were procured in the evening, and the necessary committal was then signed, but as there was no train to Clonmel, where the asylum is situate, until Monday morning, it was necessary to detain the lunatic at the police station. It appears that most of the magistrates of the locality wore absent at the Banagher annual horse fair, and it is stated that there is, as a rule, no difficulty in procuring a sufficient attendance of magistrates. The Lord Chancellor informs me that he has recently appointed two new magistrates to attend at Borrisokane Petty Sessions, in which district Annagh is situate, and that he is about to appoint a third, who is resident near Annagh.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that agreements to purchase their holdings have been signed by the tenants on the estate of the Earl of Drogheda, Ballyhupahaun, Rosenallis, Queen's County, at prices ranging from 25 to 26¼ years' purchase, exclusive of bonus; and whether, seeing that before the passing of the Act of 1903 the Land Commission, after inspection, refused to sanction a sale upon this identical estate at 18 years' purchase, when no bonus was payable, and in view of the fact that this is only a small and the poorest portion of the Drogheda estate in the locality, and in view of the increase of price, can he say if the Estates Commissioners are prepared to sanction this sale.

I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that sixty-eight agreements for the purchase of holdings | on the estate mentioned were lodged with them in January, 1905. The purchase prices are; as follows:—In three cases of second-term judicial rents, 26·3 years purchase; in twenty-three cases of first-term rents, 239 years purchase; and in the remaining forty- two cases of non judicial rents, 25·7 years purchase. The estate is at present being inspected, and until the Commissioners have received their inspector's report, which will deal with the matters referred to in the latter part of the Question, it is not possible for them to say whether they will sanction the advances applied for.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that two tenants on the estate of the Earl of Drogheda at Rosenallis, named Dan Geoghegan and Joe Costello, were at the late quarter sessions in the Queen's County decreed for interest at the rate of 3½ per centum, payable to the Land Commission, pending completion of the purchase of their holdings; will he say whether the price agreed upon is 26¼ years purchase, and is he aware that Geoghegan had been served, previous to signing the agreement, with an eviction-made-easy notice under the Act of 1887 for 1½ years rent, and that those arrears together with costs were added to the purchase; and can he say whether the Estates Commissioners have sanctioned this sale.

I am informed by the Land Commission that Daniel Geoghegan, a tenant who had signed an agreement for the purchase of his holding upon the estate mentioned, was proceeded against at the sessions referred to for non-payment of £5 1s. 10d., interest in lieu of rent, being at the rate of 3½ per cent. on the purchase money, which purchase money is at the rate of 24·3 years purchase of the rent. Joseph Costello was not proceeded against, as he had paid the interest due by him. The Commissioners have no information as to whether Geoghegan had, before signing the purchase agreement, been served with notice under the Act of 1887. The Estates Commissioners have not as yet auctioned any of the advances applied for in the case of this estate. The estate is at present being inspected.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, out of a total of 707 eviction notices filed in the county courts in Ireland during the quarter ended 30th September 1906, 275 were in Ulster; can he say whether these eviction notices were on account of arrears of rent due; and can he state in how many cases the rents were judicial rents, first or second term; and whether any of them were non-judicial rents.

The Return of Eviction Notices filed under Section 7 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1887, during the quarter ending 30th September last, shows the fact to be as stated in the first part of the Question. The section quoted applies only to the case of judgments in ejectment for non-payment of rent; the Answer to the second inquiry is therefore in the affirmative. The Government have no information as to the number of cases in which the rents wore judicial rents. There is no provision in Section 7 requiring that these particulars should be given in the notice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from 166 residents in the neighbourhood of Bally bay| and Cootehill, county Cavan, complaining of the losses entailed by them every year through the flooding of the Dromore river; whether he is aware that the sufferers employed at their own cost an engineer to draft a drainage scheme, and offered to pay the cost of carrying it out, but that the Board of Works rejected the scheme, and declared themselves unable to suggest any alternative scheme; and what steps the Board of Works now proposes to take.

I replied to a similar Question by the hon. Member for South Monaghan on the 26th July last, and I have very little to add to the Answer which I then gave.† Although the cost of the scheme, if sanctioned, would have eventually been borne by the owners of the lands affected, a loan would have had to be made in the first instance by the Board of Works, with re-payment over a number of years. As previously stated, the scheme appeared to the Board to be defective, and they assure me that the question of amending

† See (4) Debates, clxi., 1440.

asked if the Board of Works would allow the local authority to carry out these works?

They will not advance money for this particular scheme, and it is quite open to the owners to put forward another scheme.

What is the objection to this scheme?

I cannot state that in answer to a Question.

And the Board of Works cannot explain it either.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the train carrying the mails stops at Kilgarvan Station; can he state what would be the additional expense involved if the letters for Kilgarvan wore taken out and conveyed to the village, which is only a few hundred yards distant from the station; and whether, in view of the fact that, under existing arrangements, letters for Kilgarvan are carried to Kenmare in the afternoon, detained there during the night, and sent back to Kilgarvan the following day, he will reconsider his decision in the matter.

It is true that the train which conveys the day mails stops at Kilgarvan Station, but the letters for Kilgarvan, although carried on to Kenmare, are not retained there until the following day as the hon. Member supposes, but reach Kilgarvan the same evening. The cost of making a direct despatch to Kilgarvan would be about £9 a year; and, as I have already explained, I should not be justified in incurring this additional expense to effect the desired improvement, the amount of correspondence involved being very small.

If it is not possible to have a separate delivery, can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the letters shall be kept at the Post Office so that people may call for them?

If the hon. Member will write me to the effect I will consider the matter.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister, what action, if any, the Government propose to take to carry out the recommendations made by Sir Edward Ward's Committee on the employment of ex-soldiers and ex-sailors.

I am not as yet in a position to say what action the Government proposes to take in this matter.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, as the Lord Chancellor has to rely entirely on the Lord-Lieutenants, for the most part Members of the House of Lords, and opposed to the democratic principles held by the majority of this House, he will take into consideration whether the selection of county and borough magistrates could not be vested in a Minister or Ministers, who may be a Member or Members of this House, who would be able to obtain information as to the eligibility and suitability of persons recommended.

This is a matter of policy which I can hardly deal with in answer to a Question.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to grant a day for the discussion of the recent structural changes within the House.

I cannot yet fix a day.

Might I ask, having regard to the strong feeling which exists, and which is not confined to this side of the House, whether the right hon. Gentleman would not consider the advisability of this matter being discussed, and whether, seeing that Mr. Speaker had announced from the Chair that an opportunity would be afforded, the Prime Minister could not fix a definite date?

If the noble Lord considers the amount of business before the House he will see it is quite impossible to allocate at present the particular hour or two required for this matter. I am not aware of any strong feeling.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only reason that I and certain of my friends left off calling attention to the presence of strangers was that we were promised an opportunity to discuss the question?

You shall get your opportunity.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister in view of the intended withdrawal of all troops from St. Helena, and the consequent impoverishment of a number of people on the island, whether the Government will take into consideration a Grant in Aid for the inhabitants.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies is considering the probable effects of the withdrawal of the troops on the financial position of the island, but it would be premature to discuss the question of a Grant in Aid.

rose, and said:— Mr. Speaker, I espy strangers.

The House has twice pronounced an opinion on the matter to which the noble Lord calls my attention. I think it must be taken that the House has decided that, for the present at least, that part of the House in which the noble Lord spied strangers is not inside the House. What the eventual decision of the House may be is another matter, but for the present, until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the matter, I must take it that the House has already decided that that portion of the House is not within the precincts of the House.

May I call your attention, Sir, to Standing Order 273, which says that, if at any sitting of the House a Member takes notice that strangers are present the Speaker or Chairman must forthwith put the Question that the strangers be ordered to withdraw?

asked whether the House having decided on two occasions to tolerate strangers in the House, they had not still to see whether the House would tolerate them on a third occasion.

I am fully alive to the mutter, and I do not think anything further need be said.

asked whether it was not the fact that that part of the House in which strangers had been spied had formerly not been excluded from the House itself. He understood that the reason why the Speaker disallowed this Motion to be put was that that part of the House was not within the House. It had never been decided by Resolution of the House that the scats under the Gallery should be excluded from the House.

The hon. Member did not follow the ruling I gave. I have nothing to add to what I have said.

asked the Prime Minister whether, after the ruling just given, he did not think it in the highest degree expedient that the House should soon have an opportunity of dealing with this question. He held that the matter could not be allowed to remain for long in suspense.

asked whether the Prime Minister was aware that the part of the House referred to had boon generally vised by Members to get a quiet slumber.

I think it is a matter that ought not to be unduly delayed. I am sure we have no disposition to defer the opportunity for debate beyond what is reasonable.

submitted that, in accordance with the Standing Order, the Speaker had no power but to put the Question that strangers be requested to withdraw as soon as an hon. Member had called atttention to their presence.

I do not think it was over intended that the Standing Order should be applied in the way the noble Lord seeks to apply it. If it were so applied, although the House has pronounced against the view of the noble Lord, he would be entitled to raise the same question day after day until the end of the session. That would be a great straining of the Standing Order, and I am sure I strain it less by the interpretation I have put on it.

said he had not before espied strangers. He asked what would happen if there wore introduced on to the floor of the House a stranger whose presence hon. Members on his side of the House objected to. Would it be out of order for an hon. Member to spy strangers?

In the case of any stranger finding a place on the benches of this House the attention of the House should be at once called to the fact, and I should put the Motion on notice being taken of it. But the action of the noble Lord in pointing particularly to the exact place which has already been the subject of consideration and division in this House led me, I think rightly, to believe he was raising the same question which was raised the week before last.

asked whether the House was to understand that Standing Order 273 was practically repealed.

There is no Standing Order 273. There are only ninety-six Standing Orders. The hon. Member is really referring to Standing Order 91. On that I have nothing to add.

moved the adjournment of the debate. He said he did so on several grounds, each one of which would, in his opinion, justify his action. The first ground was the convenience of the House. The Government were disappointed, no doubt, in their plans with regard to the Plural Voting Bill, owing to the regrettable illness of the Minister in charge of it, but they told the House on Friday that they were prepared to go on with the Merchant Shipping Bill and were even anxious to discuss it. The House therefore understood that that Bill would be taken, and hon. Members in the faith that it would be taken had, of course, made their arrangements. All that had been upset by the plan of conducting Government business, which appeared to him absolutely arbitrary. The course adopted was inconvenient for another reason. The Bill before the House was originally a private Member's Bill, and the Government having taken charge of it proposed to amend it, and some of the Government Amendments only appeared on the Paper that morning. The Opposition had therefore had no opportunity of examining or discussing them. But for some reason, so far absolutely mysterious, the Government, instead of taking a Bill with which they were ready, had determined to take another Bill without the smallest notice, their Amendments having only appeared on the Paper on the very morning of discussion. That alone would justify him in asking the House to postpone the further discussion of the Bill until there had been time to consider the Government Amendments. But there were other reasons. Nobody acquainted with the methods by which it had been habitual to carry on business in the House during the last two Parliaments would say that the reasons he had given were not reasons which would have been powerful with the predecessors of the Government. On 4th August the Government asked the House to pass a Motion that for this part of the session Government business should hare precedence, and that at the conclusion of Government business each day the Speaker should adjourn the House. He did not suggest that there had been a technical broach of that Resolution, but there had been a substantial breach. The House had no notice at that time that the Government intended to make this Bill a Government measure. He was not aware that anything fell from the Prime Minister suggesting that course. Indeed, a Minister, in answer to a Question, while admitting that the Bill was favourably looked on by the Government and that they would like to see it passed into law, never for a moment suggested that it was going to be made into a Government measure. Therefore in starring the measure they had not less certainly violated the common understanding of Members on both sides of the House when they had suddenly added to the list of Government measures with respect to which they asked the House to pass the Resolution of 4th August last. Besides these two grounds of justification for this Motion, he had a much stronger reason affecting the fundamental principles on which the legislative procedure of the House ought to be based. The measure before them was a private Bill which passed its Second Reading after four hours' discussion on a Friday afternoon, and was then sent up to a Grand Committee for consideration. On that Committee there was not a single English law officer present. The Government wore not always successful in their attempts to mould legislation in the direction they desired. They were beaten by their own friends, and, as usual, accepted this beating with that serene philosophy which was so peculiar to the present Administration. On the Grand Committee the Government were not and could not be adequately represented, for the reason that that Committee sat at an hour when the majority of hard-worked Ministers could not find time to attend. The growing and salutary practice of that Assembly was to leave the framing and conduct of great controversial measures in the hands of the Government and to the admirable staff which assisted them in the drafting of their measures. It had been the practice of successive Speakers of late years always to give the closure at the end of a Second Reading debate on a Friday afternoon to measures formerly talked out. This practice was adopted only because private legislation of a controversial character had practically no chance of getting through the House, and was useful mainly as directing public attention to subjects on which legislation was desired and obtaining a preliminary decision on the subject whether legislation should be attempted or not. Private legislation still had a useful function to perform, chiefly connected with uncontroversial subjects. How could that practice be permitted to continue, if the Government were afterwards going to wait until a Bill had passed the Second Reading and a Grand Committee before they starred it? There was no precedent for such a proceeding. In 1893 or 1894 the Liberal Government gave an opportunity for discussing the Miners' Eight Hours Bill, but the experiment proved a disastrous failure, and led to no decision, although there was a long wrangle, in which the miners from the north expressed vigorously their differences with the miners from other parts of the country. On that occasion the Government did not take up the measure as their own, but they simply gave time to wrangle it out on the floor of the House. The Government had now seized the facilities which private Members enjoyed, and taking advantage of those privileges, they took over this Bill, which had passed its early stages, in its adult maturity, and they had adopted it as their own child. No Bill of this character could have got through on a Friday afternoon had it been a Government measure. Closure would not have been given after three or four hours to a Government measure of this kind. Closure, therefore, was obtained on false pretences. It was claimed because everybody supposed that the Bill would suffer the fate of controversial measures in the hands of private Members. Having got the Second Reading by false pretences, they were now squeezing their advantage to the last-drop, with what motive he knew not, nor did he care to inquire. Whether they were building up what they called a case against the House of Lords he really neither knew nor cared. The House of Lords were amply qualified to look after themselves. What he did care for was that the Government had in effect aimed a most serious blow at the practice of discussion of private Members' Bills in that House. Evidently the House would acquiesce in the rapid closure of debate on these Bills no longer if they were in total ignorance whether it might not place the Government months afterwards in a position to take the Bill into its own hands and it having gone through its initial stages adopt it if the Government thought it was going to be popular or subserve some political interest of their own. The right hon. Gentleman was now the responsible Leader of the House. In his hands the business of the House necessarily lay. He pressed upon the House the view that the right hon. Gentleman had been lading in that consideration for the minority which it was desirable should always animate the Leader of the House. But, putting that minor point aside, did the right hon. Gentleman not think that by the course he had adopted he was aiming a blow, not at the minority, but at the whole practice of the House with regard to Fridays and private Members' legislation? If Mr. Speaker should think fit to vary the practice which had hitherto guided the Chair by declaring that the closure could not be granted after a four hours debate, unless it was evident that the Government did not intend to take the Bill into their own keeping, he did not know that the minority would lose by the change, but surely the House as a whole would think that it was a great disadvantage to take a decision on these Friday afternoons which, though never binding as to the details of a Bill, did show the way in which the current of public opinion was moving with regard to legislation on a particular subject. It was a valuable privilege to possess, and it was one which the Government were endangering by what they were doing that afternoon. It was for that reason, more than any special ground of complaint with regard to the manner in which they had been treated over this particular measure, that he desired that the practice, which had been hitherto adopted by general consent, should be continued —a practice which, it seemed to him, would be thoroughly shattered if it was not merely in the power, but within the will, of a single Minister to come forward and say, "Although the measure has received on the Second Reading but a half or a third of the general debate which it would have excited had it been a Government measure, and although that measure has been treated as a private measure all through the stages of the Grand Committee, nevertheless we intend to take all the advantages which would have been ours had we gone through the ordinary procedure of the House in regard to Government measures, we intend to pass it through this House, we intend to adopt it as our own, and, having got it forward by these illegitimate methods to a stage which, had we shown our hands, had we been honest enough to say what we intended to do, it could never have reached, we mean to take advantage of every technical privilege given to us by the House, at whatever sacrifice of the rights and privileges of unofficial Members."