To ask the Postmaster-General if he will order the issue of a circular to country post offices authorising and suggesting the convenience of their placing the name of the place over the words "post office." (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is already the rule that the name of the place followed by the words "post office" should appear in a conspicuous position outside every village post office. If the hon. Member is aware of any case in which the rule is neglected either in spirit or letter, I will have inquiry made if he will furnish me with the name of the office.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to The Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act, 1905, of the Commonwealth of Australia; is he aware that the Act contains provisions for the marking and description of British goods which will hamper British export trade to Australia, and which are in all cases onerous and in some quite impossible of accomplishment; and will he make representations to the Commonwealth Government on the subject. (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has received representations from the London Chamber of Commerce to the effect that the regulations under the Act referred to will hamper British trade to Australia, and he will communicate with the Common-wealth Government on the subject. In the meantime I understand that the Minister for Trade and Customs of the Commonwealth has given instructions that, in the administration of the regulations, every consideration will be given to those merchants or traders who may inadvertently not strictly comply with the regulations in the first instance through mere want of knowledge, or the difficulty attendant upon the first working of the regulations.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the reason for the insertion of the cruisers "Appollo," "Intrepid,'" "Spartan," "Retribution," "Rainbow," "Tribune," "Naiad," "Melampus," "Andromache," "Pique," "Pomone," "Pactolus," "Philomel," "Medea," and "Medusa" in the only Return issued to Parliament, entitled Fleets, Great Britain and Foreign Countries, 24th April, 1906, when the Navy List, corrected up to 20th April, 1906, and all subsequent Navy Lists, omit these fifteen cruisers. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The names of these vessels have not been omitted from the Navy List.

To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has received any application from the education committee of the Surrey County Council for power to acquire land for the purpose of building an elementary school for the parish of Woldingham in Surrey; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the children of Woldingham and their parents are inconvenienced by the present lack of school accommodation nearer than Caterham, he can see his way to give such application immediate attention. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I understand from the Surrey County Council that land at Woldingham can only be obtained by the exercise of compulsory powers of acquisition, and that they are taking the requisite steps preliminary to making formal application to the Board of Education for the exorcise of such powers. Meanwhile they report that they have leased a site at Woldingham for two years, and plans for providing temporary accommodation are now under the consideration of the Board, and are being put forward with all possible despatch.

To ask the President of the Board of Education to what fund the fees for registration paid by teachers under Section 4 (a) of the Board of Education Act, 1899, are placed; whether those fees will be refunded should Clause 25 of the Education Bill become law; and whether the Board have registered teachers under the above section since the introduction of the Bill. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) (1) Under the Order in Council the registration foes paid by teachers whose names are entered on the register are placed to the credit of the Teachers Registration Fund from which the expenses of the Teachers Registration Council are met. (2) The passing of Section 25 of the Education Bill would not in itself bring about the abolition of the existing register. It merely removes the obligation at present existing for the establishment and maintenance of a register of teachers. Should the existing register eventually be abolished, the registration fees paid by persons whose names are on it would be refunded to any such persons who applied for it, as I have already stated in Parliament in reply to similar Questions in April, in May, and again in July last. (3) It is not the duty of the Board of Education, but of the Teachers Registration Council, to register teachers. Since 9th April last 915 names have been entered on the register. I understand that ever since the introduction of the Bill the attention of applicants for registration has been drawn by the Teachers Registration Council to the clause in the Education Bill which would remove the obligation to maintain a register of teachers.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say for what offences the 437 persons under sixteen years of age were committed to prison in default of paying fines of 10s. or less in England and Wales during the: twelve months ended 31st March, 1906; and how many such persons were committed in respect of each offence. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone). I regret that I have not got this information. To obtain it I should again have to ask for Returns from every prison in England and Wales, and I am very unwilling, considering the great trouble taken by prison officials to collect materials for answering my hon. friend's Question of the 31st October,† to ask them to ex- amine the cases a second time to supply this further information. My hon. friend will find in tables VIII. and XIII. of the Judicial Statistics a great deal of information as to the offences of which persons under sixteen were convicted.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can see his way to make arrangements by which Indian candidates for the Indian Civil Service can be examined by the local universities or otherwise in India, so that they may not be put to expense and involved in caste disabilities by coming to England for the purpose of examination. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) This question formed the subject of an exhaustive inquiry by the Government of India and the Secretary of State in 1893 and 1894, and the correspondence was presented to Parliament in Cd. Paper,

† See (4) Debates, elxiii., 1092.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state under what circumstances Mr. Addison, a junior member of the Civil Service of India of three years standing, has recently been appointed to the office of Secretary of the Delhi Municipality; and, seeing that the appointment will result in Mr. Addison having to try cases as a magistrate which it will be his duty as Municipal Secretary to institute, will the expediency of rescinding the appointment be considered. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have no information as to the circumstances of Mr. Addison's appointment, but I will inquire.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will ascertain under what circumstances Mr. Jack, a settlement officer in the Patuakhali District of India, was recently engaged in assisting Mr. Kemp, a police superintendent, in searching for lathials, and, seeing that they wrongly arrested as lathials newly settled ryots in the village of Alipura, will he state what action it is proposed to take in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I understand that the proceedings of Mr. Jack have recently been under investigation in a court of law; until the cases connected with them have been decided I see no reason to take any action in the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to reduce the batteries of the 40th Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, to two-gun batteries; if so, whether the change would involve the abolition of a colonel's command and of captains' commands; and if he can state where the 40th Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, will be quartered on its arrival in England. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is not intended, at present, to reduce this brigade to a two-gun establishment; there will therefore be no immediate reduction in officers. Eventually this brigade will become a training brigade, and it will then have a colonel but no captains. Its station on its arrival from India is not yet finally decided on.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on Sunday, 2nd August last, the 16th Brigade of the 8th Division, who were on manœuvres, were compelled to march seven miles to Fermoy to attend Divine service without any rest whatever; if he can state why the 15th Brigade of Infantry and the Artillery, with guns and horses, had to march three miles to Moor Park to attend Divine service, although these are all stationed at Fermoy; and by whose authority on the afternoon of the same date military sports were held. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The General Officer Commanding 8th Division, Cork, reports as follows:—The 16th Brigade marched on Sunday, 2nd September (not August) from Skeheen Mountain camp to Moor Park (not Fermoy), distance seven miles; and two batteries, 31st Brigade, with two battalions, 15th Infantry Brigade, marched from Fermoy to Moor Park, distance three miles, where the remainder of the 31st Artillery and 15th Infantry Brigades were encamped, and where Divine service was held. Major-General Sir William Knox selected this day as the only one on which he could concentrate the whole division to address them before handing over command. The sports held the same afternoon in Moor Park were organised by Sir William, on his own authority, for the amusement of the troops.

To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will reconsider the suggestion made last session of buying out any vested interests in the Chinese labour traffic and bringing it to an end at once in the interests of public policy and of public morality. (Answered by Sir II. Campbell-Banner- man.) I regret that I am not able to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, which would not be in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government, as frequently explained to the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Memorandum on Admiralty policy, issued last November on the advice of the present Sea Lords of the Admiralty, stated that the best of the unarmoured cruisers have been retained for the present, but that it is recognised that they must be allowed to die out within a few years; and whether the three "Invincibles" of the 1905–6 programme are the only armoured cruisers to be laid down under the programmes of 1905–6, 1906–7, and 1907–8 to replace the large number of cruisers numbering over eighty which, in the opinion of the Admiralty, must die out within a few years.

The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, but the inference in the second part of the Question is incorrect.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that thirty-four British first-class battleships have their waterlines at both ends unarmoured, thirteen have unarmoured sterns, and only the most modern thirteen have complete belts; whether all the French and German battleships have complete belts at the waterline; whether his attention has been called to the published opinion expressed last November by the present Sea Lords of the Admiralty concerning certain first-class battleships that their unarmoured ends make them vulnerable to a second-class cruiser, and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter.

The Board of Admiralty are familiar with the constructive details of the ships mentioned in the hon. Member's Question, and no action is considered necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Russo-Japanese War the unarmoured parts of ships had holes torn in them by shell over an extent of ten feet by eight feet?

Order, order. The hon. Member ought to give notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the s.s. "Xema," bound for the Guano Islands on a mineral expedition under the British flag, flying the blue ensign, was stopped by one of His Majesty's cruisers; whether he is aware that His Majesty's cruisers "Crescent," "Terpsichore," and "Pelorus," were in that neighbourhood at the time; whether they were sent to that neighbourhood for the purpose of intercepting the s.s. "Xema"; if so, by whose order the ships were despatched on this mission: and whether the costs of despatching the above cruisers are to be paid by the Government of this country or by the Government of Cape Colony?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. His Majesty's ships "Terpsichore," and "Pelorus" were in the neighbourhood of the Guano Islands at the same time as the "Xema," but not His Majesty's ship "Crescent," which was at Simon's Bay. The two vessels first named proceeded to Walfisch Bay to carry out battle practice in accordance with arrangements made by the Commander-in-Chief so far back as June last. On the representation of the Cape Colony Government the Commander-in-Chief directed them to call at the Guano Islands en route. The "Terpsichore" found the "Xema" there, but took no action beyond warning her master of the Cape Government's proclamation against landing, and immediately left for Walfisch Bay. The "Pelorus" passed the islands without sighting the ''Xema." The point raised in the last art of the Question does not arise.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information as to the cause of the recent insubordinate conduct amongst the naval stokers at the Naval Barracks, Portsmouth.

A court of inquiry has been constituted to inquire into the whole Question. Their report is not expected until next Monday, and in the meantime it will not be possible for me to make any statement.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any information to justify the belief that an order was given with the intention of punishing and humiliating the men? Will the men have full opportunity of stating their case before the inquiry?

There is no doubt.

Can the right hon. Gentleman favour the House with the terms of reference?

said the terms of reference would include inquiry into the general circumstances of the disturbance.

Will it include inquiry into the character of the officer and the allegations made against him?

I cannot say anything further on the subject.

Is it the present intention of the Admiralty to lay the report before the House?

The practice has not been to make public important documents of that kind. They are intended for the opinion of the Admiralty: but the action of the Admiralty will be made public.

Will the men be represented on the Court?

The court will consist of a rear-admiral and a commodore.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to Clause 3 of the Admiralty Memorandum of the 24th October, how many ships will be withdrawn from the Channel, Mediterranean, and Atlantic Fleets in the process of organising the new Home Fleet; how is the statement in Clauses 1 and 3, that a distinct Fleet will be constituted from the ships in commission in reserve, reconciled with the further statement in Clause 3, that the existing sea - going Fleets are to be reduced for the purpose; with reference to the statement in Clause 2 that the vessels first required in war will have the largest complements what proportion will such complements bear to full complements; what is considered an adequate complement of officers and men for ships in special reserve (Clause 2): and what will be done with the ships in special reserve which are replaced by other ships (Clause 2).

The hon. and learned Member invites me to make a series of statements respecting the details of the scheme for the redistribution of the Fleet. As that scheme is still in course of development, and will not assume a complete shape for some months, it is not possible to give any definite information at present as to points of detail; nor, if possible, would it—in the opinion of the Admiralty—be in the interests of the public service to do so. I hope the hon. and learned Member will, in the meantime, be content with the assurance given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Gravesend, that the Admiralty consider that the redistribution of ships about to be made adds to the fighting efficiency of the Fleet.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that no man shall be kept in barracks who is available for drafting to one of the ships of the newly-constituted Home Fleet?

I will submit the suggestion to my colleagues at the Admiralty, but there is no intention to increase the number of men in barracks.

Is there any intention to decrease the number of men in barracks?

We believe that the net result of the scheme, which is still incomplete, will be an increase and not a diminution of the sea-service officers and men, taken as a whole.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether in view of the fact that the Admiralty have placed the six so-called first-class battleships, "Sanspareil," "Anson," "Camperdown." "Benbow," "Howe," and "Rodney," in the class of obsolete warships on which no money is spent for maintenance, their names will be removed from the next annual Return of Fleets (Great Britain and Foreign Countries) when at present they appear in the list as first-class battleships; and whether he can explain why these ships appear in the Navy List, while a number of cruisers in the same class of the reserve have had their names removed from the Navy List.

The question of removing the six battleships named from the next annual Return of Fleets will certainly be considered. The hon. and learned Member does not mention the names of the cruisers to which he refers, but I am informed that there are no cruisers in the same class of reserve as that to which the ships mentioned by the hon. and learned Member belong.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the annual Return of the ships presented to this House shall include only those ships which are considered by the Admiralty as efficient for taking their place in the line of battle?

The Return is made in obedience to the order of this House, and perhaps that order will have to be amended.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the order of the House is amended?

I am desirous that the Return should give an accurate, complete and faithful picture of the strength of the Navy.

Have the Admiralty received any protest from the mover of the Return against the form in which it is given?

I never made a protest because the Return must be made in the form which the Admiralty think most convenient.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps he proposes to take to attract the best officers of the Army to the Army Service Corps, and so re-establish it in the high position it should fill in public estimation, having regard to the importance of its duties to every soldier in peace or war.

There is no lack of suitable candidates for the Army Service Corps. Measures are under consideration to ensure that selected officers of this corps shall undergo technical training in the higher duties of military administration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the cost of maintaining the garrison at St. Helena during the last financial year; and what economy it is anticipated will be realised by the removal of the troops to other quarters.

The cost of the garrison of St. Helena in 1905–6 was approximately £35,000. Practically the whole sum will be saved by the removal of the garrison, as the troops withdrawn are not required for service elsewhere.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many soldiers who served in the South African War and have since been either passed to the Reserve or discharged have been given employment in Government Departments.

No, Sir, the information required is not in the possession of my Department.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister responsible for the Army, take steps to ascertain from other Departments how many soldiers have been given employment?

I do not know if there is material from which to gain the information.

If a Return is moved for will the right hon. Gentleman agree to it?

I do not know if I am in a position to do that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the allotment holders on War Office property in the parish of Fittleton, Wilts, were informed, when they went to pay their rents for the past year, on the 17th October, that the rents had been increased by ¼. a pole, without due notice having been given to the tenants of such increase; and that the alleged reason is to make the tenants pay the cost of rates on the land; and whether, in view of the fact that the rents are already fully commensurate with the value and situation of the land, and have been hitherto, as in the case of neighbouring allotments on War Office property, taken to include payment of rates, he will inquire what justification exists for disturbing the existing terms on which these allotments are held.

The rents were raised as stated. It appears from the inquiry that has been made that the rents can be raised only by determining the agreement except with the tenants' consent, and that the agreement can only be determined by three months' notice expiring at Michaelmas being given. As this notice was not given this year, instructions have been issued to refund to the allotment holders the amounts of rates levied in the shape of increased rents. I may add that the sum in question is £1 11s 3d. per annum only, which is spread over some twenty-five allotments.

Do not the rents represent the full value of the land?

I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there is any agreement between the Government and private contractors as to the allocation of contracts for war materials and stores; and, if so, will he inform the House as to its terms.

As regards allocation of orders between the Ordnance

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he can supply the House with particulars as to the cost of war materials and stores produced at the Woolwich Arsenal, and the cost of similar materials and stores purchased from private contractors.

The cost of stores produced at Woolwich Arsenal is given

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the number of workmen (producers) discharged during the year from the Woolwich Arsenal, and also the number of officials; also the number of workmen (producers) retained, and the number of officials.

The figures asked for are as follows:—

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, while discharges of workmen have been carried out at Woolwich Arsenal and expensive plant of the nation made non-productive, the private contractors engaged in the manufacture of war material and stores have been well employed.

No, Sir, the information at my disposal does not bear out the hon. Member's statement as regards those firms having been well employed on the orders of this Department. As I stated on the 31st ultimo, in reply to a Question of my hon. friend the Member for North Paddington, † I am satisfied that the Government factories have received the fullest possible proportion of the Government orders for war material.

said his Question was as to the allocation of the work having regard to the fact that the other places were busy. He wanted to know what the other works were doing.

said he was only dealing with Government work. There was a certain amount of material which the Department must order in part, at any rate, from contractors. They could not break the practice, because it was necessary to encourage other establishments in case of an outbreak of war. Their first care, however, was for their own factories.

inquired whether it was not the fact, while orders were given to certain private firms in order to ensure a reserve of machinery, that when it came to a time of war there was no reserve of machinery, and that every machine which was capable of turning out Government work was employed.

I cannot say whether that is so.

asked what proportion of Government orders was given to private factories?

asked whether the workmen employed by private factories were not as deserving as those employed by the Government.

† See (4)Debates, elxiii., 1089.

asked whether, when an undertaking was given to supply certain factories with work for a certain number of years, the possibility of discharges from the Arsenal was taken into account.

Yes, that is considered.

asked whether contractors who were now taking particulars of work at the Arsenal paid a bonus for the information which was being supplied from the Arsenal, and whether he was aware that the contractors were in the Arsenal getting the information day after day. If they were foreigners they would be locked up.

said that if such a thing were brought to his notice he would deal with it very sharply.

They are there. Two were there on the 6th inst.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many Crimean War and Indian Mutiny veterans are inmates of workhouses, and how many are in receipt of out-door relief; what are the maximum and minimum pensions given to such pensioners; and whether he will consider the advisability of arranging that old soldiers who have merited a pension and whose infirmities or age prevents them following any occupation should be awarded such an allowance as will prevent them applying for poor law relief, or being wholly or in part dependent upon charity.

With regard to the first clause of the Question, the information asked for is not in my possession; as regards the second clause, the minimum pension to those in necessitous circumstances is 9d. a day, which is increased to 1s. a day when the veteran reaches the age of seventy. Moreover, when the veterans have been wounded or discharged for disability or are suffering from a disability due to military service, these pensions are raised to 1s. 6d. a day for a private, 2s. for a corporal, and 2s. 6d. for a sergeant. The provision made for these old soldiers appears to me to meet the necessities of the case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will postpone the discharge of invalids unfit for work from Netley Hospital until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of considering what provision can he made for them.

I am afraid that, as I intimated in answer to a supplementary Question on the 5th instant, † until Parliament places the necessary money in Army Estimates, I cannot undertake to depart from the course being followed. The Question does not refer to people suffering from wounds, but to people suffering from ordinary illness contracted a long time ago. It is absolutely necessary, in the interests of mercy, that they should give place to more urgent cases. The number of beds is strictly limited, and if they were occupied by people who were merely bedridden they would be depriving others, for whom the accommodation is absolutely essential, of the opportunity of treatment. The course which is being taken is that which is taken in the other great hospitals in the country.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not, in the circumstances, postpone the discharge of these invalids till the House had had an opportunity of giving him the provision which he had no doubt it would give.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries into the facts of the case. Were there not many hundreds of beds unoccupied? If that was the case, if he had been misinformed, would he consider the advisability of giving these unfortunate men a certain amount of respite?

If there are unoccupied beds, that would be a reason for not being in a hurry. I will undertake to inquire, and if that is so, to take more time in the matter. It is obvious, how-

† See Col. 109.

pressed the right hon. Gentleman to give a pledge that those invalids who were unfit for work would not be turned out of the hospital until the House had had an opportunity of considering their case. If the right hon. Gentleman refused to give such a pledge, he intended to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether he might not make an exception at least in those eases where the illness was contracted while the men were on foreign service.

Where the illness has arisen in the service of the nation or is due to some accident in the public service there would be a strong case for consideration. I will consider that case.

said he had a case in mind.

I will consider that case and what my hon. and gallant friend has put to me, but I can give no further pledge.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the case of the modus vivendi of 1890, on which it was stated by His Majesty's Government that the Government of Newfoundland were consulted, it being modified to meet their views, though not assented to by the Colony, Sir Baldwin Walker was successfully sued for damages which were afterwards paid by the British taxpayer: and whether, having regard to the two judgments in the Baird case, the provisions of a Newfoundland Act can be overridden by Imperial administrative arrangements not based on statute.

I am aware of the legal proceedings against the late Sir Baldwin Walker to which the right hon. Member refers and of their result; but I am unable, in answer to a Question, to discuss their bearing upon the present situation.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the annual report of the Simmer and Jack Proprietary Mines of Johannesburg, wherein it is stated that in 1899, when Kaffirs were employed, for every 1,000 Kaffirs there were employed 130 white men, whilst in 1906, when Chinese and Kaffirs were employed, there were 156 white men employed for every 1,000 Chinese and Kaffirs, showing that with Chinese this great mine employs 19 per cent, more white labour than with Kaffirs before the war; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made whether the proportion of white men working at the producing mines has increased or diminished since the introduction of the Chinese.

I have seen an account of the general meeting of the mine referred to in which the statement occurs that "through the general efficiency of the Chinese nearly 20 per cent, more white labour is now being employed than was the case with the Kaffirs before the war." The official figures for May, 1904, and August, 1906, show that in the former month the proportion of white men working on the producing mines on the Rand was 177 per thousand and in the latter month 118 per thousand, or a diminution of 33 per cent.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware that the native chief Tilonko made application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on Friday last for special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decision of a court-martial in Natal which had sentenced him to ten years penal servitude and a fine of 500 head of cattle; that the application was dismissed with the costs on the ground that there was no right of appeal; that Tilonko's objection to the jurisdiction of the court-martial was on the grounds that he was not a military man, that he had not been taken in the field, that he had never taken up arms against the Government, and that the civil Courts were sitting at the time of his trial; and whether any power resides in the Imperial Government to abate the heavy sentence awarded by court-martial on this distinguished subject of His Majesty.

I have seen the account of the proceedings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in The Times of the 3rd instant, when their Lordships decided that they could not entertain an appeal. His Majesty's Government are not in a position to interfere in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether having regard to the fact that of the 50,000,000 tons of Nile mud which pass through the Assouan dam annually it is estimated that 30,000,000 tons are lost in the sea, while only 20,000,000 tons are utilised as manure, he will advise the Egyptian Government to adopt measures whereby such a large amount of waste may in future be prevented.

The Egyptian Government are fully aware of the importance of utilising the Nile flood to its fullest extent, and large sums are yearly spent in improving the irrigation system of the country. Irrigation has made very great progress in the last few years, and the progress will be continued, but it must be gradual.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether further action has been taken by the Egyptian Government in sequence to the circular which, as Lord Cromer states in his Annual Report for 1905, page 2, was addressed to the Powers suggesting, in anticipation of a renewal in February, 1905, of the functions of the Mixed Tribunals in Egypt, certain reforms in the working of the Egyptian capitulations; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of the replies received to that circular, and other information showing the present state of the negotiations.

The circular, to which the hon. Member alludes, invited the Powers to take part in an International Commission to consider the question of making certain changes in the law and procedure of the Mixed Courts. The assent of all the Powers having been obtained, the Commission commenced their deliberations, with the result that in March last, five draft laws applicable to foreigners, which had been drawn up by the Commission, were submitted to His Majesty's Government for their approval. His Majesty's Government notified their approval to the Government of Egypt in April, but I have not yet been informed whether the approval of all the other Powers has been obtained. The only correspondence of which His Majesty's Government have cognisance, is that between them and the Government of Egypt, the purport of which I have already notified above. The replies of the other Powers will doubtless be dealt with in Lord Cromer's Annual Report, which will in due course be laid before the House; the matter does not appear to His Majesty's Government to be of sufficient urgency to warrant the immediate publication of separate papers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will procure from the Egyptian Government, for the information of the House, a statement as to amounts and values of alcoholic liquors imported into Egypt during each of the years 1900 to 1906, showing the places of origin and destination and the nationalities of the consignors and consignees; also a statement of the number of distilleries and breweries for the manufacture of alcoholic liquors, showing in each case the towns and provinces in which they are situated, and the amounts and values of the outputs together with the nationalities of the proprietors for each of the years between 1900 and 1906.

I will make inquiry and get as much of the information asked for as is obtainable.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the frequent cases in which foreign Governments refuse permission to land to undesirable aliens who are refused permission to land in England and are returned to the ports whence they sailed, also to the cases of aliens who are sentenced to deportation by our Courts; and whether he will consider the advisability of some international arrangement under which each country should be obliged to provide asylum for its own native subjects when for any reason they are expelled from a foreign country.

I am aware of certain cases of the nature described. The matter is regarded by His Majesty's Government as one of importance, and is engaging the consideration of my right hon. friend the Home Secretary and of myself.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Loughborough licensing justices have granted a licence to the brush company at Loughborough for the sale at their works of intoxicating liquors for the benefit of those workmen who are living on the premises during the present dispute; and whether, seeing that such permission makes such premises so licensed a public-house, and in view of the provisions of the Truck Act, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what, steps in the matter.

Yes, Sir. I have made inquiry into the matter, but so far as I am able to judge from the facts which have been brought to my knowledge, I cannot find that any breach of the Truck or other Acts has taken place. The magistrates appear to have been within their powers in granting the licence.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the value of the mineral royalties which have been paid during the past five years in the counties of Cumberland, Northumberland, and Durham, respectively.

I have no information as to the amount paid in mining royalties in these counties later than that which is contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on mining royalties in 1893; but my hon. friend will find particulars as to the rates in question in Paragraph 19 of that Report.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether representations were made to the Home Office on 4th April, 1906, respecting the case of Richard Flynn, who was arrested, convicted, and sentenced at the Clerkenwell Sessions, 7th June, 1905, for an alleged watch robbery; whether he is aware that in the first trial, on 6th June, 1905, the jury after due deliberation did not agree that Flynn was guilty, and that he was accordingly discharged, but was arrested next day, 7th June, 1905, tried upon the same charge, and convicted, and that the detective, Burrell, who made the charge against Flynn was the same officer who had a case before the Marylebone Police Court on 24th May, 1905, in which Flynn gave evidence in favour of the innocence of the accused; whether he is aware that Flynn was arrested outside the Marylebone Police Court on the mere statement of someone in court who alleged that he recognised Flynn as one of a gang concerned in a watch robbery; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, he will institute inquiries with a view to ascertaining whether justice has been done.

The whole case has received the most careful consideration both from myself and from the late Home Secretary. Flynn was recognised at the Marylebone Police Court on the 24th May, 1905, by two persons as the man who was concerned with another in a robbery committed on one of them; these persons were most positive in their identification and the police would have altogether failed in their duty if they had not arrested and charged him with the felony. On the 6th June, the first jury empannelled to try the charge could not agree; Flynn, of course, was not discharged, but following the ordin- ary course, he was put up for trial by a second jury, who, after a careful hearing, found a verdict of guilty. In consequence of his strenuous assertions of innocence the police instituted most exhaustive inquiries in the case, but failed to discover any facts that would have justified the Secretary of State in advising the remission of the sentence. Another man, however, surrendered and confessed to being concerned in the robbery; he was arraigned on that charge and pleaded guilty. The case was full of difficulty, and far too complicated to allow of my attempting any résumé of the facts within the limits of an Answer, but I may say that I entirely agree with my predecessor's decision to release Flynn from prison, and also with his well-considered opinion that the case was not one for recommending any grant of compensation from public funds.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the detective actually threatened Flynn when he gave evidence in another case?

Is there no evidence of bias and malice on the part of the detective, and under these circumstances should not Flynn be compensated?

He got the benefit of the doubt. I do not think we can go beyond that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to the case of Elizabeth Perkins, who was recently charged at the Tower Bridge Police Court with perjury on the evidence of three police constables and a female searcher, but who was discharged without a stain on her character, the police authorities admitting that a mistake had been made, and agreeing to pay her expenses; and what compensation he proposes to pay this woman for the serious injury done to her.

I beg to refer the hon. Member to the full statement which I made yesterday in answer to the Questions put to me by several hon. Members.†

† See col. 540.

Is it proposed to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the circumstances of this case and into the efficiency or otherwise of the officer who committed this blunder?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the cases of George Woods and William Charles Hutchinson, who wore sentenced to penal servitude for five years by the recorder, Mr. W. Russell Griffiths, at the Bedford Quarter Sessions, for breaking window panes; and if he will consider the possibility of reducing their sentences, considering the circumstances under which the offences were committed and there being no previous conviction against them.

At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the sentence of five years penal servitude passed by the Bedford Recorder at the Borough Quarter Sessions on two men for breaking a plate glass window in High Street, Bedford; and whether in view of the punishment awarded and the character of the crime, he will take steps to secure a reduction of the sentence.

This extraordinary case was brought to my notice some days ago by my hon. friend the Member for Bedford. I inquired into it at once, but I am not yet in possession of all the facts, and perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has been reported to him that M. Max Nettlau was refused permission to land in this country because he refused to undergo a medical examination under the terms of the Aliens Act; whether he is aware that Dr. Nettlau is a Doctor of Philosophy who for twenty years past has paid an annual visit to this country for the purpose of studying at the British Museum; and whether he will give instructions to prevent a recurrence of such an incident.

I have this matter under my consideration, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will post-pone his Question for a few days.

Is it not possible to introduce a Bill to repeal this inhospitable and un-English Act?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the number of cases in which persons are kept in prison for long periods before being brought to trial; whether he is aware that, according to the judicial statistics for 1904, eighteen persons were acquitted after having been kept in prison for several months before trial; and whether he will take any steps to remedy this state of things.

I have had under my consideration the statistics to which the hon. Member refers, and have consulted the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice with regard to the long delay which occasionally occurs before prisoners can be tried. The result was that in August last I issued a circular strongly urging on magistrates the importance of granting bail more freely in proper cases to prisoners committed for trial.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the judicial statistics for the year 1905 will be published.

The preparation of these statistics is an enormously heavy task, but I hope that if no fresh demands are made upon the Statistical Department of the Home Office, the criminal statistics may be published in about six weeks.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been given to the number of cases in which parents draw-considerable sums from insurance companies on the death of their infant children through neglect and ill-usage; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to put an end to the practice of infant insurance.

Cases of the nature referred to have, occasionally, come to my notice. I beg to refer to the Answer which I gave in this House on the 16th July last to the hon. Member for the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire, † in which I explained the law on the subject, and I may add that the matter is under the consideration of my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who hopes, if opportunity offers, to introduce legislation further limiting the sums of money which can be obtained in this manner.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps, if any, have been taken in view of the statement on page 99 of the Reports on Mines and Quarries for 1905 (Labour) that accidents by falls would be reduced if more quarries were worked in steps or galleries instead of with a vertically continuous face of great height; whether he is aware that 33 per cent, of fatal accidents in quarries are due to falls; and whether, under those circumstances, the Report has been brought to the attention of quarry owners with a view to their adopting the gallery system wherever practicable.

No special steps have been taken to bring this particular remark to the notice of the quarry owners. The Report itself is widely circulated by the Home Office, and is reviewed at length in the trade papers. The point is no doubt present to the minds of all the inspectors, but they have no power to direct the adoption of any particular method of working. Special precautions against falls are contained in Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Special Rules for Quarries which has been established at a large number of quarries. These are enforced by the inspectors.

† See (4) Debates, clx., 1335.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a number of voters were shut out and prevented from voting at the recent borough council elections in consequence of the polling stations being closed at 8 p.m., and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation next year to extend the hours of polling to 10 p.m.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. I do not find that the Local Government Board have received any representations as to voters being prevented from voting at the recent elections of borough councillors on the ground to which my hon. friend refers. Note will be taken of the suggestion for legislation on the subject, but no promise could be given at the present time to introduce a Bill with regard to it next year.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of the Loch Ryan Oyster Fishery Company in laying on the solum of the loch quantities of broken bricks and also boxes filled with stones; and, seeing that such action is a danger to shipping using the loch, which is of shallow depth, and is an important waterway between Scotland and North of Ireland, whether he will cause the practice to be prohibited in future, and also cause the present obstructions to be removed.

The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the matter to which the hon. Member refers. It would take too long for me to read out the details of the case, but I shall be happy to show them afterwards to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the authorities at the Ladies' College, Cheltenham, the college being on the list of the Board of Education training colleges for elementary school teachers, to accept a pupil from the Leeds City Council Thoresby High School for Pupil Teachers, who, in accordance with the regulations, applied for admission; whether he can state that, in applying for admission to the Ladies' College, Cheltenham, the social status of the applicant determines admission; and, if so, seeing that the college in question is subsidised to an extent from public funds, what steps he intends to take in the matter.

My attention has not been called to any such case as that described in the Question, except by private correspond-once with a Member of this House, in which no details of the case were given. I have no information whatever as to the grounds on which the College authorities refused admission. If the hon. Member will cause the case of the girl who was refused admission to be officially submitted to the Board, I will have it carefully investigated, as indeed I had already promised to the hon. Member who first named the matter to me.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the Local Education Authority have refused to provide Bibles for use in the non-provided schools while making no such refusal in the case of the provided schools; and, if so, whether he will take steps to prevent such inequality of treatment in future.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, is it not the fact that local education authorities are under no obligation to provide Bibles, catechisms, or any other religious textbooks in denominational schools, and has not the Court of Appeal decided chat the West Riding local authority has no control over, and consequently no responsibility whatever regarding re- ligious instruction of any sort in non-provided schools?

I will furnish the right hon. Gentleman with particulars of a case.

No information has reached the Board of Education with regard to any such action on the part of the West Riding.

Are we to understand that, so far as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there exists in this country a single denominational school not adequately supplied with Bibles by the managers, having regard to their well-known zeal for religious teaching?

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he will inform the House of the number of notices to quit served upon the agricultural tenants of Crown lands, specifying the length of previous occupation by such tenants and the special reasons given for terminating such tenancies; and what steps are being taken to form such lands when vacated into small holdings, and where such lands are situate.

In consequence of the death of two of the Crown tenants, notice to quit has been given to their representatives. The tenants in question had occupied their farms, which are situated at Holbeach and at Walpole St. Andrews and Wingland, for twenty and fifteen years respectively. The farms referred to will not come in hand till next Michaelmas, and my noble friend is unable at present to make any statement as to the use that will be made of them. In addition, before my noble friend was appointed a Commissioner, notice to quit was given in the case of a farm near Scarborough, on the ground that the tenants did not themselves occupy the land, but were merely middlemen and that land was required by the Local Authority for small holdings and allotments.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether it is intended to dismiss the present Crown Receiver; and, if so, for what reason; what steps are being taken to fill the position; what qualifications will be required for the position; and what remuneration will be paid to the next Receiver.

Notice has been given to the two firms who act at present as agents for the Crown lands that their services will not be required in future so far as concerns the agricultural properties which are to be placed under the charge of my noble friend. My noble friend desires me to say that the change of agency is not intended in any sense as a reflection on the honourable and conscientious manner in which the two firms in question have performed their duties, but that for the execution of the policy of utilising as far as possible the Crown lands for small holdings it is necessary to have agents who have had practical experience of the kind of work that will have to be done. Negotiations are now proceeding as to the appointment of new agents, but I cannot make any definite announcement on the subject at the present time. I may add that the Land Revenue Act, 1829, requires that every Crown Receiver should be "by profession a surveyor of lands or land steward, and accustomed to act as such, or otherwise skilled in the management and cultivation of lands, and competent to the superintendence thereof."

How many years have these gentlemen acted for the Crown?

I cannot say. It would be a considerable time.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can give an estimate of the cost of making the records of the conditions of farms under Clause 8 of the Land Tenure Bill.

I am afraid it is impossible to give any estimate of the cost of making the records referred to. It will be a matter of arrangement between the parties in each particular case, and will obviously depend on the size of the farm and the amount of work involved.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he will state the number of the cases, giving the names and places of the persons implicated, in which proceedings, and the nature of those proceedings, have been taken by the Treasury under the Corrupt Practices Act in respect of the general election of January, 1906.

I have already answered this Question. I shall be glad to furnish the hon. Member with a list of the cases if he desires.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he is aware that 70 per cent, of the cases tried in the King's Bench Division are in respect of sums of £100 and less; and whether he will advise a modification of the Order in Council, issued under the County Court Act, 1903, in order that such cases may be dealt with in the county courts.

I do not think a modification of the Order in Council would quite meet the case to which the hon. Gentleman calls attention. Legislation would be required, and I am not. prepared to advise at present that that course be adopted.

; I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish Education Department intends to take any definite steps to remedy the neglect in Scottish schools of Scottish history complained of by the Convention of Royal Burghs, and admitted in the recent Report on Secondary Education.

The responsibility for what history shall be taught in their own schools and what text-books shall be used rests in the first place upon school boards and school managers. But the Department has under consideration the advisability of issuing for the guidance of managers and teachers suggestions for the teaching of several school subjects, including history. The suggestions for the teaching of history will deal with the point mentioned by the hon. Member.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend Sir Walter Scott's Tales of a Grandfather as a text-book?

I shall be glad to consider that suggestion.

I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a Resolution from the Blacklion and Dowra Teachers' Association, drawing attention to the miserable salary paid to Irish national school teachers, to inadequate pensions, and to the delay in advancement and promotion of teachers; and, if so, in view of the gravity of delay in having the teachers' grievances put right, will he give this matter his first consideration.

I have received the Resolution referred to. The whole question of salaries to Irish primary teachers is under the consideration of the Commissioners of National Education, and the Irish Government will gladly consider any proposals on the subject which the Commissioners may make.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners' inspector visited county Cavan recently; and, if so, how many owners of the fifty-two evicted farms now on the landlords' hands were visited; did any of these landlords refuse to see the inspector; did any of these landlords refuse to allow the evicted tenant back; and, if so, how many.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that one of their inspectors is at present making inquiries into the cases of evicted tenants in county Cavan. Until these inquiries have been completed the Commisssioners are not in a position to give the details asked for in the Question, and, moreover, they do not think it desirable that they should furnish at irregular intervals piecemeal reports as to the progress of the work in different localities.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there was much riot and disorder connected with the recent election for the town of Galway; and can he state the number of the electors on the register at present in force, the population of the town, and the number of police that were employed to keep order during the three days preceding the election and on the day of polling.

Reports which I have received from the police authorities indicate that on the afternoon of the 1st instant considerable disturbance and fighting took place at Galway. On the following day there was no disturbance, and on the third, the day of the polling, there was no general disturbance or riot, but some little fighting occurred. The number of electors in Galway is 2,250, and the population about 16,000. No extra police were employed at Galway on 31st October. The number of police employed on 1st November was sixty; on 2nd November, 100; and on 3rd November, the polling day, 200. These figures include ten men of the ordinary town force.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the preliminary documents for sale and purchase as between landlord and tenants were perfected in the case of Lord Fermoy and the tenants on the Kilcullane, Cahirguillamore, and other lands in the parishes of Herbertstown and Grange, county Limerick; is he aware that Lord Fermoy subsequently withdrew his sanction to the sale unless the tenants paid a higher price, and on their refusal to do so served on them writs for rents to be tried in the superior courts, and, in the case of one tenant, Mr. Martin Hogan, served a process to be tried before the county court judge at the Bruff Quarter Sessions, which he subsequently withdrew before going into court; and will he consider the advisability of taking steps to save tenants from being harassed by lawsuits where the title is doubtful.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings in connection with the sale of Lord Fermoy's estate are pending before them, and they have no knowledge of the legal proceedings referred to in the Question. The Government have no power to restrain landlords from taking legal proceedings.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that on 25th September last the Earl of Dunraven evicted from his holding in Ardshanbally Adara, a farmer named Thomas Drew, who held as tenant from year to year; is he aware that since his eviction, six weeks ago, Thomas Drew, with his delicate wife, have been obliged to live in an insanitary cabin; does he know that in order to the more effectually deprive Thomas Drew of any title to his holding a caretaker's agreement from the rent office, in the name of the Earl of Dunraven, was served on him which he refused to sign; can he say whether all the other evicted tenants on the Dunraven property have been reinstated; and will the Estates Commissioners send an inspector to see to the reinstatement of Thomas Drew.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question in reference to the case of Thomas Drew, from whom no communication has been received. The Commissioners have received eight applications for reinstatement on the estate mentioned. Six of the applicants have been reinstated by the Commissioners, one was outside the scope of the Act, and the remaining case has not yet been dealt with.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 12th October Mr. P. J. Kelly, while adjudicating on the bench at the Loughrea Petty Sessions, publicly expressed approval of seditious statements made in court by a person charged with disorderly conduct at Gortymadden; if the Lord-Chancellor has expressed disapproval of Mr. Kelly's statement about grabbers, police, and British Government; and if Mr. Kelly has been called upon to withdraw the statement or resign his seat on the bench.

My attention had not been called to the fact alleged in the Question, and I have no information on the subject. I have, however, referred the Question to the Lord Chancellor, but, owing to the short notice given, there has not been time for the Lord Chancellor's observations to reach me.

I will repeat the Question in a few days.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what will be the Irish share of the £200,000 which the President of the Local Government Board has announced will be voted for the unemployed.

If the hon. Member will refer to the Supplementary Estimates of the present session, Class VII., he will see that the provision of £200,000 for the purposes of the Unemployed Workmen Act is to be allocated by the Treasury between England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I understand that the allocation has not yet been made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has been informed that several of the principal rivers in the north of Ireland have overflowed their banks and that miles of low-lying country districts are under water; that in several parts of Derry, Fermanagh, and Monaghan, hundreds of acres of potatoes have been totally destroyed, and that farmers are compelled to use boats to remove horses and cattle from dangerous positions; and whether he will advise the Commission on arterial drainage to visit the flooded districts so as to take an object lesson on the subject matter of their inquiry.

I had not received information to the effect mentioned in the Question. I have, however, referred the Question to the Secretary of the Commission on Arterial Drainage, and am informed that the Commission will sit in Belfast to-day and on the remaining days of this week, and the hon. Member's suggestion will be brought before the Commissioners for their consideration.

Is it not the fact that the state of things is much worse along the basin of the Barrow?

I have no information as to that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, since the settlement arrived at in 1890 in connection with the training colleges in Ireland, that settlement has been sot aside by the action of the Government in granting a sum of £50,000 for buildings for the Government College in Marl-borough Street, Dublin; whether he is aware that since 1890 three colleges have been established, one at Waterford, one at Belfast, and one at Limerick, with the assent of the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Commissioners of National Education, who considered them necessary in order to provide a sufficient supply of trained teachers; whether he is aware that under the present system these colleges at Belfast, Limerick, and Waterford have to pay interest on their loan and sinking fund out of their annual earning, thus reviving in their cases the grievances which were removed in the case of the colleges which were in existence in 1890; will he say if the Treasury have refused to redress these grievances on the ground that they have not been pressed to do so by the Irish Office; and whether, in view of the hardship which is being inflicted on the managers of these colleges, and the detri- mental effect the present policy is having upon the education and training of hundreds of teachers, he will take steps to impress on the Treasury the urgent necessity of acceding to the request which has been made to them for a free home grant.

The Board of National Education did make representations in favour of what is called a "free home grant" to the Limerick College, but do not appear to have made any similar representations in respect of the colleges at Belfast and Waterford. These provincial colleges have all been opened since 1890, with the full knowledge on the part of the promoters that a building grant would not be given to them, and I am informed that the Irish Government and the Treasury have consistently refused subsequent applications on behalf of these colleges for a grant to clear off the loans taken up for building purposes. The grant of £50,000 for new buildings, in connection with the Marlborough Street Training College, was made by the late Government two years ago out of the Irish Development Grant. It cannot be admitted that the making of that grant re-opened the settlement arrived at in 1890. The intention of that settlement was then stated to he to place the three denominational training colleges in Dublin on an equality of treatment as to building grants, with that previously accorded to the undenominational training college at Marl-borough Street under the control of the Commissioners. The reasons for making the grant in 1904 were fully stated in this House by the right hon. Member for Dover, 16th March, 1904, † and His Majesty's present Government have had nothing whatever to do with that matter. The question of grants for these colleges has not been the subject of discussion between the present Irish Government and the Treasury since we came into office, inasmuch as there was no reason to think that the attitude of the Treasury, who in November, 1905, positively refused to entertain a similar proposal, would be at all modified. The managers of two of these colleges, however, appealed directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose reply—it cannot have been accurately conveyed to the hon. and

† See (4)Debates, cxxxi., 1259, 1260, 1313.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to publishing the correspondence as a Parliamentary Paper or allowing me to have a copy of it?

I will look into it to see if that can be done.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the report on Arklow Harbour recently furnished to the Irish Government was made at the request of the Government or on the initiative of the Department of Agriculture.

The report in question was furnished at the request of the Irish Government and not on the initiative of the Department of Agriculture

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the fishermen at Courtown, county Wexford, have been unable to get to sea for some time past owing to the silting up of the harbour; if the dredger, promised on 22nd October last by the Department of Agriculture, has been sent to Courtown; and whether, in view of the fact that for years past the fishermen at Courtown, and at other places on the south-east coast of Ireland, have been continually making representations to successive Governments with a view to the improvement of their harbours, he will seriously consider the question of giving them the same opportunities of earning their living as are given to fishermen in Scotland and in other parts of Ireland.

The Department of Agriculture are aware that the larger boats at Courtown have recently been prevented from leaving the harbour, owing to the condition of the bar. A similar state of affairs existed at the end of the year 1904. The Department, in co-operation with the county council, then cleared the entrance by the use of a steam crane and grab working from the pier. On learning, on 22nd October, that the entrance to the harbour had again become choked, the Department took immediate steps to have the crane moved from Arklow to Courtown; and it is now being erected there. The greater number of harbours on the east coast are purely artificial, and are liable to become choked by accumulations of sand. The Department are now in possession of a sand pump dredger, which is available for use in harbours suitable to her capacities, and arrangements could be made for placing her at the disposal of such harbour authorities as are prepared to cooperate in providing for her expense.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether a draft or outline of the Government proposals with regard to changes in the government of Ireland which are intended to be embodied in legislation next session has been submitted to the leader or leaders of the Nationalist Party; and whether he can state when the public will have an opportunity of considering the scheme.

No statement regarding the Government's proposals for Irish legislation next session can at present be made. It would be altogether unusual to do so. As to the persons who may or may not be consulted, I have nothing to say; but I shall be very glad to consult the hon. Member if he will allow me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give mo an opportunity of consulting with him?

I am always available.

rose to move the following Amendment to Clause 2—

"In page 2, line 9, at end, to insert the words, 'Provided that in the case of Ireland, where the tenant has bought out under any of the Land Purchase Acts, no such charge shall be imposed on the Irish Development

As I understood it, the Bill does not apply to Ireland, and if that be so the hon. Member's Amendment is out of order.

said that the clause itself could not possibly refer to Ireland, and he would further say that it was the intention of the Government to strike out Clause 3, which was the only clause which did apply to Ireland.

ruled the Amendment out of order.

in moving to insert in Clause 2 after the word "agreement" the words "made after the damage has been suffered," said that his object was to put right what he thought was obviously a slight error in the drafting of the section, because it said in the first sub-section that "any agreement to the contrary shall be void" and subsequently that "the amount of compensation payable under this section shall in default of agreement." Clearly the meaning of the word "agreement" was an agreement by which landlord and tenant bargained beforehand that there should be no compensation. Landlord and tenant should be able to fix the amount by agreement made after the damage was done without the expense of arbitration.

intimated that the Government proposed to accept the Amendment together with a similar Amendment which he understood was going to be moved and which, in application, was identical with that of his hon. friend.

moved to insert after the word "arbitration" the words "and the arbitrator shall have regard to any existing arrangements between owner and occupier under which damage by game has been taken into consideration." The object of the Amendment was to meet the case of damage by game having been taken into consideration in determining the rent, and to give the landlord some protection against being called on to pay twice over. He noticed that the Solicitor-General had placed an Amendment upon the Paper which for all he knew might entirely achieve the object he had in view. He felt bound, however, to move his own Amendment, because his right hon. and gallant friend the Member for Shropshire had agreed to accept it in lieu of an Amendment he himself had on the Paper. While he was quite willing, if hon. Gentlemen were satisfied with the proposal of the Solicitor-General, to withdraw in its favour, he rather preferred his own and shorter form of Amendment. It was not necessary to discuss the matter further, especially as his whole object was to save the time of the House upon a very small question, upon which they had virtually come to an agreement during the previous day's debate, viz., that the tenant should not receive compensation twice over where compensation had been given in determining the rent. If those in charge of the Bill and hon. Members opposite were willing he was quite ready to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the Solicitor-General. There might be in the complicated and legal phraseology points which required explanation, and for this reason also he would withdraw his own Amendment, if desired.

said he quite agreed that something was required to make the clause clearer in its meaning, but he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, because the Solicitor-General had a similar Amendment on the Paper which he (Sir Edward Strachey) thought was preferable.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not withdraw his Amendment. It was a better one than that of which notice had been given by the Solicitor-General. Perhaps the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would explain to the House why the Solicitor-General's Amendment was preferable to that of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. The latter was shorter and more easily understood, and he could see no possible reason for its non-acceptance. It was much clearer and contained fewer words, whilst that of the learned Solicitor-General was long, cumbersome, and difficult to understand.

hoped the Amendment moved by his hon. friend would not be dismissed quite so summarily by the Front Bench. On the previous afternoon they had been engaged in a lengthy discussion over an Amendment which, according to the general consensus of opinion in the House, aimed at the object they had in view. It was explained, however, from the Front Bench that it would not achieve the object desired. Unquestionably in the letting and taking of a farm, the probability of damage by game almost always entered into consideration. It was the general consensus of opinion in the House that, this being so, it was desirable to have some form of words inserted in the Bill giving power to the arbitrator, when considering a claim for damage by a tenant, to take notice of any such consideration, if embodied in the agreement and affecting the rent. Personally, he much preferred the Amendment before the House, because it almost exactly reproduced what he believed to be the sense of the House on the previous afternoon. If there were points which needed explanation, and rendered the Solicitor-General's Amendment preferable, it was all the more reason why they should not hastily discard the proposal under discussion.

believed there was a general agreement that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland covered the ground better than that of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General.

said that as the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had suggested that the Amendment before the House should be withdrawn in favour of one standing in the name of the Solicitor-General, it behoved them to look at both in order to see in what respect they differed. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that—

"The arbitrator should have regard to any existing arrangements between owner and occupier under which damage by game has been taken into consideration,"

"Where the landlord proves that under a contract of tenancy, made before the commencement of this Act, any compensation for damage by game is payable, or that in fixing the rent to be paid under such agreement allowance to an agreed amount was expressly made, the arbitrator shall, in assessing the compensation under this section, make such deduction from the compensation which would otherwise be payable as may appear just."

thought he could explain why the Government preferred the Amendment of the Solicitor-General to that of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. The real object was to insert a clause which would make specific provision for the value of the loss caused by game. What the Government were anxious to avoid was that the landlord should pay compensation twice over. The Amendment of the Solicitor-General guarded against that danger, so that if the arbitrator found in the lease some clause by which there had been an anticipation as to the damage done by game, he would take it into account. That would quite rightly throw upon the landlord the onus of showing from the lease that he had already by anticipation made an allowance or compensation in respect of damage by game, and that, therefore, it would be grossly inequitable to ask him to pay over again. The two Amendments really came to the same thing; but in the view of the Government it was much better that the arbitrator should have his attention drawn to the point which they all had in view.

thought that the Solicitor-General for Scotland was wrong. It had been made abundantly clear, from the speeches delivered on the previous day, that very often allowance was made for the amount of damage done by game by a reduction of rent. In the southern counties farms were let by yearly agreements, which were usually made out in the same form for a whole estate. He hold in his hand a form of such agreement which was frequently adopted. He could assure the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Scotland that, although no express mention was made of compensation for damage caused by game, considerable differences were made in the rent of different farms owing to the presence on some farms of large coverts for game. The Amendment of the Solicitor-General contained the word "expressly," which would cut out all the cases whore the reduction of rent by way of compensation was made by tacit understanding, as it was in many parts of the country; and in numerous cases of that kind the arbitrator would have nothing to look to in coming to his decision. Of course, in the future that would be provided for, but it could not be remedied in existing agreements. He hoped the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would reconsider the matter and see whether his own object would not be better served by accepting the shorter and clearer Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.

hoped the Government would refuse this Amendment and insist on the words to be proposed by the Solicitor-General. He did not think the two Amendments meant the same thing. He thought the word "arrangement" instead of "agreement" would allow the evasion of the understanding arrived at in the previous day's discussion. The compensation to be given to the tenant by the landlord should be compulsory, and the Amendment of the Solicitor-General would secure that.

thought that hon. Members must have been very agreeably surprised when they saw on the Order Paper the present Amendment. He was glad to hear that a concession of a most valuable character had been made to carry out the understanding arrived at, as he believed, on the previous day, that when an arbitrator came to deal with the question of what compensation was to be given he should be allowed to take into consideration any arrangement which the landlord and tenant had come to on that point. There was no suggestion on the previous day that the arrangement should be expressed in writing in a document under seal. A great many farms in England were let verbally, and it would be impossible in a large number of cases to comply with the stringent and objectionable terms which the Solicitor-General had incorporated in his Amendment. The House would be well advised if they accepted the straightforward and simple language of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.

pointed out that in effect they were in Committee upon this Bill in consequence of the action of the Government, instead of dealing with the matter upon the Report stage in the ordinary way. The whole question under debate was that of existing contracts, and he took it that the Amendment before the House, unless it was modified by some other words, would put into the hands of arbitrators in the future a power to consider agreements of a private nature which it was the object of the Bill to prevent; in fact it would defeat the whole object of the Bill. In the case of new tenancies, how was it possible at the beginning of nineteen years to say anything about the amount of damage which would be done at any time during that period? The tenant, however, would submit to whatever game the landlord put upon the land, because he had already obtained as much reduction of rental in regard to such damage as he could possibly receive, and he took it that under this Act he would be able to obtain a reduced rental in the case of larger heads of game being on the farm, and also to claim an arbitrator's decision and get a second allowance. That was what they on that side of the House objected to—that a tenant should be allowed to claim compensation twice over. He thought the Solicitor-General should see that this compensation was not paid twice over, and that a man who had already obtained a reduction of rent, because of game preservation, should not be able to claim a second allowance.

said the speeches which had been delivered showed that there was an ambiguity in the proposed Amendment. Some of his hon. friends assumed that the word "existing" meant existing at the time of arbitration; he did not know whether that was the meaning given to it by the promoters of the Amendment or whether it was to be interpreted as meaning "existing" at the time of the passing of the Bill. In that case it would be possible for any tenant and landlord to come to an agreement with regard to the amount of game to he kept on a farm, and the tenant would not be able to claim compensation for damage except beyond that. There was a vital and enormous difference between the two proposals; indeed, there was the difference of the whole diameter of the globe between them, because in one case they preserved the right to make future contracts in regard to game and in the other they did not. If the first interpretation was the correct one, then there was a vital difference between the Amendment of the hon. Member and that of the Solicitor-General. He thought they ought to know the object with which the Amendment was moved.

said he might be mistaken as to what his hon. friend opposite meant, but he had no other intention than that of dealing with contracts existing at the time of the passing of the Bill.

said that was his interpretation of the Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to be of the same opinion. Having settled that preliminary ambiguity, he ventured to put in an appeal for the Amendment now before the House and for this very plain and obvious reason. On the subject of contracts already running the Solicitor-General's Amendment would forbid any arrangement between landlord and tenant being taken into account by the arbitrator unless an arrangement was in writing. He instanced the case of the taking of a lease where a tenant might have to pay £300 a year; but, in view of game being kept on the farm, it was lot by the landlord at £280 a year. This abatement of the rent agreed upon between landlord and tenant was never inserted in the lease; and he wanted to know whether a tenant relieved of £20 rent was to be compensated for damage by game, since the contract was not of the formal character suggested by the Solicitor-General. He hoped that the Amendment of the hon. Member would be agreed to.