reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That, at the Meeting of the Committee this day, notice was received from Sir Walter Nugent, one of the Members of the said Committee, stating that he was unable, on account of an urgent public engagement, to attend the Committee this day.

reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills; That Mr. Charles O'Donnell, one of the members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether purchasers under the Land Act of 1903 are entitled to pay their annuities as to three-quarters in cash, and one-quarter in Land Stock; whether regulations have been made to enable purchasers to buy Land Stock through the Post Office Savings Bank; and, if not, when it is intended to issue such regulations. (Answered by Mr. Birrell) It is not considered that Section 2 o The Purchase of Land (Ireland)Act, 1891, applies to annuities payable by tenant purchasers under The Irish Land Act, 1903. As to the remainder of the Question, I would refer to the Answer given on the 12th instant by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury, from which it appears that the Treasury are in communication with the Departments concerned in reference to the question of making regulations under the section quoted. [The foregoing Answer is in substitution for the Answer circulated with the Votes on June 13, and published in the Debates, clxxv., 1578.]

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, from what date the Dominion took over the hydrographic survey formerly under the Admiralty, and engaged a British naval officer, and commenced the employment of survey-ships on the Atlantic Coast of Canada; when the survey-ship building for the Dominion on the Pacific Coast is likely to be ready; whether the Admiralty survey in British Columbian waters during 1906, recorded in the Annual Report recently laid before Parliament, was still under Admiralty direction; and what arrangements have been made for the future as to joint action between the Admiralty and the Dominion Government in the extension of hydrographic survey, stated by Mr. Brodeur, in his speech, at the Colonial Conference, to be now taking place. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) No Admiralty survey has been in progress on the Atlantic Coast of Canada since 1888. At the request of the Dominion Government, a naval officer was lent, in March, 1906, for surveying duties. It is not known when the Dominion Government surveying-ship for the Pacific Coast is likely to be ready. The Admiralty survey in British Columbian waters during 1906 was, and is still, solely under Admiralty direction. No such arrangement as that suggested has been made, as the Dominion Government have taken over a large part of the hydrographic surveying, and from what was stated at the Colonial Conference they are apparently prepared to undertake the whole of the survey of their own coasts.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the provision intended to be made for the complements of torpedo destroyers and torpedo boats, so as to obviate the present arrangement whereby, when a flotilla puts to sea, boats in commission in reserve are depleted of the engine-room artificers required to carry out necessary repairs. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The present arrangement is that the complements of nucleus-crew destroyers and torpedo boats, which may from time to time for special reasons be brought up to full numbers, shall be completed from the resources of the port to which they belong without withdrawing ratings from other nucleus-crew vessels. It is the exception and not the rule to complete them from nucleus crews. I am not aware of any intention of altering the complements of torpedo-boat destroyers and torpedo boats.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether, as the sums paid in lieu of rates for the Royal Dockyards to local authorities appear on the Civil Service Estimates, it is to be understood that the prices quoted for Government work in building ships do not include any proportionate charges for the payments in respect of contributions to local authorities, whereas the private ship-builders have to allow for their payments of full rates levied by the local authorities. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Answer is in the affirmative.

To ask the Prime Minister, if, for the purpose of an economical formation of Estimates, he will take into consideration the appointment of a Select Committee for the purpose of examining and reporting on them, precedent to their being discussed in Committee of Supply, as recommended by the Select Committee on National Expenditure. (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) This is not so easy or plain a matter as might appear on the surface, and, in addition to the difficulties that have always been foreseen, there is now this fresh objection, that the changes in Procedure, made this session, have involved a large addition to the Committee work of the House, and it is desirable to gain more experience of the working of these arrangements before adding another important Committee to the list.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken to carry out the pledge given by the Irish Government that a Bill would be introduced in the present session to enable the county council of Galway to carry out a scheme of improvement in Kinvarra Harbour. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It seems to have escaped the hon. Member's notice that my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland introduced the Navigation Works (Ireland) Bill on Thursday last.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet dealt with the estate of Mrs. O'Hara, Raheen, Gort, under the Land Act, 1903; and whether the memorial of the uneconomic holders adjoining has yet received the consideration promised in their letter of acknowledgment dated 16th June, 1906. (Answered by Mr. Birrell) No proceedings for the sale of the estate mentioned have yet been instituted before the Estates Commissioners. The memorialists were informed in the letter referred to that their petition would be considered when the Commissioners should come to deal with the estate

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Lough-Contra property, Gort, of Lord Gough, Chargé d'Affairs at Dresden, a tenant on the estate, Mr. John Hennelly, took proceedings against his lordship at the Gort January quarter sessions to recover damages for trespass of game on his corn crops; can he state the approximate amount realised in fines for the past twenty years at the Gort petty sessions against his tenantry for alleged offences under the. Game Laws; is he aware that the tenants on the estate and in the neighbourhood, through fear of the class of men who compose the Gort bench of magistrates, submit to the fines imposed by the gamekeepers and the agent on the estate, outside the petty sessions court; and what action he purposes taking to remedy such a state of affairs. (Answered by Mr. Birrell) I am informed that Mr. Hennelly brought an action against Lord Gough to recover damages for the trespass of game, and that the action was dismissed by the county court judge. During the past twenty years fines amounting approximately to £21 have been imposed at Gort petty sessions on some of Lord Gough's tenants for offences against the Game Laws. I have no definite information that the practice referred to in the latter part of the Question prevails. If it does, it is the fault of the persons who make the payments. I have no reason to suppose that the magistrates do not act impartially.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on Sunday, 2nd June, a Mr. Farrell was brought before the Roscommon branch of the United Irish League, and there stated that his cattle had been stopped on the road by order of the League and that he himself was boycotted; and what amount of protection is now given to Mr. Farrell and his property. (Answers by Mr. Birrell) Mr. Patrick Parrell, who is referred to in the Question, has informed the police that he attended a meeting of the R03-common branch of the United Irish League on the 2nd instant, but made no statement that his cattle had been stopped on the road or that he was boycotted. Farrell, who is himself a member of the branch, is not boycotted. He receives no protection, none being necessary.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the Moylough branch of the United Irish League, on Sunday, 2nd June, to the effect that the pressure of the League should be brought to bear upon certain persons indicated at the meeting; whether the circulation of this resolution is or is not considered by the police and the inhabitants of the locality as a direct incitement to boycotting and intimidation; and whether, seeing that it has been held in the courts of justice that it is a criminal offence for a newspaper to publish resolutions under the special circumstances of a disturbed locality, he proposes to take steps to bring to justice those who are responsible for publications of this nature. (Answered by Mr. Birrell) A resolution, which purported to have been passed by the branch mentioned on 2nd June, has appeared in a local newspaper. The resolution appears to be directed against a certain tenant, and the police inform me that previous similar resolutions have produced no effect. As regards the latter part of the Question, I would refer to my Answer to the hon. Member for the City of London on 6th June.†

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on two occasions the proceedings taken before the Roscrea petty sessions court against sixteen men charged

† See (4) Debates. Clxxv., 813.

with having driven cattle off the land of Mr. Nathaniel Luttrell have been rendered abortive because five out of ten magistrates are opposed to a conviction; and what steps he proposes to take to secure an effective adjudication upon the case. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The magistrates at Roscrea petty sessions have been equally divided in opinion on the three occasions on which this case has come before them. The case now stands adjourned to the 24th instant. My right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland will in due course consider what further proceedings, if any, should be taken in the case.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 5th June a party of men drove up to the residence of a farmer named Keary, in the Craughwell district of county Galway, and deliberately fired several gun shots into the dwelling house; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this incident. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police have reported that on the early morning of 8th June several shots were fired into the house of Thomas Keary. No arrest has been made.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at midnight on Saturday, 8th June, a party of men entered upon a Gurrancoyle farm in the neighbourhood of Athenry, and in spite of the efforts of the police drove off some of the cattle; whether two shots were fired by members of the crowd; and whether he will state what measures the holder of the farm in this case could have taken to protect his own property. (Answered by Mr. Birrell) A prosecution has been directed in this case, and in the circumstances I am not prepared to enter into the details of the offence. It is not for me to enumerate the acts which may be permissible under the law in defence of private property.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in the King's Bench Division on Tuesday, when, owing to the refusal through fear of civil bill officers to serve writs for rent in certain districts in county Cork, Mr. Justice Johnson made an order allowing service to be effected by post; and whether, having regard to the previous attacks made upon postmen while delivering letters supposed to contain writs, adequate police protection will be afforded to servants of the Crown in the performance of their duty. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer to both parts of the Question is in the affirmative.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now see his way to pay the standard rate of wage to the workmen employed in the building works department at Woolwich Arsenal. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I would refer the hon. Member. to the reply I gave to a similar Question of his on the 13th March last to the effect that, when the benefits accruing from Government employment are taken into account, the wages paid in the building works department of the Royal Arsenal are considered fully equal to the rates current in the district. There is no intention of making any change in the present conditions.

:To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that defective and ill-assorted ammunition has been served out to some Volunteer battalions; he will arrange that these battalions do not suffer in capitation grants as a consequence of bad shooting resulting there from. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane) I am not aware that any bad shooting has resulted from defective ammunition Served out to Volunteers.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether it is proposed to continue Mr. Justice Dodd in the office of a Judge for the hearing of Land Commission appeals. (Answered by Mr. Cherry) On 23rd February last the Lord Chancellor nominated Mr. Justice Dodd to act, for the term of five years, as an additional Judicial Commissioner for the purpose of hearing appeals under the Land Law Acts, and at the same time nominated him to act for a like term as an additional Judicial Commissioner for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts. The Judicial Commissioners of the Irish Land Commission regulate among themselves the division of their business, and the Government does not and cannot control them in the matter.

To ask the Postmaster-General if he will furnish a Return of the number of prosecutions in cases where letters have been stolen from letter-boxes during the last three years; and whether he proposes to introduce the system in use in Germany for the prevention of such thefts. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) During the last three years there have been only five prosecutions in the United Kingdom for the theft of letters from Post Office letter-boxes and four prosecutions for attempted theft. I am in communication with the German Post Office on the subject of the apparatus in use in street letter-boxes in Germany.

To ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether he is now prepared to furnish the detailed statement and estimate to which he referred on the 26th November last, showing the effect of granting one day's rest in seven to the Metropolitan Police. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The following memorandum, which has been prepared by the receiver for the metropolitan police district, gives the details of the estimate. The estimate has been very carefully framed, and errs, if at all, on the side of underestimating rather than on that of overestimating the cost.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamer "Maritta" engaged a crew at Cardiff on 4th June, 1907, and that on the previous voyage the "Maritta" carried six able seamen, while on the present voyage she has sailed without any qualified able seamen; whether he is aware that six ordinary seamen had been engaged at £3 10s. per month to lake the place of able seamen, and can he say if the superintendent of the mercantile marine office has brought under the notice of the surveyor of the Board of Trade at Cardiff the question of the manning of this vessel, and what steps, if any, did the Board of Trade take to prevent the "Maritta" from proceeding to sea without a qualified crew of able seamen; and whether, in view of the position that may arise in steamers proceeding on foreign voyages without a competent crew, he will take steps so that British ships may be properly manned in accordance with the recommendation of the Manning Committee's Report of 1896. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George) On the previous voyage the "Maritta" carried a carpenter, a boatswain, and six able seamen, the wages of the able seamen being £4 per month. On the 4th instant a carpenter and a boatswain were engaged, and six ordinary seamen, the wages of these seamen being £3 10s. per month. The case was referred by the superintendent of the surveyors, and the surveyor who looked into it reported that these men had been seen personally by him and that he was satisfied that they would be found capable of performing the usual duties of seamen. On testing them, it was evident to him that they understood and could carry out the usual duties that are given to seamen. He also observed them moving the steamer in dock, and noticed that they obeyed orders rapidly and in an intelligent and seamanlike way. He also stated that he was informed that they had served three years at sea, and he understood that they held discharges for twelve months of that time. He added that the master stated that he had selected four of these men to act as helmsmen, and had found them satisfactory on the passage round from London. Each of these men was sent to the wheel, and given various orders in his presence which were evidently understood and executed rapidly. My hon. friend will remember that the Merchant Shipping Act of 1897, which deals with under-manning, was passed in consequence of the Manning Committee's Report. Carefully considered instructions as to procedure under that Act were issued by the Board of Trade to their officers, and, as at present advised, although I am watching carefully the way in which shipowners interpret their obligations under the Acts of 1897 and of 1906 in respect of manning, I do not think that any reason has been shown for altering those instructions.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of patents in force in the United Kingdom on 1st January, 1907, giving, as regards those patents which have been prolonged, particulars as to the years, serial numbering, names of patentees, dates to which prolonged, and references to reports of prolongation proceedings, and showing, as regards the other patents, how many date from Each year. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The information asked for by the hon. Member

To ask the President of the Local Government Board how many members of boards of guardians are women; and in how many cases the election of such women members was a contested election. (Answered by Mr. John Burns) According to the latest figures in my possession the number of lady guardians in 1,093, of whom 1,050 were elected and forty-three were co-opted. Some of the Returns, however, for the present year have not at present been received, and

To ask the President of the Local Government Board how many boards of guardians have appointed visiting committees of women. (Answered by Mr. John Burns) I have not the information desired as regards the number of boards of guardians who have appointed committees of ladies to visit workhouses.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that the granting of exemption certificates to conscientious objectors to vaccination is a matter over which vaccination officers have no control, and that the receipt of exemption certificates entails as much clerical and statistical work upon vaccination officers as do vaccination certificates, he can see his way to insert a clause in the new Vaccination Bill to provide for the payment to vaccination officers of a fee for the registration by them of exemption certificates in the same manner as is now provided for the registration of certificates of successful vaccination. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have had occasion to consider this matter, and I do not see my way to propose the insertion in the Bill of a clause to the effect suggested.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received and considered an application from Mr. John Graham, of Banagh, Clonelly, county Fermanagh, who was, in 1893, evicted from his holding in Aughaleague, near Ederney, for nonpayment of rent. (Answered by Mr. Birrell) The Estates Commissioners cannot trace receipt of the application referred to.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any claim has been made by Mr. John Flynn, ex-national teacher, of Newtown forbes, county Longford, for a. disablement pension; is he, aware that this man and a large family have been reduced to extreme poverty by the loss of his employment; and will he request the Treasury to take his case into immediate and favourable consideration. (Answered by Mr. Runciman) A claim has been made by Mr. Flynn. but unfortunately it cannot be acceded to. He voluntarily quitted the service in January, 1905, and the pension premiums which he had paid were returned to him on his application. He is therefore disqualified for the grant of a disablement pension under No. 10 of the Irish Teachers' Pension Rules, 1897.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps are being taken by the Local Government Board to carry out the numerous inquiries under the Labourers Acts which will soon be going on all over Ireland; and whether it is the intention of the Board to employ such extra help as may be required to carry out existing schemes without unnecessary delay. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer to both parts of the Question is in the affirmative. The staff of the Local Government Board has been increased for the purposes of the Labourers Acts, and up to the present the inquiry into every scheme received by the Board has been held within the statutory period.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the. Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any report has yet been received on the question of the ownership, for purposes of sale, of the Thompson estate at Clonfin, county Longford; and, if so, whether any offer has yet been made by the Estates Commissioners for its purchase, with a view to subdivision amongst deserving applicants in North Longford. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are unable to add anything to the statement contained in my Answer to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on the 21st February last. †

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Patrick Brady, evicted tenant, of Aghnagarran, county Longford, whose uncle was evicted from the White estate in 1882; and will he direct that this farm of land, which is at present for sale, shall be bought in by the Estates Commissioners with a view to its being resold to Brady and to his restoration to the same. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received no application for reinstatement from Patrick Brady referred to in the Question.

† See (4) Debates, clxxv., 1050.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any further progress has been made with the sale of the O'Brien estate at Cornakelly and Corglass, county Longford; is he aware that it is nearly six years since the negotiations for sale of this estate were begun; and will he now press that the promise of Judge Ross to push through this sale will be given effect to, and thus relieve a large body of suffering tenants. (Answered by Mr. Birrell) The Estates Commissioners have not yet been able to make an offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of this estate, but intend to do so as soon as some necessary amendments in the rental have been made. The solicitors in charge of the proceedings for sale are now having these amendments made.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a police patrol was fired on at Riverville, near Loughrea, on the night of the 8th inst.; and, if so, what steps were taken to apprehend the persons concerned in the outrage. (Answered by Mr. Birrell) A prosecution is pending in this case, and I must therefore decline to make any statement upon it.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Mr. William De Blaquiere, Tubber, near Gort, has been purchased by the Estates Commissioners; is he aware that the district is one where small holdings generally are to be found; and whether he will direct the Commissioners to safeguard the untenanted ands on this estate for distribution amongst the people. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is presumed that the Question refers to the estate of Anne De Blaquiere. The Estates Commissioners have made a provisional offer for the purchase of the estate, and the owner has expressed her; willingness to accept the offer; but a formal agreement for purchase will not be entered into until title has been shown. The Commissioners will, in distributing the untenanted land, pay due regard to the wants of occupiers of small holdings in the locality.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that delegates representing the Gaelic Athletic Association from the county Galway, who attended the annual meeting of that body held at Thurles, county Tipperary, on the 24th February last, were shadowed by detectives of the Royal Irish Constabulary and were photographed by them; and, having regard to the non-sectarian and non-political character of the association, will he state what was the object of these proceedings. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. I learn from the police authorities that the delegates referred to were neither shadowed nor photographed by the Royal Irish Constabulary.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners received an application from an evicted tenant named Patrick Skerry, Fiddane, Gort; whether he is aware that Skerry was evicted out of Lord Gough's estate, Gort, in September, 1888, for the nonpayment of two years rent; and whether, in view of the negotiations going on for the purchase of this estate by the Commissioners, the application of Mr. Skerry will be considered with a view to reinstatement, or providing him with an equivalent holding on the estate, when the purchase is complete. (Answered by Mr. Birrell) The Estates Commissioners have made full inquiries into the case of Patrick Skerry, and have decided that they can take no action in the matter.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have inquired into the case of John Keating, of Little Graigne, South Wexford, a sub-tenant on the Marquis of Ely's estate, who was evicted some years ago by the middleman named H. P. Gahan, who is a large farmer, and who has now purchased his holding, which includes John Keating's farm; and if the Commissioners, before making the vesting order in this case, will require Keating's holding to be given back to him so that he may get the same chance of purchasing as the other tenants.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, when the new arrangement whereby recruits will pass direct to their battalions and will not be retained at the regimental depots conies into operation, the existing establishment of these depots will be maintained; and, if so, what purpose it will serve.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men employed in the regimental depots of the infantry of the

To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the increase on Army Expenditure in the financial year 1905–6 compared with that in 1895–6 and 1885–6, respectively. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The figures are as follows: —

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what second and third-class cruisers, naming them, have been built to replace the number of small craft removed from the Navy List in the early part of 1905; and how many, and which, of these are in commission or are ready for immediate service.

No necessity has yet arisen for building the type of vessel named, but the "Boadicea," now under construction at Pembroke, is the first of a new class. Since the date named in the Question, eight scouts and three third-class cruisers have been completed.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in consequence of recent experience of the decomposition and deterioration of smokeless powders in hot magazines, the Admiralty have found it to be urgently necessary to ask for tenders for refrigerating machinery for the magazines of our ships, involving large additional expenditure on Vote 8; whether he is aware that Vote 8, as presented, does not include any expenditure on refrigerating machinery; and whether the Government will follow the accepted practice in this case, where i the Vote has been presented but not discussed in Committee of Supply, by presenting a Supplementary Estimate.

It is true that Vote 8 for the current year does not include any specific provision for refrigerating machinery, but I am not prepared at this date to affirm either that there will not be sufficient funds in the several sections of that Vote to meet the charge for such machinery falling in the current year, or that a supplementary grant for naval services will be needed. I hope, however, in accordance with the accepted practice, to make a statement on the general subject when Vote 8 is moved in Committee of Supply.

Will not a sum approaching something like £500,000 be required for this purpose, and will this large sum have to be taken from other necessary services?

No.

But Vote 8 as originally drawn did not provide for that. Is it intended to have a Supplementary Estimate or not?

I cannot yet say if one will be necessary

Is it not customary in cases involving such large sums for us to pay our way as we go along?

I am, with the. consent of the Treasury, following the accepted practice in this case.

Will any considerable portion of this machinery have to be supplied during the current financial year?

Yes, and a certain sum will be required this year in consequence.

Is it intended that all vessels shall have this refrigerating apparatus?

I have answered that on more than one occasion.

Is it not urgent to provide it at once?

I do not think so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, for the purpose of increasing their fighting efficiency against torpedo craft, the river class of destroyers are each being armed with three 8-cwt. 12-pounder guns instead of five 6-pounder guns; whether these guns, instead of being ordered from Woolwich or elsewhere, are being taken without replacement from a large number of ships; and, as these guns were used for boat work or landing parties, and were also mounted on distinct permanent mountings as part of the armament of the ships, will he state if it is the intention of the Admiralty to replace them.

In the opinion of the Admiralty it is not desirable in the interest of the naval service to give information on matters connected with re-armaments.

Is my right hon. friend aware that this information has already appeared in the newspapers, and that these guns have been removed from the ships and put on the destroyers? And he is further aware that he stated, in answer to a Question, that no guns had been removed?

I have nothing to add to the statement I have already made.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question. It is of very considerable public interest and one in which Members on both sides of the House are interested.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many unarmoured cruisers are at present attached to the Channel Fleet.

Three, as stated at page 269 of the Navy List.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many torpedo-boat destroyers are at present attached to the Channel Fleet.

None. They are sent as occasion requires —six and a scout last week, thirty-six and three scouts next week.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many firms of shipbuilders were asked to compete, or did compete, for the contract for the new royal yacht; whether these tenders included the upholstery and decorative work of the yacht; who was the successful tenderer, and at what price including everything; was the contract carried out by the Admiralty exactly as accepted; and, if not, will he say what alteration was made with the upholstery and decorative sub-contract, and why.

I am informed that nine firms were invited to compete, and eight submitted designs and prices. The tenders did include upholstery and decorative work. I understand that Messrs. A. & J. Inglis' tender was accepted at a price of £120,000 to include everything, subject to such modifications as might be found necessary. These modifications were afterwards found to be so important that eventually Messrs. Inglis submitted a new design to meet the altered requirements. At the same time they were relieved from the duty of providing furniture and decoration for the royal apartments, and a contract for this part of the work was placed with Messrs. Waring. Inglis' price was ultimately fixed at £123,500, and the sum to be paid to Waring's at £6,500.

Do I understand that by this alteration the price of the yacht was increased by £3,000 on the first estimate?,

The price was increased a great deal more than that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the designer to Messrs. Maple also designed for Messrs. Inglis, whose contract was rejected?

That was before my time altogether.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the result of the negotiations between the Admiralty and the London County Council with reference to the generating station at Greenwich.

No statement can be made yet as to the result of the negotiations, which are still proceeding.

Will the right hon. Gentleman press the matter forward? It has been going on a long time.

I will do my best.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, by the State Prisoners Regulation, 1818, under which Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh have been deported, it is provided that when it may be determined that any person shall be placed under restraint otherwise than in pursuance of some judicial proceeding the grounds of such determination shall from time to time come under revision, and the person affected thereby shall at all times be allowed freely to bring to the notice of the Governor General in Council all circumstances relating to the supposed ground of such determination, or to the manner in which it may be executed; and whether either of the above-named State prisoner have availed themselves of the permission so accorded by the Regulation.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative; the Answer to the second part, according to the latest information in my possession, is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether at the time of their arrest and deportation, or at any other time, Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh made any protests against the treatment to which they were subjected or raised any defence to the charges alleged against them; and, if so, what was the nature of the protests or defence.

According to my information, the Answer is in the negative

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether at the time of the arrest and deportation of Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh, they were informed of the grounds upon which it was thought necessary to arrest and deport them; and, if so, what were those grounds.

The persons mentioned knew that they were arrested under the State Prisoners Regulation, and one of them has since applied for a copy of the order authorising his arrest. He had a copy given him and he was informed in the terms of the Regulation that the reason for his arrest and deportation was to preserve a portion of His Majesty's dominions from internal commotion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say whether Lala Lajpat Rai and others, recently arrested summarily in India, are considered as political prisoners; and what treatment is accorded and where they are detained.

The two persons referred to are officially designated State prisoners. They are detained at Mandalay, where they are lodged, in houses within the fort. They receive allowances for maintenance suited to their positions in life.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any difference between the treatment of these prisoners and political prisoners in this country; whether they have any means of communicating at all with their friends outside, or whether, under any conditions, their friends have access to them?

I believe my hon. friend and I have fought together the battle of political prisoners before now. If he will put a Question down, I do not doubt that the Answer will be satisfactory.

May I ask whether the charge of causing internal commotion is not one to be dealt with by the Penal Code, passed forty years after this Ordinance, and whether, under these circumstances, there is any jurisdiction under the Ordinance of 1818 to deal with these offencos?

My hon. and learned friend being a lawyer, must see that a Question of that kind must have notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that Lala Lajpat Rai was not connected with the agitation carried on by Ajit Singh, and that no specific charge of preaching sedition has been alleged against him, in what particular did the Regulation of 1818 apply, giving power to the Indian Government to order the arrest and deportation of Lajpat Rai.

It has never been admitted, and is not the case, that there is no connection between Lajpat Rai and the agitation carried on by Ajit Singh. The Regulation of 1818 gives full power to the Government to take action under it whenever reasons of State, including the security of the British dominions from internal commotion, require any person to be placed under personal restraint.

Am I to understand, then, that there has been a definite charge against Lajpat Rai of causing sedition?

I have already said, almost too often, in answer to my hon. friend and to one or two hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on this side, that it is entirely adverse to the public interest to go into details as to the circumstances which the Government of India, with my full assent, thought justified the application of this law—the law of the land.

May I ask, if it can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Lajpat Rai did not preach sedition, is there to be no appeal or redress then?

May I ask whether, if it is so dangerous for Lajpat Rai to go back to the Punjab because it is in such an inflammable condition, the right hon. Gentleman would make an inquiry into the condition of the people and ascertain the causes of disaffection?

Does not my hon. friend feel assured that I am all day long inquiring into it?

May I ask whether it is a fact that Lajpat Rai was only present at one of the many public meetings which were organised and addressed by Ajit Singh?

To the best of my information, that is not the case.

At how many then?

Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the observation made by the Member for Sheffield, "Why not shoot Lajpat Rai?" That is a shameful observation. Withdraw what you said, Sir.

I rise to a point of order. I beg respectfully to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for an hon. Gentleman in this House to make the suggestion publicly that one of these British subjects should be shot.

Perhaps it is unnecessary to say I made no observation of any sort. I spoke to myself.

I heard you myself.

We all heard it here.

With all respect, an hon. Gentleman who speaks aloud in this House speaks to the whole Empire. I wish to ask is it consistent with order and practice in this House that a clear incitement to murder should be made?

I certainly did not hear the expression.

We all heard it here.

I said the expression did not reach my ears.

They listen to private conversations. [NATIONALIST shouts of "Oh, oh!")

Withdraw. How dare you say that!

The observation did not reach my ears. That is all I am prepared to say as to that. I should like to add this, that if the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield could control the observations which he if always interjecting, not only during Question time, but during debate, it would be to the general advantage of the House.

May I with great respect ask the Secretary for India whether, in view of the very serious condition of affairs in India, and the damage and exasperation likely to be caused by the reporting of an observation made in this House that an Indian prisoner should be shot, he would at once take measures to dissociate not only himself, but the Government, entirely from the statement?

I think all I need to say is that it is very fortunate that the hon. Gentleman is not, and never has been, in any position of executive responsibility.

I beg to give notice that, if anything should happen to any of these Indian prisoners imprisoned without trial, a very considerable section of Members in this House—certainly Members representing Ireland — will take steps to put the blame on the shoulders of those who are responsible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he was consulted by cable by the Government of India before the order for the arrest and deportation of Lajpat Rai was actually issued; and whether he has since made any inquiries as to whether there were charges sufficiently grave alleged against Lajpat Rai to warrant the case coming under the Regulations of 1818.

The case being deemed a. case of urgency, the Governor-General in Council decided at once to issue the two warrants, and immediately telegraphed the circumstances and their decision to me. Without hesitation I approved. The Answer to the second; part of the Question is in the affirmative.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will make further inquiries as to the degree of complicity, if any, between Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh?

No. I do not think I can promise that, because I have had the advantage of long conversations with Sir Denzil Ibbetson, Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, and I do not think it is necessary for me to make further inquiries of the kind my hon. friend demands.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is universally affirmed in India that there is no connection whatever —

Will the hon. Member kindly put any further Question that he has on the Paper?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of India has granted a loan of 3¼ lakhs of rupees to the Nawab of Dacca; whether a larger loan is to be granted; whether he can state the purposes for which the loan was granted; and what are the terms as to repayment and interest charged.

The Government of India have authorised an advance of £21,000 to the Nawab of Dacca, in accordance with the practice of lending money to land-holders and other notabilities which is well recognised and not at all infrequent in India. I understand that a proposal for a further loan will shortly be referred for my sanction. The purpose of the loan was to maintain the stability of an important family by preventing the Nawab's share of the estate from passing into the hands of outsiders. I am unable to state the terms on which it was granted.

Was this loan made in order to secure the adhesion of the Nawab to the partition of Bengal?

I am informed it had nothing whatever to do with it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the character of the sentences passed by Mr. Justice Stephen, of the Calcutta High Court, upon prisoners for petty crimes, in one case a man of seventy-five years of age being sentenced to ten years imprisonment for attempting to steal an oil canister from a courtyard, another case of four years for stealing a pair of boots exposed for sale in the street, and another case of six years' imprisonment on a young man for theft from his employer; whether he is aware that these sentences are causing apprehension and dissatisfaction in Calcutta; and, if so, will he bring the matter to the attention of the Government of India with a view to inquiry and revision of such sentences.

My attention has not been called to the cases referred to in the Question, but I will make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the capital sum devoted to the creation of the Chenab Canal was found out of the revenues of the Government of India, which are chiefly collected from small farmers; whether it is incumbent on that Government in the interest of the general taxpayer to recover from those who immediately profit by the construction of such works of irrigation such increased payments as are proportionate to the advantages conferred: and whether the increase in the prosperity of the cultivators affected is greater than the increase in the payments required of them by the Government.

It is the case that the general revenues of India are financially responsible for the capital outlay on the Chenab Canal, and for that of other undertakings of a similar character. The rates charged to cultivators taking the water are fixed on the principle that they should bear some relation to the economic value of the commodity supplied, while leaving a substantial margin of profit to those who use the water. As regards the last part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to Question No. 25, dated 11th June, 1907, as to the selling value of land in the Chenab Colony. †

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the self-governing Colonies have similar regulations to those now adopted by Canada as regards the proper description of imported goods; and, if so, will he make the necessary representations to secure that Ireland may be enabled to learn the extent of her annual trade with those Colonies.

I believe that all Colonies with a Customs tariff provide for the proper description of imported goods; but the regulation referred to relates primarily to the nature and value of the goods, and not necessarily to the country of origin.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Canadian Customs Memorandum, dated 1st May, 1907, and in particular to the second clause, to the effect that every invoice shall contain a sufficient and correct description of the goods imported; whether, in view of the facilities thereby given lo distinguish goods of Irish origin, he will represent to the Canadian Government the advisability of maintaining this distinction in the preparation of their annual statistical Returns, and thereby enable Ireland to estimate exactly the extent of her trade with Canada.

I am advised that the regulation to which the hon. Member refers looks rather to the proper trade description and valuation of goods than to the country of origin, but I see no objection to asking the Dominion Government if they will give such instructions as may enable the separation of the exports of Irish produce from those of the produce of Great Britain.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for

† (4) Debates, Clxxv., 1221

Foreign Affairs whether he has any information us to the provisions of the Congo Annexation Bill; and, if so, whether he win state how far this Bill will make possible the reforms advocated and urged by the Governments of Great Britain and the United States.

The terms of the proposed Congo Annexation Bill have not yet been published, and I cannot say what they will be.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that a number of British West Indians have been hold in a state of shivery at the Galapagos Islands, and have been chained and beaten and otherwise maltreated; if so, what steps he intends to take to prevent the recurrence of such incidents; and whether he will demand prompt and adequate compensation for the victims and punishment to the persons implicated.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer returned to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh on the same subject yesterday as to the facts† The question of what steps should be taken to repatriate the men referred to is now under consideration.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make stringent inquiries as to whether these natives have been encouraged to gamble and borrow money with a view to keeping them in a state of servitude?

The point is this. They owe money to the company, and because they owe money they have been prevented so far from leaving the islands. I do not consider that they ought to be prevented from leaving the islands, and what is now under consideration is what steps should be taken to secure their repatriation.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury

† See Page 155.

Division of Gloucestershire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to announcements made by various foreign Ministers as to the attitude of their Governments on matters to be raised at the Hague Conference; and whether some similar statement can now be made with propriety in respect of the policy to be pursued by this country.

The only announcements by foreign Ministers which I have seen have been of a very general character, and similar in scope to expressions of opinion which had been previously made on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I think as much publicity has already been given to our views as to those of any other country. The Conference has already met, the various delegates are in communication with each other, and what further statements are made must depend upon their deliberations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the British consular staff in the Upper Congo are at present compelled to utilise the steamers of the missionary societies in order to travel on the waterways, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of providing the British consular staff with the requisite means of conveyance, independent of outside assistance.

His Majesty's Consul at Boma has just been provided with a steamer, and the question of supplying His Majesty's Vice-Consuls at Leopoldville and Stanley ville with similar means of conveyance is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that in Cairo the poor quarters of Boulak, Abnssieh, Demerdash, Ghamra, and Old Cairo have in large part been demolished to make way for middle-class and upper-class dwellings, and that no provision has been made for the poorer classes ejected by the demolition, he will advise the Eygptian Government to prepare a scheme for the better housing of the working classes of that city.

His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the Eygptian Government are neglecting this question, but the matter is not one on which any advice can usefully be tendered. It is very desirable that the subject should receive attention in Egypt as elsewhere, but progress must be gradual.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Procureur Général, Mr. E. K. Corbet, C.M.G., Messrs. J. L. Willmore and V. S. Alston, Judges of the Native Court of Appeal in Egypt, were originally appointed by the Egyptian Government without having had any previous legal training whatsoever; and whether he will advise the Egyptian Government to consider the advisability of placing them on the retired list.

I do not know what the legal training was in all these cases. I have no doubt that the qualifications wore considered when the appointments wore made, and I am not aware of any reason whatever for interfering with them.

Is the right hon. Baronet not aware that those gentlemen know nothing whatever of law; that it is a Punch and Judy tribunal?

My information, especially with regard to one case, is directly to the contrary.

And who is that?

Mr. Will-more. With regard to all, I have no reason to suppose that they are in any way not qualified for their duties.

Having regard to my responsibility for putting the Question, will the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to inquire further?

I have no reason to think there is any need for inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will advise the British agent at Cairo to consider the expediency of cancelling Article 89 of the Official Code of Regulations, relating to school organisation and discipline, which enacts that pupils are strictly forbidden, under penalty of expulsion from the schools, to supply any information to newspapers, to write any letters or articles to newspapers, or to become agents for any paper.

I have not seen the article in question, but the Code of Regulations must be decided by the Egyptian Educational Authorities.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House the two Treasury letters of 1842 granting exemption from income tax to foreigners residing abroad on the dividends of Colonial and foreign loans cashed in England on their behalf.

Presumably the hon. Member refers to the Treasury letters of 7th October, 1842, and 5th August, 1856, the material portions of which Were laid upon the Table by me, at the hon. Member's request, on 10th December last.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the interest of Foreign Government securities which is not payable in the United Kingdom, but has to be sent abroad for payment, such as French Rentes, Italian Rentes, and Japanese Internal Loan, are assessable under Schedule C, as are the dividends of Colonial and Foreign Governments which are payable in the United Kingdom, such as Japanese Sterling Loans.

Interest on all Foreign and Colonial securities is chargeable if and when received in the United Kingdom, whether the interest be paid in this country or be collected through an agent. In the former case, it is chargeable under Schedule C; in the latter, under Schedule D.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what legal documentary evidence is required by the Inland Revenue for a refund of income-tax to prove the ownership of securities standing in name or names other than that of the claimant; or whether an affidavit from the person or persons in whose name or names the investment stands would not be accepted as sufficient evidence when there is no deed of trust.

On the Question of the documentary evidence required, I can add nothing to the Answers which I gave to the hon. Member on 22nd March, 1906.t I am not prepared to say that a simple affidavit from the person or persons in whose name or names the investment stands, unsupported by any independent documentary evidence, would be sufficient evidence when there is no deed of trust. The circumstances of each cash have to be considered on their merits.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the desirability of offering to the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia, of Now Zealand, of India, of Ceylon, of the Straits Settlements, of Hong Kong, of Natal, and of Mauritius, at the current market rate, a proportion of the shares in the Suez Canal Company acquired for the United Kingdom by the late Earl of Beaconsfield, in consideration of the interest in that waterway of those Governments.

No, Sir. I do not think it would be practicable to act upon the suggestion.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much those shares have increased in value since they were purchased by Lord Beacons-field?

No, Sir.

† (4) Debates, cliv., 620.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, in their final Report published in 1901, recommended a now scheme of grants from the Local Taxation Account which would have the effect of raising London's proportion of such grants from about 18 per cent. to over 25 per cent and will he say whether the total increase in the grants to London proposed under that scheme would have amounted to over£1,000,000 per annum.

In the Report signed by the majority of members of the Royal Commission it was recommended that certain new and increased grants should be paid through the Local Taxation Account to the local authorities throughout England and Wales, and it was estimated that the additional cost to the Exchequer would be about £2,500,000 a year. So far as I am aware, the Report did not show how much of this additional relief would accrue to London, or how London's share of the total grants would be affected.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has taken stops to ascertain whether the proportion of Estate Duty payable into the Local Taxation (England and Wales) Account under Section 19 of The Finance Act, 1904, has proved to be an adequate equivalent of the share of the Probate Duty formerly allocated to that account under Section 21 of The Local Government Act, 1888; and, if not, whether he would be prepared to make the necessary investigation, inasmuch as Exchequer contributions have already been paid to local authorities on the basis of this estimated equivalent for twelve years.

There is really no need for any investigation. Prior to 1894, what was paid to the Local Taxation (England and Wales) Account was four-fifths of the Probate Duty Grant, the Probate Duty Grant being one-half of the proceeds of the Probate Duties. As the Probate Duties were at the rate of 3 per cent. on personal property, when it exceeded £1,000 in value, and at lower rates on property of lesser value, the Probate Duty Grant was slightly under 1½per cent. on the aggregate amount of such property. Under the Act of 1894, the contribution is fixed at an amount equal to 1½ per cent on the aggregate amount of such property, and therefore must have been slightly in excess of the contribution that would have been made on the ante 1894 basis. As a matter of fact, the contribution to the Local Taxation Account for England and Wales has, since 1894, averaged more than £100,000 per annum in excess of the average contribution for the five years 1889–1893, and, in addition, an average of £125,000 a year has, during the last seven years, been paid in relief of rates on Tithe Rent Charge under the Act of 1899.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, pending the production of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded, and pending legislation founded on the said Report, he will take any steps to supplement the Lunacy Commission so as to relieve the existing congestion in the Department and to procure adequate inspection of asylums.

The number of the Lunacy Commissioners is fixed by statute, and while I am fully alive to the fact that the great increase in the duties which they have to carry out has caused a considerable congestion of business, to meet which an addition to their staff may be required, I could not initiate legislation pending the presentation of the Report of the Royal Commission.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two or three of the Commissioners have had to find substitutes, and those substitutes had no special qualification for the office?

I am afraid I can add nothing to my Answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, before the Home Office Vote is taken, he will print all the police reports and communications which have been addressed to the Home Office on the subject of Edalji since the outrages commenced to the present day.

No, Sir. As I intimated in reply to several Questions yesterday, I do not propose to publish any further Papers in connection with this case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police reports upon the Edalji case care now in existence which have not been shown to him or his friends; and whether any of them were before the Edalji Committee.

No police reports have been shown to Mr. Edalji or to his friends. All the documents in the possession of the Home Office were submitted to Sir Arthur Wilson and his colleagues.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay Papers showing the sentences passed upon and the periods of imprisonment undergone by all persons who have received compensation in respect of such sentences and imprisonment in the last twenty years.

If the hon. Member will be good enough to put this down as an unstarred Question, I shall be glad to give him the information asked for without mentioning the names of the persons compensated.