I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty

† See(4) Debates clxxii., 1570.

The "Cumberland" was last docked at Gibraltar on the 20th December, 1905. I am inquiring into the reasons for the abnormally long interval between this and her recent docking at Devonport.

Is it not the ordinary rule that ships shall be docked every six months?

I do not think it is quite so short a period as that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the defective casting of the rudder of H. M. S. "Edward VII." was inspected by an Admiralty inspector before being built into the ship; and, if so, whether such inspector had practical knowledge of castings.

I am informed that the Answer to both Questions is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with regard to the provisions in the Navy Estimates for twelve torpedo boats and twelve submarines, whether this programme is to be adhered to, or if any modification of the programme has been made will he state the nature of it.

Any modification of the shipbuilding programme will, according to custom, be communicated to the House when Vote 8 is reached, but the hon. Member must not infer that there will be any modification.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether H. M. S. "Indefatigable" is to proceed this year to Bermuda to dock for repairs; how long it is estimated that the repairs will take; and whether a ship will be sent to replace the "Indefatigable" in West Indian waters daring her absence in Bermuda.

The "Indefatigable" is en route to Bermuda for docking and to carry out prize firing. No estimate of the time she will be in dock can be given until she has been examined at Bermuda. The presence of the "Scylla" in West Indian waters is considered by the Admiralty sufficient for present needs.

In the event of the repairs taking more time than is anticipated will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that another vessel shall be sent to take her place?

I car give no further assurance than that the matter shall be considered.

Why not take your advice from the Lords of the Admiralty rather than from amateur sailors?

Has any decision been come to with regard to increasing the naval force on the West Indian station?

asked for notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of marines borne in H. M. S. "Indefatigable" and H. M. S. "Scylla" respectively."

The numbers allowed by complement are as follows: —

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the Return of Fleets no less than twenty-one armoured ships are shown by comparison with previous Return to have reduced their armaments by two 12-pounder guns each; and whether in view of the importance of these guns for destroying torpedo craft, he can state for what purpose the reductions have been made.

The Admiralty do not accept the hon. Member's view as to the importance of these guns for destroying torpedo craft.

Is that Answer consistent with the fact that they have recently been supplied with even more of these guns than before?

asked for notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the battleship "Renown" being credited in the Return of Fleets with 4 10-inch, 10 6-inch, and 12 12-pounder guns, whether these guns are all on board this ship at the present date; and whether the ship is part of the Home Fleet with a nucleus crew on board.

The whole of the "Renown's" armament is not on board. She is a special service vessel attached to the Home Fleet, and together with the other vessels in this class, she is ready for service at five days notice, in which time the whole of her armament would be complete.

Would it be against the interests of the Service to say if this ship has had her armament reduced?

The armament has not been reduced. The guns were taken away because the ship was not being used for warlike purposes and they simply have not been replaced as yet.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that H. M. S. "Blake" and H. M. S. "Blenheim" are each having their armaments reduced from two 9·2-inch and ten 6-inch guns to four 6-inch guns on each ship, in order to fit them as mother ships for torpedo craft; and whether he can state why, under these circumstances, these ships appear in the new Return of Fleets for this year as first-class cruisers credited with their full original armaments.

No change has yet been made in the "Blake's" armament which is now as described in the Return quoted. The "Blenheim" is now in dockyard hands, and the preparation of the ship for her new duties is not yet complete.

Is any change contemplated in the armament of the "Blake"?

No, I think not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to offer any, and, if so, what, inducement to join the nucleus third battalions or Special Contingent to recruits or men serving in the present Militia respectively.

A recruit joining the Special Reserve will do so under the conditions obtaining for that, force. A. serving Militiaman will be offered a bonus of £2, in view of the liability to foreign service.

was understood to ask if Volunteers now serving would also get the £2.

I should like to have notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether all parts of the country were represented on the body of Militia officers who discussed certain Militia questions with the War Office Committee, whose Report has recently been issued.

The Militia commanding officers, whose names are given in the Command Paper [Cd. 3, 513], were carefully selected by the War Office, in consultation with the several general officers commanding-in-chief. An examination of the units which they command will show that all parts of the country were represented, two of these units being located in the Eastern Command, two in the Southern, two in the Western, and three in the Northern. Scotland furnished two representatives, and Ireland three.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received answers from the Government of India to his questions in April in reference to the special medical staff deputed to combat the plague.

I have heard from the Government of India that local governments are engaged in collecting the needful information, but as the statistics wanted extend over a series of years they cannot be procured without some delay. The subject of the plague is engaging my particular attention, and full Papers will shortly be laid on the Table.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any steps are being taken here, apart from any action that may be contemplated by the Government of India, for relieving the tension of the crisis in connection with the deficiency of wagons and rolling stock, which is causing prejudice and inconvenience to the commercial community and loss to the railways. I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will now state what the available funds are likely to be for the purpose of an increased expenditure upon Indian railways over and above the sum provided for in the East India Financial Statement.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer my hon. friends two Questions together. As stated in my reply to another Question asked by him on the 9th instant, I have sanctioned an addition of £1, 000, 000 to the programme of capital expenditure for the present year. The greater part of this grant is being devoted to the supply of additional rolling-stock. By the addition of this £1,000,000 the funds available for capital expenditure on Indian railways will be increased from £9,000,000, as provided in the Financial Statement, to £10,000,000.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the new tramway regulations of the Johannesburg Town Council; whether the reservations in the Transvaal Letters Patent in respect of any law whereby persons not of European birth or descent may be subjected or made liable to any disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European birth or descent are not also subjected or made liable apply to municipal by-laws since enacted within the Transvaal Colony under which British-Indians are subjected to disabilities and restrictions of a differential and humiliating character; and, if the reservations do not apply, whether His Majesty's Government is without any means of extending its protection to our British-Indian fellow-subjects against such differential treatment by Transvaal municipalities and similar corporations.

Yes, Sir. I have seen the regulations. Section 39 of the Letters Patent does not apply to municipal regulations. This is not a subject upon which representations could be made by the Secretary of State to the responsible Government with any advantage.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Western Australia has passed any legislation or taken any administrative action, such as was promised in 1905, with a view to putting an end to the abuses in connection with the treatment of Natives disclosed in Dr. Roth's Report.

I have to refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 8th July to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for East Clare.†

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies how many female inspectors are to be appointed for the women and children indentured under the New Hebrides Convention.

As no arrangements have ever previously been made for the inspection of labourers employed by British subjects in the Now Hebrides, there is no experience available for guidance in determining the character of the system of inspection required and the number of inspectors; but His Majesty's Government have asked the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific to report on the subject, and have informed him that they regard it as of great importance that the system of inspection should be thoroughly adequate.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can say what was the number of deaths from plague in Egypt during January, February, March, April, May, and June, respectively, this year.

The figures are: 8, 4G, 204, 147, 184, and 111 to 17th June, respectively.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any of the Turkish perpetrators of outrages in Macedonia (recorded in the recent Blue-book) have been punished; and, if so, what was the nature of the punishment.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the same formation as to outrages committed by persons who were not Turks.

I have received no information on the subject

† see (4) Debates, clxxvii., 1156–7.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give any information to the House as to the progress of the negotiations with the United States on the Newfoundland question.

May I also ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can say what progress has been made in the negotiations with the Newfoundland Government as to the modus vivendi with the United States on the fisheries question?

I am not able to add to the information which I gave to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh on the 27th of June. No agreement has yet been arrived at, and negotiations on the subject are proceeding.

When will Papers be laid?

We cannot lay Papers until the negotiations have been concluded. We are doing our best to arrive at an agreement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in connection with the negotiations now proceeding with the Russian Government with a view to harmonising the interests of the two Powers in Persia, he will appoint a small Committee of experts thoroughly acquainted with Persia and the contiguous regions to confer together and to advise him in the preparation of the British case.

I assume that the hon. Member means a Committee of non-official experts not connected with the British or Indian Governments. I do not consider that such a course, which is capable of indefinite extension, is desirable, though the hon. Member can always on his own initiative put forward either information or opinions for consideration.

In view of the great importance of this subject will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House and the country by stating it is not proposed to include in the Russian commercial sphere of influence the old established British trade route from Baghdad to Kermanshah?

That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in the recent protracted Customs negotiations with Turkey, when his Majesty's Government were pressing for Custom facilities at the principal ports, the port of Baghdad, dealing with a British and Indian trade of over £1, 000, 000 a year, and the seat of a British Consulate-General, was entirely omitted from the negotiations by an oversight, and only included at the last moment as the result of unofficial prompting.

My recollection is that the arrangement with regard to Customs applied to all Ports. I have no recollection that the Port of Baghdad escaped notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any new instructions have been issued to British delegates at The Hague with reference to the question of commerce destruction; and whether Sir Earnest Satow's views on this subject correctly represent the attitude of the Government in relation to the immunity of private property.

I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the opposition of His Majesty's Plenipotentiaries at The Hague to the proposal to render private property at sea immune during naval warfare represents the opinions and was offered on the instructions of His Majesty's Government.

I conclude that this Question and the Question of the hon. Member for Leicester refer to the subject of enemy's private property at sea; the line taken by the British; delegates at The Hague Conference is entirely in accord with the original instructions issued to them by His Majesty's Government for their guidance.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is possible to state in an authoritative form the instructions to the British delegates at The Hague Conference on the subject of contraband and blockade in time of war, since the British views have already become known with more or less incompleteness during the sittings of the Conference.

We cannot make any further statement than that which has already been allowed to become public by the Conference respecting its discussions. The part taken by the British delegates has been, and no doubt will continue to be, in accord with their instructions, but it would not be desirable to anticipate what future action they may have to take by publishing the instructions in advance.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at the port of Bristol it is the practice of the local pilotage authority, when collecting pilotage dues payable upon a ship's tonnage, to abstain from adding to the ship's register tonnage the tonnage of the space occupied by deck cargo; and whether he will direct such local pilotage authorities to charge pilotage dues upon the additional tonnage representing deck cargo, in pursuance of Section 85 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in order that the pilots, on whose behalf such dues are collected, may receive an additional payment in respect of ships with deck cargoes, as directed by the said section.

I am informed by the Corporation of Bristol, which is the pilotage authority there, that their practice is as described in the first part of the Question. The Board of Trade have no power to issue directions to a pilotage authority as suggested by my hon. friend, but I will communicate with the Bristol Corporation calling attention to the provisions of Section 85 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as affecting pilotage rates. It is, of course, open to any person interested to take action to enforce compliance with the law.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to make any statement to the House with regard to a reduction in the telegraphic and telephonic charges between this country and France.

The question of a reduction in the telegraphic and telephonic charges for communication between this country and France is now under examination; but there are difficulties, financial and other, and I cannot at present make any statement on the subject.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would expedite the negotiations as much as possible.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state the number of public elementary schools or school departments having an average attendance of less than fifty scholars, and the number having an average attendance of between fifty and sixty.

I fear the labour involved in the compilation of these figures would be so great that I do not feel justified in undertaking it, especially at this time of the year when the ordinary work of preparing the annual statistical volume is exceptionally heavy.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can now state when it is intended to introduce the Public Works Loans Bill.

(Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury): It is hoped to introduce the Bill shortly.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount allowed, under the provisions of the Brussels Convention, to home-grown and manufactured sugar before a countervailing Excise Duty becomes automatically leviable.

The Brussels Convention provides that the surtax, i.e., the amount by which the customs duty upon imported sugar may exceed the excise duty on that produced at home, shall not be greater than 6 francs per 100 kilograms upon refined, or 5· 50 francs per 100 kilograms upon unrefined, sugar.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state of whom that Board is composed; how often has that Board met within the last seven years; whether the Secretary or any of the Assistant Secretaries has the right to use the seal and so to pass orders on their own account; and, if so, will he grant a return of all such orders passed by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary without reference to the President since the Board was constituted.

The Board consists of a President of the Council, the Principal Secretaries of State, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Secretary for Scotland. It has never yet met. The President of the Board is responsible for all the acts of his subordinates and no order—or indeed any other document— is issued except under his immediate authority or in pursuance of a general policy sanctioned by him. I am unable to grant the Return asked for by the hon. Member, but I have no objection to say that the issue of the order which has, I think, given rise to his Questions was personally sanctioned by the President.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the attention of his Department has been directed to the wholesale clearances of ornamental and useful timber being carried out by landowners (mainly absentees) throughout the country; whether steps will be taken to check them; and whether the time has come when a scheme of reafforestation might be favourably considered and given practical effect to.

Yes, Sir. It is a fact that both landlords and tenants are cutting down timber in many parts of the country. The area under wood in 1895 was 308, 928 acres. In 1905 it was 301, 132, a decrease of 7, 796 acres, and there is reason for believing that the rate has in-creased rather than decreased since 1905. Having consulted with the Chief Secretary, I propose to appoint a small Departmental Committee, not to consider the utility of afforestation, but to devise a scheme whereby, first, the mischief now going on may be chocked, and, secondly, the best means of approaching the larger question of afforestation may be ascertained.

asked whether steps would be taken immediately to preserve the woods of Dundrum, which were now in the hands of the Estates Commissioners.

I do not know about the woods in question, but I am aware that the Estates Commissioners will do everything in their power to preserve the woods.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman's Department had any power to purchase woods and plantations for the purpose of preserving timber.

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Local Government Board of Ireland directed its auditor, Mr. W. E. Ellis, at the beginning of 1906, to hold an extraordinary audit of the accounts of the Holywood District Council in respect of sums of money obtained by James H. Barrett, formerly clerk to the council, for and on behalf of the council during a period of time from 1899 down to 1905, and not accounted for until the deficiencies were discovered in December, 1905, six months after Barrett's dismissal from his office of clerk, he will state the circumstances under which the Local Government Board of Ireland became aware of the deficiencies; whether the auditor has made any report or finding in the matter of the audit; and, if not, will he state the reason for the delay; will he state when Mr. W. E. Ellis was appointed auditor for the Local Government Board, what districts he has served in, and the cause of his removal from one district to another; whether he is aware that shortly after Mr. Ellis's removal to the Belfast district a Mr. John Smyth, of Belfast, made a declaration that Mr. W. E. Ellis had threatened to do certain acts in connection with the audit of the Belfast Asylums Board's accounts in a spirit of revenge against Dr. William Graham, the medical superintendent; and will he say whether the Belfast Asylums Board sent a deputation to the Local Government Board, or took other steps to secure the removal of Mr. W. E. Ellis as auditor; whether, seeing that signatures to a memorial asking the Local Government Board to retain Mr. Ellis were obtained by the said James H. Barrett on behalf of Mr. Ellis, will he say what steps were taken by the Local Government Board thereon; whether the Holywood Urban District Council has made further discoveries in respect of failures by James H. Barrett to account for other sums of money received by him for the council whilst clerk prior to May, 1905, disclosing an appropriation of moneys; and what steps the Local Government Board intend to take in the matter.

Mr. Barrett requested the Local Government Board to direct the auditor to extend the ordinary audit of the accounts of the Urban District Council for the year ending 31st March, 1905, so as to include an additional month, in order to enable Mr. Barrett to close his financial transactions with the Urban District Council, and the Board directed the auditor to hold an extraordinary audit accordingly. Dr. Ellis was appointed auditor in the year 1892. He has served in the Limerick, Dublin, Kerry, and Belfast districts, his transfer in each case being made for Departmental reasons. The Local Government Board cannot trace any record of the declaration stated in the Question to have been made by Mr. John Smyth, of Belfast. A deputation from the Belfast District Asylum Committee waited upon the Board towards the close of the year 1904, and among other matters asked that the same auditor who audited the Belfast County Borough should audit the asylum district accounts, as the district was coterminous with the borough, but the Board were unable to make this arrangement. It is the fact that a memorial was presented to the Board (in 1905) asking that Dr. Ellis should be retained in the Belfast District, but the Board have no information as to the circumstances under which the signatures to the memorial were obtained. The Board informed the memorialists that it was not intended to transfer the auditor to another district. The Board have no information as to the penultimate paragraph of the Question. They propose to take no further steps in any of the matters referred to in the Question, but they have approved of Mr. Barrett's dismissal as executive sanitary officer in connection with other charges preferred against him by the urban district council.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that for four and a half years from the date of his appointment down to the 31st December, 1905, James H. Barrett, clerk of the Town Court of Holywood, charged the Urban District Council of Holywood and deducted out of moneys he had in hand of the council the sum of sixpence for the service of each summons for the town court, although the summonses were served gratuitously by the police; that the council called upon Sergeant Samuel Donaldson, who is in charge of the local police barracks, to hand over the originals of the summonses served during this period, which originals were the property of the council who were named as complainants in each, so that the evidence of service could be preserved (the mode of service being endorsed on the back of each summons); and that Sergeant Donaldson replied that he had then just destroyed them; and whether, seeing that, in consequence, Councillor James Shannon, a member of the council, personally investigated all the cases for the quarter ending 31st December, 1905, with the result that he found that the summonses in each case had been served by the police, he will say what authority Sergeant Donaldson had for destroying the summonses; and whether it is intended to take any action in the matter.

The Local Government Board have ascertained from their auditor that it was Mr. Barrett's practice during the period mentioned to deduct from lodgments made by him for town court fines a sum of sixpence for the service of each summons. The summonses were served by the constabulary free of charge, but Mr. Barrett claims that he invariably paid over to the court summons server the fee for the service of each summons. The summonses in town court cases are not now served by the constabulary. The Inspector-General informs me that in March, 1906, as the result of a letter received from the Holywood Urban District Council, he inquired into the complaint against Sergeant Donaldson, and found that the sergeant had received from the clerk of the court summonses which had been disposed of, for the purpose of entering the particulars in the crime register, and had subsequently destroyed them as the clerk had informed him that the summonses were of no further use. The permanent record of the cases to which the summonses refer is contained in the order book of the court. The sergeant was instructed lot to take any further summonses from he clerk, but to obtain the required particulars for the crime register from another source. The Inspector-General does not intend to take any further action regarding the sergeant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state when the Minutes of Evidence of the Departmental Inquiry into the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction will be issued.

I understand from His Majesty's Stationery Office that the Minutes of Evidence are in the printer's hands, and will be ready for distribution within a fortnight.

On behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for East Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many persons in the neighbourhood of Drumkeeran, county Leitrim, are boycotted; how many miles have these boycotted persons to travel to obtain the bare necessities of life, have their horses shod, and dispose of their stock; the reason why they are boycotted; and the number of police employed for their protection.

The police authorities inform me that there are in the neighbourhood of Drumkeeran two cases of serious boycotting, comprising eight persons. These persons have to go about twelve miles to have their horses shod, twenty miles to obtain provisions, and twenty-four miles to dispose of their stock. The persons concerned are holders and care-takers respectively of evicted farms. There are no police employed solely for the protection of these people, but eleven extra police are stationed in Drumkeeran and one of their duties is to afford protection to persons who need it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state if the Estates Commissioners have yet investigated the application of the representatives of Richard Walsh, of Picketstown, Tullaroan, county Kilkenny, who were evicted from their holding at Knucknamuck Matter's estate; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken for their restoration to their own or an equivalent holding.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have recently received their inspector's report upon Mrs. Walsh's application for restoration to the holding from which her late husband was evicted, but they have not yet made any ruling in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Estate Commissioners have yet investigated the claim of the representatives of Thomas Kennedy, The Islands, Urlingford, county Kilkenny, who were evicted from their holding on the Mountgarret estate; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken for their restoration to their own or an equivalent holding.

The Estates Commissioners have inquired into Mrs. Kennedy's application for reinstatement. The present occupiers of the holding are not willing to surrender it, and the Commissioners therefore have not been able to arrange for the applicant's restoration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether the statement made frequently in correspondence emanating from the Labourers Department of the Local Government Board, to the effect that it is open to any agricultural labourers whose claims for cottages and allotments have been rejected by the rural district councils to appear before the inspector at the local inquiry, implies that such labourers can have their rejected representations inquired into and the reasons why they were excluded from the benefits of the Labourers Acts thoroughly investigated; and will he state what rule or clause or section of any of the Labourers Acts empowers the Local Government Board to declare that an inspector is not empowered to enlarge an improvement scheme by the addition of cottages and plots unjustly rejected by the district council.

I would refer to my right hon. friend's Answer to the Question put by the hon. Member for West Clare on the 3rd instant. † Section 6 (1) of the Labourers Act of last year provides that the inspector shall consider all objections made by any persons interested, including any agricultural labourers by whom or on whose behalf representations have been made. The view taken by the Local Government Board of the effect of this

† See (4) Debates, clxxvii., 701–2.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received reports of a shooting outrage at Grange, county Galway, at the house of a man named John Costelloe, who took possession of a grazing farm on the estate of Lambert Minors; and whether any arrests have been made.

The police authorities inform me that they have fully investigated this alleged shooting outrage, and are satisfied that there is absolutely no foundation for the rumour.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a meeting of the United Irish League at Ardagh, county Mayo, on Sunday, a resolution was adopted condemning John Haire, who was described as the infamous grabber of Crannagh farm; whether he is aware that the hon. Member for North Mayo publicly advised the people to boycott Haire absolutely, vigorously, completely, and exhaustively; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Has the hon. Member for North Mayo been warned that this question attacking him would be put?

I have not the faintest idea.

Neither have I.

I have seen a newspaper Report of the meeting referred to. It is, however, only right to say that according to this report the hon. Member for North Mayo explained that by boycotting he meant picketting as employed in England, and he told his hearers that there must be no violence and not the least infraction of the law. My right hon. friend has already stated that John Haire is receiving all necessary police protection and no further action appears to be necessary for the present at all events.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the hearing of a charge against twenty-three men of unlawful assembly at the Abbeyleix Petty Sessions Court on Saturday; what was the finding of the Court; and whether all the justices who adjudicated were appointed for the district in which they were sitting.

The charge against three of the men referred to in the Question was dismissed for want of identification. The magistrates wore equally divided in opinion upon the case as regards the remaining twenty defendants, and the case was therefore adjourned till the 20th instant, when it will be further heard. I am informed that Jill of the ten magistrates present were qualified to sit at Abbeyleix Petty Sessions.

asked whether it was in accordance with order and etiquette for a. Member to ask a Question notice of which appeared in the name of another Member, except at the request of the latter.

It is quite in order for a Member to ask a Question on behalf of and at the request of another Member, as has been the case in this instance. In an instance which occurred yesterday the hon. Member for Rutland informs me that he was asked to put the Question. †

† See (4) Debates, clxxvii., 1619.

Is there anything improper in one hon. Member at the express request of another asking a Question for him?

Nothing whatever.

That is all I have done. I have been specially requested by the hon. Members for East Down and Mid. Armagh to put their Questions today.

When a Question was put in the same way yesterday the Minister who replied stated that he had written to the hon. Member in whose name it stood asking him to postpone it. That seemed to indicate that the Question was not asked by special request.

In one case my noble friend asked me only half an hour before to put a Question on his behalf.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the last Sub-Commission Court to fix fair rents, sat at Listowel, North Kerry; when will the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners be given; and where will they be published.

The Land Commission inform mo that in order to answer this Question they find it necessary to communicate with the Chairman of the Sub-Commission referred to, who is absent on duty in the country. As soon as I receive the necessary information I will acquaint the hon. Member with the facts.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that a sworn declaration, made by Patrick Gallivan as to the circumstances in which the "Forest Hall" was saved from being wrecked on 20th April in the Kenmare River, had been submitted to him, that the captain of the vessel asked Patrick Gallivan to convey her to a safe harbour as she was then in distress and drifting close to Moylaun Island, and that Patrick Gallivan is precluded by his position in life from embarking on costly proceedings in a court of law to obtain salvage, he will take the necessary steps to secure that adequate compensation is given to Patrick Gallivan by the owners of the "Forest Hall."

As I informed my hon. friend in reply to a Question on the 7th June last, this matter is not one in regard to which the Board of Trade have any power to intervene.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, with reference to the alleged case of swine fever said to have been traced to Carlow on 21st November, 1905, and to the fact that the general inquiries as to the health of the swine in that district were made with negative results, can he state on whose diagnosis was swine fever declared, and was the examination in this case an ordinary one.

The diagnosis in this case was made by the veterinary officers of the Board in accordance with the ordinary procedure.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will give at least one day in every session for the discussion of Egyptian affairs, so that the House and the country may more thoroughly realise their responsibilities and better discharge their duties to Egypt as long as the British occupation continues.

Before the Prime Minister answers, will he say whether there is any justification for the inference contained in the Question that the country does not thoroughly realise and thoroughly discharge its duties towards Egypt?

I have no wish to underrate the importance of Egypt, but neither in Foreign nor Colonial affairs has it been the custom of the Government to select individual subjects connected with these Departments and to allocate a special day to them as a matter of annual procedure. In view of the great and varying demands made upon the time of the House I do not see my way to depart from this practice. Very full information is laid before Parliament every year in the report of His Majesty's Consul-General at Cairo and there are each session several opportunities for discussing it.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. James Brown Smith, Clifford Park, Stirling, one of the new knights gazetted in the birthday honours list of last month, was a director of the Ayrshire Foundry Company during the time the latter company fraudulently supplied a defective rudder for H. M. S. "King Edward VII. "; and whether it is proposed to take any action against him.

Sir James Smith is a man entirely worthy of the recognition which his public services have received and enjoying the respect of all who knew him to whatever class or party they belong. I have inquired and find that he was a director of the Ayrshire Foundry Company at the time when the circumstances referred to occurred. But he and his fellow directors had no knowledge whatever of the offence which was being committed by their servant or servants, and for which they themselves have suffered a heavy pecuniary loss. The Law Officers of the Crown after careful consideration declined to take any action against the company.

May I ask whether the name of the servant of this gentleman, for whom he is responsible, can be given to the House?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it was in consequence of Mr. Smith having been a prominent supporter of the Prime Minister, and acting with the Stirling Liberal Association as chairman of the right hon. Gentleman's election committee, or whether it was in consequence of his having been a director of the Ayrshire Foundry Company, by whom this fraudulent rudder was supplied, or whether it was in consequence of his having paid over money to the Liberal Party Fund, that he was knighted?

Questions cannot be asked of the Prime Minister as to his responsibility for any advice he might give to the Sovereign in the recommendation of honours.

I think I can safely leave it to the House to judge.

subsequently asked when an opportunity would arise for discussing the Ayrshire Foundry Company's contract.

reminded the Prime Minister that the subject would arise on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee for the discussion of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed a strong opinion that an opportunity should be given.

said he would look into that and any promise given should be adhered to.

asked Mr. Speaker if it would be in order to discuss the question of the knighthood conferred on a director of the Ayrshire Foundry Company.

said a question of order in Committee was for the decision of the Chairman.

Might not the creation of a few more knights settle the matter?

Will this democratic Government consider the advisability of publishing a tariff before recommending any more people for knighthood?

The hon. Member had better give notice of his Question.

I bog to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the expediency of affording the House an opportunity for a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on the Radiotelegraphic Convention.

I understand that the Report was only issued this morning, and I have therefore not yet been able to examine it. As the House had an opportunity of discussing this question which led to the appointment of a Select Committee, I think it unlikely that further time can be given.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the Report of the Select Committee was dissented from by a very substantial minority of the Committee, and whether that did not point to the expediency of affording the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject.

also pointed out that some of the members who signed the majority Report differed from their colleagues on some particulars.

urged that there was a strong desire even on the part of the Committee for further discussion of this very complex subject.

thought that, as the Government had met the desire of the House by appointing a Committee of inquiry, and as every opportunity had been afforded to the Committee for investigating the subject, they could not give any more Parliamentary time to it, considering the period of the Session and the pressure of business.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister if there is any precedent and, if so, what, for the proposal to give a public grant of money to a Civil servant who is already entitled to a pension; and whether, in the event of such a proposal being made in reference to Lord Cromer, ample notice will by given before any Resolution is made in the House.

Yes, Sir, there have been cases varying in amount and circumstances; and with regard to the second part of the Question ample notice would no doubt, in such an event, be given.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the opposition to this grant will not be confined to Members on this side, there being many on his own side who will also object to it?

I do not know what opposition there may be until the time comes.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give him the reference to the precedents for such a grant, so that he might examine them.

There is one important precedent which is really analogous in every respect, and the date and circumstances of it I will convey to the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, before advising His Majesty to confer any further Peerages or other honours upon commoners, he will consider the desirableness of instituting a tax on titles, and applying the proceeds of such tax in aid of the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for establishing the commencement of the nucleus of the fund for old-age pensions.

This Question seems to be one which ought rather to have been addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It suggests a new tax. I have no doubt he will consider the suggestion with any others.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that a number of Members of the present Parliament have been returned at elections in which the majority of the electors voting thereat have recorded votes against their return by voting in favour of other candidates, and that since the last General Election five Members have been so returned at bye elections; and whether he will consider the advisability of promoting remedial legislation.

I believe that the facts are as stated by my hon. friend; and when the time arrives for dealing with the various matters affecting our electoral system which stand in need of change, the question of remedying the state of things to which he calls my attention will, no doubt, receive due consideration.