To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state under what circumstances and by whose orders are military bands permitted to play on Sundays in the Irish International Exhibition at Dublin. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As the hon. Member was informed, in reply to a similar Question put on 28th June of last year, military bands are permitted to play on Sundays between the hours of 2 p.m. and 9.30 p.m., subject to certain special conditions.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade is by statute the Lords of the Committee for the time being of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations; whether any such Committee has been appointed since 1786; whether, if so, the last Committee so appointed expired at or within six months of the death of His Majesty King George III.; and, if the Board of Trade as defined by statute has ceased to exist, what is the present position of the President of the Board of Trade. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board of Trade is, by the Interpretation Act, 1889, and earlier statutes, the Lords of the Committee for the time being of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations. The Order in Council of 23rd August, 1786, has not been revoked, and the Committee is treated, in a very learned work known as "Anson's Law and Custom of the Constitution," as still existing.

To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether be is aware that great inconvenience is caused to farmers by the regulations affecting sheep-dipping, in that they may have to dip their sheep during harvest time, and especially to those farmers who have their sheep on the moor and who, under the present regulations, may have to bring their sheep from a considerable distance in to be dipped and then turned out again, necessitating a second gathering; and whether he can see his way to extending the time during which sheep may be dipped from the end of August to the end of September. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The period during which the dipping must be carried out was selected, after full consideration, as the one which would entail the least possible inconvenience to all concerned, and we could not extend it without having also to im- pose restrictions on the movement of sheep, which would cause much greater inconvenience than the present arrangements. If, however, my hon. friend will give me any specific instances of special difficulty I shall be glad to see if it is possible to meet them.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what progress has been made with the erection by the Congested District Boards of an industrial class at Waterville, county Kerry; and whether it will be completed before the coming autumn. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The erection of a class room at Waterville has been delayed by the necessity of obtaining the Lord Chancellor's approval to the lease of the premises. The Congested Districts Board anticipate that the building will be completed before the coming winter.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the arrangements, signed by tenants to purchase their holdings on the Blacker-Douglas estate, were lodged by the land lord with the Estates Commissioners; whether the sale has been sanctioned or completed; and, if not, whether he can state when it will be finished. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The purchase agreements relating to this estate were lodged with the Estates Commissioners on the 3rd January, 1906. The case will be dealt with in order of priority, but the Commissioners cannot at present say when the proceedings will be completed.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the emblem of the Crown, always displayed above the doors of police barracks, has been removed from Cullingtree, Brickfield, and Springfield Roads barracks and if he can say on whose authority they have been removed. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The station badges at the barracks mentioned were simply removed to receive their customary annual coat of paint.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that in the recent reorganisation of the Exchequer and Audit Department the staff of Second Division clerks (comprising at the time about one-half of the whole Department, with twenty subsequent additions as retained Second Division clerks reached eight years service), whose approved service extended between eight and twenty-eight years, were, under special Treasury sanction, promoted to be examiners with Higher Division certificates in the newly-reconstituted Department, and that their attention was particularly directed by their Departmental heads to the circumstance that this reorganisation was designed to increase the efficiency of the Department by removing the hitherto artificial barriers to promotion, he will explain whether it was with the authority of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that recently the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor, and certain of his subordinate chiefs, assured certain probationers who entered under the new scheme of examination that they would be preferred for advancement before their senior and experienced ex-Second Division colleagues; and, if so, seeing the effect of such administration on the public service, will he say why seniority and equality of efficiency are ignored in making promotions in this Department. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The hon. Member has been misinformed. No such assurance was ever given.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it has been decided to transfer a chief examiner of thirty-two years service from the Colonial Audit Branch in London to the local auditorship of Cyprus, in order to bring back to London the present local auditor in Cyprus at his Colonial rate of about £500 per annum; and, if so, seeing that this local auditor has only ten years service and has never passed a Civil Service examination for his position, and that his transfer back to London would mean his passing over the heads of men with three times his service, who obtained their positions through passing Civil Service examinations, will he explain why this step is to be taken. (Answered by Mr Runciman.) I understand that no such step is in contemplation, but that, if it were, the consequences would not be as indicated in the Question.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the dockyard accounts, the Admiralty accounts, the War Office accounts, the English and Scottish education accounts, the Post Office and other accounts are all audited by permanent local staffs at each of the various offices, while the Irish public accounts, with the exception of some slight local tests by a few men extending over only a very short period in Ireland, are all audited in London; and, if so, seeing that this audit of all the Irish public accounts in London means much duplication of work, will he explain why all such audit is not done in Dublin by adopting the same system of permanent local audit and supervision as obtains in the case of Devonport Dockyard and other accounts. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) This matter has been frequently raised, and I have nothing to add to the Answers previously given.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the defective casting of the rudder of H.M.S. "Edward VII." was inspected in the rough or after it had been dressed; and whether the Admiralty will give instructions that in future all castings and mouldings must be inspected in the rough. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) This, and the four following Questions by the hon. Member relate to proceedings that took place under the preceding Board of Admiralty. I am informed that the rudder was partly inspected in the rough, but before complete inspection was practicable the electric welding was performed. As regards the second Question, such instructions have been given with respect to all similar work.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the defective casting of the rudder of H.M.S "Edward VII." had, before inspection, been smudged with sal ammoniac, or some other preparation designed to produce a thick coating of rust or otherwise to obliterate the marks of tools or electric carbons; whether the practice of smudging castings before inspection is general; and whether the Admiralty will issue instructions to their inspectors not to pass any casting that has been smudged. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I am informed that the treatment to which the rudder was subjected before inspection was secret, and no information regarding it reached the Admiralty of the day. There was no smudging. The Answer to the second Question is "no." In Answer to the third Question, instructions have been issued which it is believed will make any such improper treatment of a casting impossible.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the sound test was applied to the defective casting of the rudder of H.M.S. "Edward VII."; if so, whether the fore hammer used in the test was wielded by the inspector or by an employee of the Ayrshire Foundry Company; and whether the Admiralty will issue instructions that in future the sound test shall invariably be applied and that the fore hammer shall be wielded by the inspector himself. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I am informed that the sound test was applied in this case, as it is in all others, according to the standing practice of the Admiralty. The fore hammer was wielded by an employee of the Ayrshire Foundry Company in the presence and hearing of an Admiralty inspector and according to his directions. It is not considered necessary to interfere with the discretion of the inspector as to the use of the fore hammer.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether other castings supplied by the Ayrshire Foundry Company to any of His Majesty's ships now in commission have been recently examined; and whether the Admiralty are satisfied that no defects exist in such castings similar to those discovered in the rudder of H.M.S. "Edward VII." (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson): I am informed that all practicable examination of the castings supplied by the Ayrshire Foundry Company was made by order of the late Board of the Admiralty as soon as they received information about the defect in the rudder head of the "King Edward VII." All such castings have stood the test of actual service, and the Admiralty have no reason to suppose that defects similar to those reported in the case of the "King Edward VII." exist.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what firms supplied the rudder and other castings for H.M.S. "Argyll"; and whether the Admiralty will institute a thorough examination of the castings built into this vessel. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson): I am informed that the particulars asked for in the first part of the Question could not be supplied without a long investigation of old accounts; and, as to the second, it is impossible without incurring very considerable expense in opening up completed work. All these castings have satisfactorily withstood the stress of actual service.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many British vessels are known to have been lost through floating mines since the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War; what was the latest date at which a loss of a Britsh vessel from this cause is believed to have taken place; and whether there is reason to believe that other neutral and British vessels have been lost through this mode of warfare. (Answered by Mr Lloyd-George): Two British vessels have been reported to the Board of Trade as having been lost-through floating mines since the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War, viz., the barque "Lucia," of Shanghai, which was blown up with fifteen of her crew about ten miles south-east of Lantishan Point, China Sea, on the 10th September, 1904, and the steamer "Sobralense," of Hong Kong, which was sunk with eleven crew and ten passengers, eight miles off Port Arthur, on the 12th May, 1905. Two London steamers also were damaged by floating mines, viz. "Kashing," on 25th October, 1904, and "Ningpo," on 6th July, 1906. Nine neutral vessels, of which three were British, have been reported as missing on voyages in the East, but the causes of their loss are of course purely matters of conjecture.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Royal Commission on Light house Administration will visit the light houses on the Irish coast; and if so, would he recommend that they inquire into the pay and conditions of the light house keepers, and see that women and children are not kept on isolated stations, but have such stations made relieving, so that these families could be educated. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George): The Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the existing system of management of the lights, buoys, and beacons of the United Kingdom by the general lighthouse authorities, and as to the constitution and working of those authorities. I have no control over the proceedings of the Commission, but I understand from them that they have completed the taking of evidence and are engaged on their Report.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will be able to issue the Return upon the Condition of the People, etc. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Return will be issued in the course of a few days.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the recent communication made by His Majesty's Government to the Chinese Government accepting the proposal to decrease the export of Indian opium to China year by year till it altogether ceases, any indication can be given of the sources from which revenue will be raised in the United Kingdom to recoup Indian revenues for the loss which will be occasioned by the transfer of the opium trade to other hands. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) It would be premature at the present preliminary stage of the negotiations, which import reciprocal conditions to be observed in China and in India, and have still to take the form of a precise agreement, to forecast their effect on the future revenues of India or the manner of dealing with the question of loss.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Jain community has any right to the whole Parasanath Hill extending to twenty-five miles in length and several miles in breadth, or whether their rights are confined to their temples and temple precincts; and whether he will consider the advisability of limiting such claims within such limits in the interests of other and more numerous religious communions. (Answered by Mr Secretary Morley): I answered a Question on this subject on the 16th July, and at present I have nothing further to add.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of an inhabitant of Flintshire, who was called on the 17th June to attend the annual training of the Militia at Beaumaris, where he must remain until the 1st August, whose wife and three children have become chargeable to the common fund of the Holywell Union; whether he is aware that before leaving home the man was in regular work and able to maintain his family, and that representations have been received from the guardians to the effect that it should not be the duty of the ratepayers to make provision for the families of such persons during the time they are called upon to do service for the country; and whether the Government propose to provide maintenance where necessary for the families of those who are rendering compulsory service. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A letter to the effect stated in the Question has been received from the clerk of Holywell Union, who has been informed in reply that the pay of a Militiaman can be stopped for the support of his wife and children to the extent and under the conditions laid down in Paragraph 145 of the Army Act, the provisions of

To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the deficiency in establishment of the Regular Army on 1st January for the last fifteen years: and how many men enlisted in each of those years.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that men employed at Deptford, in the West India Docks Naval Stores, and who have given every satisfaction by doing skilled work, viz., that of painting, for which they have received 26s. per week, have been informed that those of them who are under thirty-five years of age are to be appointed as storehouse assistants (permanently), and that their wages will be 23s. per week, with 6d. per week increase at the end of two years service; and can he say why this reduction should take place, especially when for the quality and quantity of work done the men are entitled to a substantial increase.

No order of the kind mentioned has been issued. Two men in receipt of 24s. per week have been selected for service as storehouse assistants, a position in which their prospects will be much improved.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received recent further complaints with regard to the discharge of refuse from Devonport Dockyard in infringement of the by-law of the Devon Sea Fishery Committee; and whether he can say what steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of what is being complained of.

One letter has recently been received alleging that the Devon Sea Fishery by-laws have been infringed. As regards the second part of the Question, the Admiralty are in communication with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with reference to a proposal to change the depositing ground.

What are the limits outside which the discharge must take place?

I am afraid I am not acquainted with the regulations.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is in a position to give the reason for not replacing the destroyer recently lost at Malta; what is the amount of damage sustained by the destroyer recently towed to Malta; and how long the necessary repairs will occupy.

As regards the first Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member's previous Question on the 24th July.† The "Mallard" sustained damage to the port shaft bracket, shaft, stern tubes and propellers, and to frames and plating in the after part of the vessel. I have already stated that these and other repairs will take three months.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make a statement before the recess as to the intentions of the Government with regard to

I have nothing to add to the statements which have already been made on this subject, except that detailed plans and estimates are being prepared for consideration.

Will there not be any Report as to the work done by the seven men who have been working at Rosyth during the last six months?

Will there be any addition to the seven or eight men now employed?

I have said I have nothing to add to the replies previously given, except that detailed plans and estimates are being prepared for consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the Home Fleet will carry out night manœuvres now the review is over.

The Commander-in-Chief of the Home Fleet has full authority to exercise that Fleet by day and night as he may consider necessary.

Will the Home Fleet take part in the Naval manœuvres to be held in the autumn?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can inform the House when he expects to be able to announce the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Indian Decentralisation. I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement before the prorogation as to the institution of the proposed council of notables, and as to the progress made in the correspondence with Calcutta on reform of the legislative councils.

I hope to announce the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Indian Decentralisation in a few days; and to lay Papers regarding the council of notables and kindred subjects before prorogation.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any further communication from the Australian Customs authorities with reference to the alleged unfair treatment of certain British imports, whether the Order complained of, by which duties were levied on certain articles of British manufacture at rates greatly in excess of their value, has now been cancelled; whether under these circumstances the excess duty already paid will be refunded by the Australian Government; and whether any assurance has been given that British manufacturers shall not be subjected to prejudicial treatment in future.

No further communication has yet been received from the Commonwealth Government on this subject, but their attention will again be called to it.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman received a copy of the note in which the Controller-General of Customs promised that the rebates shall now be made?

No, Sir.

Well, I have a copy in my possession which I will hand you.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if labourers drafted to the Panama Canal from Jamaica, Barbados, and other West Indian islands have been recruited on the same terms as those from Trinidad; and what assurances as to repatriation were received by the Government of those islands.

The recruiting of labourers in Jamaica for service in Panama is governed by the Emigrants' Protection Laws of the Colony, which provide inter alia for the payment of a deposit by the recruiter to remove all risk of an emigrant having to be repatriated at the cost of the Colony, and make the form of contract subject to the approval of the Governor in Privy Council. So far as the Secretary of State is aware, the canal authorities have not yet come to an agreement with the Colonial Government as to the terms of a contract. In Barbados the Governor has no statutory power to control the general terms of a contract for service in Panama, but the laws of the country provide that every such contract shall contain provision for the repatriation of the labourer at the end of his period of service. The Secretary of State is not aware that any special form of contract for service in Panama has been approved by the Government of any other West Indian Colony except Trinidad; and it must be borne in mind that large numbers of labourers have gone to the isthmus voluntarily and not under contract.

asked whether the Government would not insist that under any contract made these labourers should be repatriated, especially when it was remembered that Panama was not a proper country for settlement either for white or coloured men.

I think the Colonial Government may be relied on to take every step in their power to protect labourers who leave their shores under contract. If they leave voluntarily, of course that is a different matter.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiry into the rate of mortality among the labourers, and whether it was not the fact that those who went from Jamaica practically all died.

asked what would be done in regard to those labourers in whose case the contract could not be enforced.

In that respect we have made a communication through, the Foreign Office as to the statutory conditions imposed by the United States. The communication was only made about three weeks ago and no answer has yet come to hand. I should think we should, have the answer before Parliament rises.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can see his way clear to inform the Russian authorities that, unless better treatment is meted out to the Russian, people, this country may deem it necessary to refuse to form any alliance with Russia whatsoever.

The Answer is in the negative. The internal affairs of Russia, as has been previously explained, cannot be made relevant to negotiations between the two Governments, and the question of an alliance has not been raised.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to two cases heard at the last Liverpool transfer sessions in which the Liverpool justices by a majority decided to sanction the enlargement of two public houses belonging to Messrs. Peter Walker and Co., Limited, on condition that the owners forewent the £1,600 compensation awarded to them on the same justices' award in respect of an extinguished beerhouse licence in another part of the city and in addition paid the tenant of the same £250; and whether he will consider the case of such bargaining in connection with next year's Licensing; Bill.

My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I have no information of these particular cases other than that contained in the Question, but I am aware of the difficulties in which licensing justices find themselves in the matter of the conditions under which they may consent to the alteration of licensed premises, and the point is already under consideration in connection with the proposed legislation.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the want of suitable house accommodation for the navvies lately employed upon the new motor track at Brooklands; whether he is aware that hundreds of these workmen were obliged to find shelter at night in the open fields and hedges of the locality during the whole of the work, causing great hardship to themselves and inconvenience to the residents of the district; whether he can give the name of the contractors for this work; and what action, if any, he proposes to take to deal with this and similar conditions on the different public works of the country.

My attention has been called to this subject, and I directed one of the medical inspectors of the Board to make inquiry with regard to it. He has now sent in his Report, which will very shortly be published. It appears from it that he was satisfied that, at the date of his visit, many (probably 300 or more) of the men employed were without any proper lodging. I understand that the main contractors for the work were Messrs. Price & Reeves. I have instructed the inspector to make a further inquiry as to the housing accommodation generally of navvies employed on works under construction, so that I may be able to determine what action, if any, should be taken in the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman supply Members of the House with the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the conveniences at Brooklands? Is it intended that the inquiry shall cover most of the public works in England and Wales?

The doctor's Report is an eight-page document on this particular public work. It will be laid shortly. Having taken the whole facts into consideration I have come to the conclusion that as there are 100,000 men, women, and children dependent on public works of this character I will issue a Report with regard to the moral and sanitary conditions under which they work and live in the same way as has been done with regard to hop and fruit pickers in Kent and other parts.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience frequently caused to the public by the small stock of postal orders kept at sub-offices in country districts; whether he is aware that a purchaser is frequently obliged to make up the amount that he requires by taking two postal orders instead of one, thus paying double commission; and whether he can see his way to allow a larger stock of postal orders to be kept in such sub-offices in the future.

My right hon. friend's attention has not been specially called to this matter, but complaints are occasionally received of the inconvenience occasioned by the stock of postal orders kept at a small office being insufficient to meet the requirements of the public in the neighbourhood, and arrangements are always made to increase the stock, if necessary. In such circumstances, when a purchaser is obliged to take two postal orders instead of one to make up the amount that is required, it is the rule that commission shall be charged not on two orders, but as though the order actually required had been issued. If the hon. Member will furnish my right hon. friend with the particulars of any case in which this practice has not been followed he will have inquiry made in the matter.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has approved of the scheme of charges now being enforced by the National Telephone Company in Kendal, whereby all new subscribers are compelled to go on the measured rate; whether this measured rate entails a special charge of 1d. for all calls between local exchanges over junction wires, which have hitherto been free; whether this scale of charges is within the schedule fixed by the agreement of 2nd February, 1905; whether such agreement and schedule are accessible to the public and where a copy can be obtained; if he has approved of this scheme, when was this approval given; and whether he has taken any steps to gauge the opinion of commercial and public bodies other than the National Telephone Company.

The rates now being charged to new subscribers by the National Telephone Company are, so far as my right hon. friend is aware, within the limits prescribed by the agreement of 2nd February, 1905, and his consent was, therefore, not necessary for their introduction. They do include charges of 1d. for the use of junction lines between exchanges in different parts of exchange areas. The agreement of 2nd February, 1905, was printed as a Parliamentary Paper in that month, and again with the Report of the Select Committee which considered it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has received a petition from the parents and parishioners of Oldbury against the dismissal of Mrs. Hewitt, head mistress of the local national school whether he can give the grounds for the termination of her engagement; and whether his Department is satisfied that the reasons given justify the action of the managers.

Yes, Sir, I have received the petition referred to. The teacher's engagement was terminated in accordance with a regulation made by the local education authority, requiring female teachers to resign their appointments on marriage. The Board's jurisdiction is confined to determining whether the marriage of a female teacher does or does not constitute an educational ground for dismissal, and I am bound to hold that it is an educational ground.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the local education authority still persists in with holding payment of the salaries of the Mortomley Catholic school teachers; and whether the decision as to the correct interpretation of the inspector's report rests with Mr. Brown, the secretary of the West Riding Education Department, or with the Board of Education.

I hope this matter will be settfed in the course of a few-days. I am now in communication with the local education authority. The Answer to the last paragraph is "with the Board of Education."

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state on what grounds the West Riding education authority have ignored the request of the managers of non-provided schools that their schools should be supplied with Bibles, while making no-such refusal to similar requests from provided schools.

I have no information as to this, and it is not a matter in which the Board have any authority to intervene unless a specific case, in which a dispute has arisen between the managers and the local authority, is submitted to them for determination under Section 7 (3) of the Act of 1902.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will inquire whether such a case has arisen, and whether the ground of refusal was that the Bible was a merely denominational book, or whether it is considered a book unnecessary for the education of children?

I cannot undertake to do anything of the sort. This is a question which may come before me to determine in my judicial capacity under Section 7, Subsection 3, and I must wait till the case is brought before me.

Do not these schools belong to the reputed richest Church in Christendom, and is that Church too poor to provide Bibles for their day schools and Sunday schools?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the West Riding education authority has decided to build a new council school in place of the existing Church school at East Hardwick, on the ground that the requirements of the Board of Education have not been carried out; that plans obtained by the managers, embodying the required improvements, have been in the possession of the local education authority since 1905; and that the delay in carrying them out has been due to the refusal of the local education authority to express any opinion upon these plans; and whether, under the circumstances, the Board will favourably reconsider the unanimous appeal of the adult inhabitants of East Hardwick against the provision of such new school.

Yes, Sir, the managers submitted plans for the improvement of the school, which the local education authority refused to approve. The plans were submitted to the Board of Education, and I was advised that, even if they were carried out, the premises would still be unsatisfactory. I therefore decided that the school which the local authority proposed to provide was necessary and that the recognition of the existing voluntary school shall be terminated as soon as the new council school is opened.

Is it not the fact that the plans have been deliberately withheld? In view of the fact that this is an extremely small village, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision?

The plans have, as a matter of fact, been submitted to the Board, which has decided that even if the buildings were executed they would remain unsatisfactory, and I have no option, therefore, but to recognise that the new schools are necessary.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General if his attention has been directed to the case of Challoner v. Robinson, decided on 30th July last, in which the plaintiffs were the United Arts Club, an association of painters, who were sub-lesseos of certain premises, on which they held an exhibition of pictures, from lessees, to whom the Arts Club had regularly paid all rent due; whether in consequence of the lessees having failed to pay the rent due to the head landlord, Messrs. Robinson and Fisher, of Willis' Auction Rooms, the head landlord, claiming the right to distrain on the property of strangers I found on the premises, has distrained upon and proposes to sell all the pictures; whether Mr. Justice Neville, in delivering judgment, said that this constituted an I extraordinary state of things, which, monstrous though he held it to be, had hitherto escaped the zeal of the legal reformer; and whether the Attorney General will bring in a Bill next session to stop this kind of action in future.

This question involves the consideration of the policy of maintaining the law of distress in its present form. The facts stated in the Question afford an illustration of one of its worst features. I cannot defend all the provisions of the law as it now stands. I am unable, however, to promise to introduce a measure upon the subject next session.

Can nothing be done for these unfortunate painters who, through no fault of their own, had their pictures seized and sold?

All the remedies the law affords are open to them.

Does the law afford them any remedy?

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Mid-Derbyshire whether he will present to this House a complete account of the receipts and expenditure of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms for the Session.

The recent Report of the Kitchen Committee was presented in the same form as in previous years. It was a correct account of purchases, sales, and prices, and meals supplied up to date.

Will the hon. Member answer my Question? Will he present a complete balance-sheet of receipts and expenditure for the session? I want to know what has become of the balance of £872 12s. 3d. of the subsidy unaccounted for.

If the hon. Member will do me the honour of taking tea with me in my private room, I shall be pleased to supply the information.

The hon. Member for Sutherland is not the only Member interested in this question. Are all the Members to have tea with the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee?

May I ask, if I am to meet my hon. friend, whether he will provide something more substantial than tea?

I may remind my hon. friend that this is a temperance House. I think the hon. Member for St. Pancras is a member of the Kitchen Committee and should himself be in possession of the information asked for.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that two men were recently prosecuted at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal for being in a boat on the sea at Loch Shieldaig, Rossshire, on the 14th and 21st May, with intent illegally to take or kill salmon, and that, although no fish were found in their possession, each man was fined 30s.; and, seeing that the Honourable Mr. Murray, of Lochcarron, the proprietor of the land ex adverso the sea at Loch Shieldaig was the only person interested, will he take such steps as may be necessary to prevent a Crown officer instituting proceedings of this character out of public funds in the sole interest of a private individual.

I understand the facts are substantially as stated by my hon. friend. It is in accordance with practice that the Procurator Fiscal should prosecute in cases of this nature, provided the expenses of the prosecution are defrayed by the parties interested. The expenses of the prosecution in question were defrayed by the District Fishery Board.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to allow small landholders in burghs to have the benefit of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill in the same way that crofters are allowed the benefit of The Crofters Act, 1886.

My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this. As my hon. friend is aware, the Bill does not interfere with the existing rights to which he refers: the Government do not propose to alter it as he suggests.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an unqualified person named Peter Cawley has on many occasions sat and voted as a member of the Sligo County Council; and whether the Local Government Board have taken, or intend to take, any action to prevent this person from repeating such irregular proceedings.

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. The Local Government Board have been advised that the matter is not one in which they should take action. The Sligo County Council have full power to exclude Mr. Cawley from participation in their proceedings, and if they should fail to do so it is open to any ratepayer to take action in the matter.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the New Inn branch of the United Irish League in Galway addressed a demand to Mrs. Villiers, a lady resident in the neighbourhood, that she should dismiss certain of her servants, including a certain ex-policeman named M'Dermot; that on refusing to do so she was rigorously boycotted; and that as a consequence of this boycott the horse of a man named Riley, which had been lent to her, was smeared with tar and paint on the night of the 25th instant; and, seeing that she is unable to obtain help to work her farm, whether the time has come to put the Crimes Act in force to put an end to the lawlessness which exists in certain parts of the West of Ireland.

I am informed that the local police have no evidence to the effect slated in the first part of the Question. It is the fact that Mrs. Villiers has suffered some inconvenience, but she has not been rigorously boycotted as stated. She has been unable to procure extra labourers for the harvest; but her permanent employees have remained in her service, and she is not boycotted as regards supplies. It is the case that Mr. Riley's horse was daubed with paint on 25th July. As regards the concluding part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the Answer which my right hon. friend has repeatedly given to similar questions.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by rigorously boycotted."

Well, she has not been refused supplies, and her servants have not left her.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the morning of the 29th July a band of persons, numbering upwards of 200, armed with sticks, entered upon the lands of Mr. H. Persse, at Woodville, Loughrea, and, in defiance of the seven police stationed on the lands, drove off Mr. Persse's cattle; whether he is aware that Mr. Persse has asserted that one of the policemen in question informed him that they had instructions not to use arms in attempting to prevent these cattle drives; have the police any such instructions; and have any persons been made amenable to the law in connection with this outrage.

At one o'clock on the morning of 29th July a crowd of about 200 persons attempted to drive the cattle off Mr. Persse's farm. The six policemen who were on duty at once dispersed the crowd, using what force was necessary. Less than one-fourth of the cattle were driven off the farm, and these were at once replaced by the police. The head constable immediately reported the matter to Mr. Persse at his residence, and this gentleman instead of recognising the fact that the police had protected and secured his cattle suggested that the police were no use at all, and asked what good their revolvers were if they did not use them. The head constable replied that the circumstances did not justify the use of firearms, but said nothing about instructions on the subject. The police have not been instructed, either to use or not to use firearms in these particular cases. They have full general instructions, however, as to circumstances in which the use of firearms is justifiable. The question of taking proceedings in this case is under consideration.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that people placed in the position of Mr. Persse should use arms themselves in accordance with the suggestion of the Chief Secretary?

I made no suggestion whatsoever.

asked if the police in Belfast used firearms.

I do not think they have.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a few days ago Constable Biggins, of Springfield road barracks, Belfast, was invalided out of the force as the result of an injury sustained on duty, and that he was only granted a pension of £19 a year; and whether, in view of the fact that Biggins had thirteen years' service, that he had an unblemished record, with good educational equipments, but has now been turned adrift practically a cripple and utterly unfit for work involving physical exertion, and in view of his circumstances, he will open this case for re-consideration.

The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. Constable Biggins was accidentally injured when practising physical drill nearly a year ago, and has since been under almost continuous medical treatment. He has now been retired from the force as being partially incapacitated, and has been awarded the highest pension which the Statute permits, having regard to his length of service, and to the extent of his injuries. I regret that the Government have no power to re-open the case.

asked whether special consideration could not be given to this case, as the man and his wife and family had been practically put out into the streets?

The highest pension possible under the circumstances has been given him.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts Order, 1906, Rule 6, which directs every rural district council in Ireland to advertise in two or more local papers and post placards throughout their districts within one month from the 1st November, 1906, notifying that representations for the purposes of the Acts may be lodged with their clerk up to the 1st February, 1907; will this course be adopted annually; will he say in how many cases this requirement has been complied with, and give the names of the defaulting councils, if any, and the names of the councils which have not yet considered these representations; and is it intended to publish new rules annually, or is there only to be one scheme under the 6 Edw. 7, c. 37.

Rule 6 of the Labourers Order is in the terms set forth in the Question. If the hon. Member will refer to Rule 14 he will find it provided that the several representations which may be received during each year ending 30th September shall, if not taken into consideration during such year, be considered by the rural district council at their second meeting after the termination of such year. So far as the Local Government Board are aware, Rule 6 has been complied with in all cases. The replies to the last part of the Question are in the negative. It is, however, open to the Board at any time to revise the rules in such manner as may be deemed necessary. Further schemes can, of course, be made in pursuance of additional representations as contemplated in Rule 14.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state why the Local Government Board refuse to sanction the appointment of Dr. Clarke as temporary medical officer for the Ballinagh dispensary district; how near to this district does Dr. Clarke reside; has Dr. Clarke at present any dispensary; who has been in charge of this district for the past three months, and what appointments does he hold, distinguishing those which are temporary from the permanent appointments; and will this matter have his special attention in the interest of the sick poor of the district.

The appointment of Dr. Clarke as temporary medical officer for the Ballinagh dispensary district was objected to on the ground that his residence was outside the dispensary district, and was inconvenient for the sick poor. The nearest point of the dispensary district is about three miles, and the most remote nine miles, from Cavan, where Dr. Clarke lives. The Local Government Board have not sanctioned the appointment of Dr. Clarke as the medical officer for any dispensary district. Dr. Clarke has been acting as temporary medical officer for the Ballinagh dispensary district since the 18th June last, but without the sanction of the Board. He has also been appointed as temporary medical officer of the Kilnaleck and Stradone dispensary districts, but the Board have had to object to those appointments upon the same grounds. The guardians, by their action in continuing to employ Dr. Clarke, may render themselves liable to surcharge for any payments they may make for his salary. Dr. Clarke has further been appointed as temporary medical officer of Cavan Workhouse from 7th instant to 4th proximo, and to this appointment the Board have given their sanction.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the local body charged with the duty is not regularly dredging the precipitation basin of the Lower Bann below the weir at Toomebridge in county Antrim, with the result that the watercourse is partially obstructed and that the floods are higher and last longer than they otherwise would; and whether pressure will be brought, to bear on the local body to discharge its duties in this respect.

So far as the information in possession of the Irish Government goes, the weir basin in question is regularly dredged by the trustees of the Lough Neagh drainage district. It was stated last year that during the preceding ten years an average of over £300 per annum had been expended in dredging and the maintenance of the plant. If, however, any person interested is not satisfied that the works of the drainage district are properly maintained, he should address the trustees in the matter, and if still not satisfied, he should apply to the Commissioners of Public Works.

I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the estate of William George Molloy at Ballyfermoyle, county Roscommon, has been sold to the tenants; whether an inspection has been made of lands owned by John Molloy; and whether it is intended to provide land for the three evicted tenants from the William George Molloy estate on the lands owned by John Molloy.

NO proceedings for the sale of this estate have yet been, instituted before the Estates Commissioners. When their inspector was making local inquiries as regards the evicted tenants on the estate he visited the holding which John Molloy occupies as tenant, but the question of acquiring that holding has not been considered by the Commissioners, seeing that the estate-is not pending for sale before them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention, has been called to the result of a recent action for slander against a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed at Greencastle; whether the usual course-in such cases is to transfer the constable or constables concerned; whether this has been done in this case; and, if not, whether it is proposed to transfer those involved to another district.

In this case a decree or £2 and costs was given against the constable. The Inspector-General informs me that in such a case it is the usual practice to remove the constable concerned to another district; but in this particular case the question of transferring the constable has been held over pending the return to duty of the Commissioner of Police, who has been ill for some time. The Inspector-General's attention has only now been called to the matter, and he is making further inquiries with the object of considering what action may be necessary.

Are we to understand from this reply that the Inspector-General's attention is not directed to these cases unless questions are first asked in this House?

I believe in this case the matter was under the consideration of the authorities before the Question was put, but I would remind the hon. Member that with the present position of affairs in Belfast the time of the Inspector-General is fully occupied. This matter was so trifling that the County Court Judge only awarded £2 damages.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings of a meeting of the Mayo technical instruction committee of the Mayo County Council, held on the 23rd July, 1907, at which it was decided not to give a scholarship, won in open competition by a boy named Dowling, on the ground that the candidate was the son of a district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary; is it open to the committee to invite competition and then exclude the successful candidate on such a ground; is part of the money that the committee administers provided out of Imperial funds; and has the Local 'Government Board any control in the matter.

Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the proceedings in question The boy Dowling who was refused the scholarship is the son of District Inspector Dowling, of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The money for these scholarships is partly provided by the 'Department and partly by county funds. The Local Government Board has no authority to intervene. In all cases of dispute the rules provide that the matter shall be referred to the Department, whose decision shall be final. It was undoubtedly the intention of the Department to confine the scholarships to the children of the poorer classes in the community, and competition was therefore confined to those attending the primary schools. Dowling, being the son of an officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary, belongs to a different class, but was within the rules as attending a national school. These rules may be altered and revised, but until this has been done he was clearly eligible, and ought not to be denied renewal of the scholarship won in open competition. The Department will do what is possible to close an unfortunate dispute.

Will the boy be granted the scholarship?

I think the hon. Gentleman ought to be content with what I said. The Department will do its best to close this unfortunate dispute.

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by closing the dispute? We have a right to know whether a boy eligible for a competition is going to receive the reward.

Well, I think that if the question had not been asked it would have been settled before now.

I will repeat the Question in a few days time.

Have not the Mayo Technical Committee made a rule that the holder of a scholarship should be resident in the county?

No. The Committee have recommonded an alteration in the rule for next year.

Will the Department in arranging the rules prevent such an occurrence in the future?

agreed that the scholarships intended for particular localities should be confined to the residents in the county. That was a matter for the future. They must proceed now according to present rules.

Who makes the rules?

The Department.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the evidence given at the last Galway assizes in reference to the charge against Peter J. Kelly of unlawfully encouraging certain persons unknown to kill and murder the Right Hon. Frederick, Baron Ashtown, has been laid before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and whether any decision has been come to with reference to the retention of the name of Peter J. Kelly on the commission of the peace.

The evidence given at the trial referred to was not submitted to the Lord Chancellor in view of the result of that trial. The Lord Chancellor, however, informs me that his attention has been directed to a speech delivered by Mr. Kelly on 21st July, having regard to which the Lord Chancellor has felt it to be his duty to supersede Mr. Kelly in the commission of the peace.

asked whether it was a fact that the Lord Chancellor punished Kelly for a charge on which he was acquitted.

It was in reference to another speech on another occasion that the Lord Chancellor removed him from the commission of the peace.

Is Mr. Kelly to be proceeded against for that other speech?

That is a matter which is under the consideration of the Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman get the Lord Chancellor to stay his hand until it is decided whether or not the man shall be tried?.

No, Sir; the Lord Chancellor has already acted in the matter. He exercises his discretion as to whom he should leave on the commission of the peace and whom he should remove.

What evidence had the Lord Chancellor that this man made the speech or that it was correctly reported?

An official report of the speech was furnished to the Lord Chancellor.

Was Mr. Kelly asked for an explanation?

I cannot say.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask, the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his Department is aware that feeding stuffs for calves are so heavily adulterated that hundreds of these young animals die before they are a month old; whether he will inquire of the Secretary of his Department if he has had crushed linseed, which had been sent to him from Clare on or about the Kith April, analysed; will he state the percentage of organic and mineral matter; what the latter was that was found in the crushed linseed; and will he give instructions to his Department to appoint inspectors in the cities and large towns to take samples of feeding stuff's and forward them to the Department to be analysed.

The Department are aware that there are some meals sold in Ireland for calf rearing purposes which are seriously adulterated, and that it has been stated that in many instances calves died from being fed with this deleterious matter. Moreover, some of these adulterated calf meals are sold at many times their actual value. In three test eases, those of the Union Feeding Company of Liverpool selling "Linko" at Enniscorthy, the same company selling "Linko" at Enniskillen, and the National Feeding Company of Cork selling "calf meal" at Caherciveen, the purchasers, on receiving the Department's analysis and estimate of value, refused payment of price charged, and when prosecuted by vendors were entirely successful and obtained costs. In the "Linko" case, tried at Enniskillen, the vendors obtained a decree in the Lower Court for the full amount claimed. This decision, however, was modified on appeal thus—a decree was given for 7s., the maximum value placed by the Department on the meal for which the company charged 28s., and costs were given against the company; in the third case the company concerned appealed against the adverse judgment of the Lower Court, but when the appeal came on for hearing they withdrew, and costs were awarded to the defendants. In the case mentioned in the Question, a sample of material sold as "crushed flaxseed" for calf rearing purposes was forwarded to the Department from county Clare on 6th April last. This was analysed and found to contain an undue proportion of sand and mineral matter, viz., 5·22 per cent. When this meal was prepared for the calves a sediment was deposited containing 70 per cent. of mineral matter, whereas from pure crashed flaxseed there should be no deposit whatever. In this ease the same course of action as in the above cases was open to the buyer. The Department's action in this particular instance was limited under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuns Act, 1906, to sending report and leaving purchaser to use his discretion as to obtaining redress under Common Law. The Department, under Section 12 of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, have appointed samplers for the whole of Ireland. They undertake analyses of materials for instructors working under county schemes, and for farmers in certain cases in which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the materials are of inferior quality. Further, they give technical advice in prosecution cases.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Registrar-General for Ireland has been called to the fact that since the establishment of the City Fever Hospital in Lisburn Union the duty of registering the deaths in that institution falls to the registrar in Lisburn; whether he has received a resolution passed by the Lisburn Board of Guardians suggesting the appointment of a second assistant-registrar for the Ballylesson district; and whether, under Sections 16 and 23 of the Act for the Registration of Births and Deaths in Ireland, the Registrar-General will constitute the hospital, a special district in order to relieve the ratepayers of Lisburn Union from payment for the registration of deaths in an outside institution, or, alternatively, to give effect to the resolution of the guardians.

The Registrar-General's attention has been called to the fact stated in the first part of the Question. The Registrar-General has received the resolution of the Lisburn Board of Guardians, but is unable to comply with their request, seeing that the statute empowers the employment of one assistant registrar only in each district. The Registrar-General regrets that he cannot accede to the proposal that the hospital should be made a separate registrar's district. It would, he informs me, be entirely without precedent to constitute a public institution, situate in a certain union, into a separate district, to form part of another union.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his attention has been specially called to the evidence of Messrs. P. Vaughan, J. P., William McDonnell, J. P., chairman of the Limerick Chamber of Commerce, and other witnesses, given before the Committee of Inquiry into the working of the Act of 1899, strongly favouring the establishment of a system of winter dairying in Ireland; is he aware that Sir Horace Plunkett also advocated the adoption of this system as likely to improve the Irish butter trade and to lead to a large increase of tillage; and what steps, if any, the Department propose to take towards the adoption of an agricultural reform in Ireland which has already produced most beneficial results in Denmark.

The Department have noticed the evidence in question, but neither in the majority nor in the minority Report of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry is there any definite suggestion made as to how winter dairying may be increased in Ireland. There is no difference of opinion as to the desirability of encouraging the industry and the authorities in drafting schemes suitable to particular districts. Last year the Department themselves initiated a small experiment of this nature at their Agricultural Station, Clonakilty, and when the experiment has been twelve months in progress—which will be in this autumn—a report will be published of the results. When this report is issued and when the results of the experimental tillage scheme which the. Cork County Committee of Agriculture put into operation for the first time this year are available, the Department, in conjunction with the Agricultural Board, will consider the matter further. In the meantime, I have arranged to receive a deputation from the South of Ireland on Monday next, and the whole subject, which the Department recognise to be of the greatest importance, will be considered at a special meeting of the Agricultural Board.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the frequent complaints made about the delay in delivering letters at Churchtown, county Wexford; and what action he proposes to take in the matter. I beg also to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that letters addressed to Churchtown, county Wexford, from England via Rosslare, are first taken to Waterford, then to Wexford, and thence to Churchtown; and can he arrange to have them delivered direct from Rosslare.

I understand that letters for Churchtown, Wexford, have occasionally been delayed owing to their having been sent in error to a place of the same name in the delivery of Waterford. Suitable notice is always taken of errors of this nature when they are due to carelessness. Letters from England for Churchtown, Wexford, forwarded via Rosslare are sent not to Waterford, but to Wexford. It appears that the night mail via Rosslare at present arrives at Wexford too late to connect with the mail cart to Churchtown; but my right hon. friend is inquiring whether it is possible to improve the arrangements in this respect.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there are some 200,000 men in London who are kept off the register of Parliamentary electors by changing their residences; and whether he will consider the advisability of remedying this state of affairs by bringing in next session a Bill to place Londoners in the same position as residents in other large towns by enabling them to claim for successive occupation from any one division of London to any other.

I am aware of the special electoral disabilities which attach to the London voter, and my hon. friend may be assured that they will be considered by the Government when the reform of electoral anomalies and defects is undertaken. When that may be, however, I am not, at present, in a position to say.

On behalf of the senior Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return giving the number of occasions since 1887 on which closure by compartments has been carried, the names of the Bills to which it has been applied, the number of days (if any) devoted to each on the Committee stage before closure by compartments was put into operation, the total number of days (if any) devoted to each in Committee of the Whole House, and the number of days allocated to each on the Report stage?

There will be no objection to giving this Return.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government, in view of the number of incomplete Bills which have to be dropped at the close of each session, will consider the propriety of carrying forward to the succeeding session of the same Parliament such as have reached an advanced stage?

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the number of incomplete stages of Bills which the Government meant to pass, and the pressure brought to bear upon Members not to discuss Bills, he would consider the expediency of passing a general guillotine Resolution to the effect that on 12th August next all Government Bills which had passed Second Reading should be passed through their various stages—

Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice of that.

I do not think that the number of such Bills is great this session, and therefore the question hardly arises at the moment.

asked Mr. Speaker whether he would be in order in putting a Question of which he had given the Secretary for War private notice concerning the Belfast strike, in the absence of the Minister to whom the Question was addressed.

replied that the hon. Member could put his Question if he wished, but he was afraid he would not get any answer if there was no Minister responsible present who could answer it.

, suggesting that perhaps the Prime Minister would answer, asked whether the Secretary of State for War was aware that a large number of military troops had been turned to parade the streets of Belfast that morning and that the men had each been supplied with twenty rounds of ball cartridge; whether he would use his influence to have these soldiers withdrawn, as they only irritated the strikers and tended to render abortive all efforts to end the dispute.

Am I then to understand from the Prime Minister that there is no responsible Minister present prepared to deal with this Question? It is a most serious matter.

As I understand it, the circumstances only occurred this morning; and I have had no knowledge of it at all, therefore I can hardly be expected to give an answer to the hon. Member's Question. Personally, I have no knowledge of it whatever.

If the Prime Minister cannot see his way to induce the Government to withdraw the troops, will he use his influence with the Secretary for War to get him to withdraw the ball cartridges?

asked the indulgence of the House while he made a personal explanation with reference to an incident which occurred at Question time on 29th July.† On that date he asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it was the established practice of the Navy to hold a public court-martial on every officer who lost or surrendered his ship; and, if so, why this rule had not been enforced in the case of his Majesty's ship "Ariel," which was lost on Malta Breakwater on 19th April. His motive in asking the Question had absolutely nothing to do with the officer in command of the "Ariel"; the Question was based on broad grounds of administrative policy. It was, he submitted, a perfectly legitimate Question, and one asked in the highest interests of the Navy, with no sort of arrière pensée. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, in a supplementary Question, described the Question as ungenerous, and proceeded) to insinuate that at one time five years ago he (Mr. Bellairs) had been in a similar position and liable to court-martial. To that statement he gave an unqualified denial. The Secretary of the Admiralty asked for notice of the Question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, and having waited twenty-four hours for such a Question to be put down, he wrote to the hon. Member the following letter setting out the incident as reported in Hansard, which was word for word identical with The Times report, and asking for the name of the hon. Member's informant—

May I contradict that statement? The contrary is the case. The court-martial might have given a less punishment, and it was, besides, a public and not a secret body.

observed that the incident referred to occurred twelve years ago, but the inquiry held was not into his conduct. Such inquiries as these were held almost from day to day, and there was scarcely an officer in the service who had not undergone the ordeal of such an inquiry. The order that led to the collision had not been given by him, and he was not present when it was given. The order was given by a sub-lieutenant through the voice tube, and he took the responsibility of it in order to prevent the promotion of the sub-lieutenant from being interfered with. He had given strict injunctions that the voice tube was never to be used to communicate with the helmsman, owing to the fact that it might lead to an accident, but the sub-lieutenant on that occasion neglected his order. At the time he thought it right to take the whole of the blame upon himself, and he willingly did so. There was no inquiry into his conduct, but, only into the cause of the collision. This accident in no way resembled in the slightest degree the subject of the Question he had put on the Paper.

said that in seconding the Amendment he would like to call the attention of hon. Members who had not the advantage of being members of the Scottish Committee, to the extraordinary character of this clause of which they were about to undertake the discussion. It contained eighteen subsections, and when one came to wade through them all, one must get into a fog.

No.

said that one would imagine that there was some hidden result or purpose in the clause which he had not hitherto perceived or appreciated. He was sorry that he could not accept the substitution of "Land Commissioners" for "Land Court." The Land Court was the authority to whom was committed the keeping of the register of the new holders, and the machinery for that was based on previous Acts. That was a natural arrangement, and the Land Court should therefore be responsible for the register. He did not think that hon. Members opposite quite appreciated that the application to be registered was only to be made, in the first place, after an agreement had been arrived at between the landlord and the new land holder. The Agricultural Commissioners were the practical executive authority which was to supervise and contribute to the creation of the new holdings. The first subsection had nothing whatever to do with that or with the operations of the Agricultural Commissioners. The first subsection said that if the landlord and any other person agreed in respect of any land "such person may apply to the Land Court to be registered as a new holder under this Act, and such person may thereupon apply accordingly, and subject to the provisions of this Act may be so registered." The register was to be kept in the Land Court's keeping.

What about the words in Subsection (13), "otherwise than by agreement"?

said that the Secretary for Scotland had told them that this subsection referred only to cases of voluntary agreement, and that the Land Court had no functions to perform except to keep a record of the individuals who applied for new holdings. But at the end of the subsection occurred the phrase "may be so registered." With whom was that discretion left?

With the Land Court.

Exactly. If any person agreed with the landlord in respect to certain land such person might apply to the Land Court to be registered a new holder, and subject to the provisions of the Act might be so registered. The discretion rested with the Land Court. He agreed with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire that it was no exaggeration to say that however carefully one might examine this Bill it was impossible, unless one were endowed with supernatural powers, and every virtue and the superior intelligence of the hon. and gallant Member for East Edinburgh, to separate the functions of those two august bodies—the Land Court and the Agricultural Commission. His hon. friend had counted the number of times that those two bodies were mentioned in the clause, and found that it was over twenty. He supposed that the Land Court was to keep the register of small holders, but why should not the Agricultural Commission also keep such a book? He was sure that he and his friends would vote for the cost of the supply of another book. The Secretary for Scotland seemed to think that nobody was to be considered in this matter except the landlord and the tenant, and that was the reason why the right hon. Gentleman got so confused on the points raised by the Opposition. But the general taxpayers of the country, who must meet the expense of the experiments to be made under this measure ought also to be considered. The Land Court was charged with the duty of seeing whether the applicants for registration had fulfilled the necessary conditions. They knew that the entry on the register was only the first step in the transaction.

asked if he was to understand that a man would not be eligible to avail himself of the pro visions of the Act until his name was registered.

was obliged for the interruption, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman was throwing any new light on the question before the House. The duties cast upon the Land Court were not of the mere perfunctory character which was represented. The application of this Bill would be in regard to the privileges conferred on the new holders under this measure, and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman had said had shaken his argument. They must I be thankful for small mercies when they were told, under a Radical Government, that the landlord was to be enabled to set up small holdings. He did not know how long that privilege would last; he supposed until the next Land Bill was brought in. Meanwhile it was thought that this Bill would produce such a glamour over the land that these two people who had hitherto got on very well together would suddenly discover that they wanted to go into this Court. That he did not think was likely. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the landlord and tenant had only to agree and the Land Court would do the rest; but that was not the case at all. Let them take the ease of a man who had been indebted to his landlord for his improvements, he would come in under the Bill. It was quite obvious, unless they were absolutely mistaken in the view which they took of the effect of the preceding clause, that this was not a mere trivial matter. The argument of his hon. friend was that the Land Court ought not to be called in, and he could not conceive anything more reasonable than his proposal that this task should fall upon the Agricultural Commissioners. But the right hon. Gentleman said it must be the Land Court. He could not accept that proposition. If it were merely a matter of entering a man's name in a book there would be no justification for pressing the Amendment. But that was not the case and the right hon. Gentleman had not shown that it was so. They, on the contrary, said that this power of setting up the new holder ought to be exercised by the Agricultural Commissioners and not by the Land Court. The Government were making a large experiment which could only be successful at the cost of a large sum of money, a considerable portion of which would come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of England. For these reasons he supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.

thought that the Agricultural Commissioners were likely to be more capable persons to deal with this matter than the Land Court. Under last year's Bill questions of this sort would have gone before the Agricultural Commissioners, but the Government were now setting up a Land Court to deal with such matters. The Land Court was an importation into the Bill, and an innovation. It was indeed the chief evil in the measure, and he supported the proposal to substitute the Agricultural Commissioners. He was afraid that the greater number of the new holdings would not be registered under this clause, because the proprietor would lose his control over the money which he had paid for equipment under the Crofters Act of 1886. Registration was either a serious matter or it was not. If it was a mere matter of form it would not be largely indulged in, but if it was a condition precedent to the granting of loans by the State it was a different matter. The question, as he understood, had to come before the Agricultural Commissioners in the first place, and then before the Land Court. This would mean double work between the two authorities. It was somewhat like a Chinese puzzle, and if one bit was taken out of it it failed. These details were not necessary last year, and were not necessary now. They had not been told either in Committee upstairs or in the House why they were necessary. They had never heard the reason why the Land Court was pitchforked into the Bill.

argued that it, was not necessary to have a fresh organisation but supposed they would be told that the mind of Scotland was behind this Bill. He had, however, not heard a single expression of opinion in its favour.

thought that the discussion showed that the Opposition did not intend to destroy the Bill, but rather wished to facilitate its progress. If the landlord and tenant met together at the registrars and a book was produced in which the transaction was entered there would be an end of the matter. What would take place would be that both the landowner and the landholder would make application to the Land Court to be registered. A form would then be sent to each of them to fill up. It would be filled up and returned, and the Land Court would then have to refer the matter to the Agricultural Commissioners, who would have to send down and investgate the claim of both the landowner and the landholder to be registered. The Agricultural Commissioners would then report back to the Land Court and recommend registration. If the Amendment were accepted all that process would be avoided. They would apply at once to the Agricultural Commissioners who would at once investigate the circumstances of the case and report to the Land Court that an application had been made to register as a small holding a certain holding, and that after investigation they recommended its registration. The Land Court would then write to the landowner and the landholder and notify them that the holding had been registered in their book as a small holding on such a day. Was not the proposal of his hon. friend more calculated to encourage the formation of small holdings by agreement than the round-about method favoured by the right hon. Gentleman? He did not think many people would avail themselves of the provisions of this clause, but he was quite sure that the simpler the clause was made the more would people avail themselves of the privilege. For these reasons he supported the Amendment of his hon. friend.

said he had had occasion before to explain to the House that one of the objections that attached to the discussion of a Bill under closure by compartments was that the Government felt themselves absolved from giving any answer to the arguments adduced or even from taking the trouble to give a correct account of the Bill nominally in their charge. Everybody, even its authors, must approach Clause 7 with singular misgiving. Never in his experience had he seen a clause extending over two and a half pages of a Bill which brought into action so many different bodies. Most Governments in the past had endeavoured to bring in every separate Department in a separate clause, but when they read this bewildering piece of legislation they found the Land Court figuring in the first section, the Commissioner for small holdings in the third, and the Agricultural Commissioners in the sixth. And these three parties pursued their mazy dance through the remaining of the eighteen sub-sections of the clause in such a manner that even the strongest head might be made to feel confused by their evolutions. What was the defence of the Secretary for Scotland for putting in these Agricultural Commissioners—a new body which they had never been allowed to discuss either in the House or the Committee, though it figured so largely in this measure? The right hon. Gentleman had given two reasons, and both were founded on a misconception of fact with regard to his own measure. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House in the first place that Sub-section (1) dealt solely with existing holdings.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.

pointed out that this subsection dealt with new holdings. But new holdings were of two classes. There might be holdings brought into existence after the passing of this Act, which had existed as fully equipped holdings previously and been afterwards brought under the operation of the Act. The other class of new holdings would be holdings actually created under the provisions of this Act.

The right Hon. Gentleman is perfectly right.

asked what were they to think when the right hon. Gentleman addressed two arguments in favour of the Bill each of which was founded on misconception? He did not know whether that was the way in which the Bill was dealt with in Committee, but with all respect he must say the right hon. Gentleman ought to have made himself acquainted with the contents of the Bill after it came down stairs. The arguments in favour of the Bill having been dismissed—they had been abandoned by the right hon. Gentleman himself—what were the merits? The real point was whether the Land Court was to be the body to register these new holdings, or whether it was to be the Agricultural Commissioners. Clearly every sound argument tended in the direction of making those responsible for the holdings who created new ones. If they looked at Sub-sections (6) and (18), it must be clear to the House that it was the body responsible for the expenditure of public money, for the using of the taxpayers' money for the purposes of these new holdings, who should determine whether they should be registered or not. Was not that common sense? If anything further were required to justify the argument they found it in the next section relating to assistance given; and if assistance was to be granted by the Land Commission, ought it not to be registered by the Land Commission, and if it was to be registered by the Land Commission, where else could it be registered except where the right hon. Gentleman desired it to be registered, namely, in the book which for the moment he thought was in the custody of the Land Court, but was, in fact, in the custody of the Sheriff? If the administrative body had first to settle the propriety of the loan, surely they were the people who ought to register the holding. It was a most obvious and simple Amendment which his hon. friend had moved, and he should have thought that it would have been jumped at by the Government. If, however, they still adhered to the form of the Bill, he thought the Secretary for Scotland would agree that as the only two arguments which he had used had been abandoned by himself, he or one of his colleagues should get up and give them a new version of the defence they proposed to urge against the suggestion which they had made from that side of the House. Any argument which had been advanced so far had been abandoned, and he ventured to think the time had come when they should have some more solid basis than had yet been found for maintaining the Bill in its present shape.

was understood to say that the Secretary for Scotland apparently did not quite understand the point. What he had submitted was that the Agricultural Commissioners had to satisfy themselves that the applicants were suitable persons for holdings, and, if under Section 6 the Agricultural Commissioners might make an advance of money, then it seemed to him absolutely impossible to maintain the Land Court in the position given it by Subsection (1), and at the same time protect the taxpayers and the Agricultural Commissioners against loss. The Agricultural Commissioners were responsible for the money advanced under the Bill, and they ought to be responsible for rejecting the holding.