To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that grants of probate and administration can be taken out by Inland Revenue officers when the gross value of the estate does not exceed £300, on deposit with him of 15s. for fees of Court and expenses; whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue officer at Ballyshannon, on application being made to him by Patrick Brown, who had previously obtained an order of the Court enabling him to obtain the grants of administration to Cornelius Clarke, whose assets for the purpose of administration were only valued at £5, referred the case to the district registrar of Londonderry, who replied that he could not deal with it through him, as the case was one for legal decision and not contemplated by The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881, or The Finance Act, 1894; whether, having regard to the fact that Brown is a judgment creditor in a sum of upwards of £13 and the guardian of the estate, and that no question presenting any real difficulty arises, the grant in this case may be taken out by the Inland Revenue officer, and the costs and expenses incidental to its extraction through the district registry office thus saved; and whether some steps will be taken to secure that in such small cases the Inland Revenue, if it acts at all, should extract grants of probate and administration, and not take all the easy grants and leave grants presenting any questions of difficulty, however slight, to solicitors. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that the functions of the Inland Revenue officer under Section 33 of The Revenue Act, 1881, are merely those of an agent acting as a channel of communication between the applicant for a grant and the officers of the Probate Court, and it is necessary that he should; refer to those officers in all cases where there is any complication in the circumstances of the application. That is what happened in the case referred to, and the action taken by the officer was correct and necessary. Similarly the district registrar acted strictly in accordance with a rule of Court which provides that "applications for grants of probate or administration in cases which have already been before the Court (on motion or otherwise) must be made through a solicitor." As regards the last part of the Question, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 2nd ultimo to ray hon. friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow.†

To ask the Secretary of State

† See (4) Debates, clxxvii., 530.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a claim for damages sustained by the British steamship "Eastry," belonging to Messrs. Sivewright, Bacon, and Company, in a collision at Manila in June, 1901, with certain coal hulks belonging to the Government of the United States of America, has been recommended for payment in messages from the President of "the United States to the Senate and House of Representatives, dated 19th January, 1903, 20th January, 1904, and 8th January, 1906, respectively; whether the said claim remains unpaid; and whether His Majesty's Embassy at Washington have been instructed to take any, and what, steps in the matter. (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The Answer to the first and second parts of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The claim is included amongst a number of claims which have been submitted to the United States Government in accordance with proposals made for a settlement of all claims outstanding between them and His Majesty's Government.

To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which twelve children in Standards IV. to VI., residing in the parish of Hawkwell, Essex, have been excluded from Hawkwell school, and thereby lost three months' instruction; whether he is aware that the parents of such children refuse to send them to the school in the adjoining parish on the alleged ground that such school is in an insanitary condition and their children would be obliged to walk about four miles extra per day; whether the scheme of reorganisation of the schools under which these children are excluded has received his sanction, and is in all respects regular; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) My attention has been called to the exclusion of certain children from the Hawkwell parish school with a view to the reorganisation of that school as one for younger children only. I am also aware that certain parents have objected to send their children so excluded to the Hockley council school on the ground of distance and of the insanitary condition of the school. In consequence of these representations the Board wrote to the local education authority asking for further information, and intimating that in any case the change in the organisation should not be carried out until the Hockley school had been made sanitary. In reply the local education authority have stated that they see no reason for changing their decision. Under these circumstances I propose to inform the local education authority that the Board are unable to regard the exclusion of these children as reasonable under Article 53 of the Code, and to point out that the grant to the school is liable to forfeiture in consequence.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has given consideration to the Report of the Motor Car Commission; whether in view of the largely increased cost of the upkeep of roads in consequence of motor car traffic, which is specially felt in the Highland and other sparsely populated counties with extensive road mileage, he will consider the necessity of giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee, especially as to a more equitable distribution of the revenue derived from motor-car licences, and a contribution from the Treasury towards the maintenance of main roads in such counties; and whether he will communicate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to this grievance being dealt with next session. (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I fully appreciate the importance of the question raised by my hon. friend. The matter is in view of the Government, and, so far as the interests of Scotland are exceptional, I shall endeavour to see that they are specially considered.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that certain War Estimates have been exceeded by supplemental expenditure to the amount of £690,000, arrangements will be made to prevent such an excess of expenditure over military Estimates in future. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The hon. Member apparently refers to the Estimates of 1905–6, but he is under a misapprehension in believing that they were exceeded. There is, on the contrary, a considerable surplus which has been surrendered to the Exchequer. The figure mentioned in the Question represents the surplus anticipated in March, 1906. The actual surplus proved to be greater.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any portion of the claims for Customs rebates against the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, referred to in the 6th paragraph of the Third Report of the Committee of Public Accounts for the year 1906, and in paragraph 13 of the Second Report of the same Committee for this year, has been admitted by the Governments of the Colonies in question. (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The hon. Member will observe, on reference to the second passage which he mentions, that on further consideration it was decided by the Treasury that it was not open to His Majesty's Government to press the specific claims in question. A general settlement of claims as between the War Office and the new Colonies has been effected, and it was contended on behalf of the Colonies that the terms of this settlement must be held to cover all such claims.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. Keeve, of Mooidam Farm, District Kroonstad, served in a corps of Boer scouts in aid of the British forces in South Africa; whether he is aware that his sheep were commandeered and his plantation and homestead destroyed; and whether he has received any compensation. (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has no information as to the facts of the case mentioned by the hon. Member, but, while I am not able to hold out any hope of reopening the question of compensation claims, inquiry will be made if desired for the information of the hon. Member.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the abolition of the post of chief clerk in the Audit Office, and the granting of £100 per annum additional to each of three principal clerks for performing part of the duties of chief clerk when the then occupant of the post retired on pension, were decided on as part of the reorganisation scheme which came into force on the 1st of November, 1905; and whether he will give the date from which £50 of the private secretary's non-pensionable private allowance of £150 per annum was merged in the annual salary of the private secretary for pensionable purposes. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The grant of £100 to the principal clerk at the headquarters of the Exchequer and Audit Department, and the alteration of the emoluments of the private secretary, both took effect from the 1st October, 1906, the date of retirement of the chief clerk.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that in making promotions to the more highly paid collectorships and other positions in the Customs Department, the Board of Customs has given prior consideration to the claims of certain persons and has ignored the seniority and efficiency claims of collectors who are Irishmen, he will give instructions that in future promotions the seniority and efficiency claims of all collectors should be considered irrespective of nationality. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) There is no foundation for the statement in the Question.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has consulted the Irish Law Officers or other legal authorities as to the alleged difficulty of drafting the rules required by Section 2 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act to enable purchasers to pay portion of their purchase annuities in Guaranteed Land Stock. (Answered by Mr. Runcimcm.) No, Sir.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state when rules, if any, were made enabling purchasers under the Purchase of Land Act, 1891, to redeem their annuities by Guaranteed Land Stock; have such rules been published or made known to the purchasers; and where and how can a copy of them be obtained. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) As I explained in my Answer to the hon. Member for Carlow on the 9th ultimo, to which the hon. member has already been referred, no rule is required to enable the redemption of an annuity to be made in stock.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, with regard to the issue of rations (meat and bread) to the men of the Royal Marines quartered ashore, he will consider the possibility of reverting to the old conditions under which married men had the option of drawing their rations for a consideration or of catering for themselves. (Answered by Mr. Lambert.) It would not be in the interests of the men of the Royal Marines to reintroduce the old system under which a man who did not draw his ration in kind received no money allowance in lieu. At present, if a man is permitted not to draw his bread and beef ration in kind, he is allowed 6d. a day in lieu.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Select Committee on Post Office Wages, paragraphs 43 to 47; whether the officer of the Post Office thus mentioned has, since giving his evidence before the Select Committee, been given a considerable increase to his salary; whether he will state the reasons leading to the additional emoluments being paid to this official after tendering such evidence; and, in view of the Report, what steps are to be taken to ensure efficient service in the Post Office Medical Department. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have read the paragraphs referred to. As the hon. Member was informed in reply to a Question asked in this House on 29th April last, the increase in the salary of the chief medical officer was authorised, before he gave evidence before the Committee, on the ground that the salary was not considered to afford adequate renumeration for the duties of the post. The recommendations of the Select Committee will receive the most careful consideration.

To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that Lord De la Warr has lately made experimental borings in the open common land of Ashdown Forest with the view of finding and working coal and iron; and whether, seeing that Ashdown Forest is a regulated common under a Provisional Order and award by the Board of Agriculture made under the Commons Act, 1876, under these circumstances, and having regard to the rights of the commoners, he will say what steps the Board propose to take in the matter. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We have no official information on this matter and the Board have no power to intervene. The Provisional Order and award vest the management and control of Ashdown Forest in a body of thirteen conservators, one being the lord of the manor or his representative, and the remainder being elected by the commoners. It rests with the conservators to take any steps that are necessary to protect the interests of the commoners.

To ask the President of the Board of Education if the recommendations of his Majesty's inspector, subsequently approved by the Board, as to the staffing of Penarth School have been carried into effect; and if not, what steps are being taken by the Board to secure that their recommendation shall be fulfilled. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) His Majesty's inspector's recommendations made in February, 1906, in regard to the staffing of this school were not adopted by the local education authority, who suggested an alternative scheme of staffing which the Board were able to approve in July, 1906. Since that date the Board have received no complaints that the staff is in any way unsatisfactory.

To ask the President of the Board of Education if the teachers in the Landaff non-provided school receive salaries on the same scale as the teachers in the Glamorganshire council schools; and whether, having regard to the difficulty which appears to have been experienced in obtaining a suitable staff for the school in question, the Board will now ensure that the staff is suitably paid. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have no information on the first point raised in the noble Lord's Question, and, in regard to the second part of the Question, I am unaware that there has been any such difficulty as he refers to.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent serious tramway accidents; and whether he will consider the advisability of referring the question of brake power to the Committee now sitting to inquire into railway brakes. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I must refer my hon. friend to the reply I gave to a Question on the same subject which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth asked on Thursday last.†

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the statements and materials furnished by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in connection with the Edalji case, which were submitted to the Attorney-General, have now been considered by the Attorney-General; and, if so, with what result. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The statements and materials referred to were submitted by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as disclosing a case against a person whom he suspected of having been concerned in the cattle-maiming outrages, of one of which Mr. Edalji was convicted, and also of having been the author of certain anonymous letters which have been attributed to Mr. Edalji. The Attorney-General and Sir Charles Mathews have advised that these statements and materials disclose no case even of a prima facie character against the individual indicated by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and that no action can be taken thereon.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of men and women, giving the number of each sex, who are detained in the London workhouses as harmless lunatics on account of senile decay or

† See (4) Debates, clxxx., 325–6.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that since the 2nd July the system of performing the night duty in Mountjoy Prison has been changed, and one warder is now detailed to discharge the same duty that formerly was always carried out by two warders; whether it has been reported to the Government that there is now an extra warder on the staff since the introduction of this new method and the curtailing of a warder off the night staff; whether in future the warder who is detailed to perform night duty will be allowed off the whole day after performing this nine hours' duty, upon which he is not relieved to partake of any refreshments; and whether, in view of the number of warders who are now exempt from night duty, he will arange that they shall take their turn of night work, as they can be granted fourteen days' leave of absence at a time. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. Such changes are to the advantage of the warders as lessening the amount of night duty. No extra warder has become available for duty since the change was made. Warders detailed for night duty are allowed off duty from 2 p.m. before taking up night duty, and are also off duty on the following day until 2 p.m. It is not proposed to make any change in this practice. Warders on the night duty have facilities for taking light refreshments. Certain officers holding special positions as clerks, storekeepers, and tradesmen are exempted from night duty, and it would not be desirable to alter this practice. All warders may be granted fourteen days' leave of absence.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain from the Commissioners of National Education the number of schools taken into connection since 1903; how many of these schools have or are expected to have an average attendance of between 10 and 20, between 20 and 30, between 30 and 50; and how many above 50. (Answered by Mr Birrell.) Since 1st. January, 1903, the Commissioners of National Education have taken into connection 83 new schools, classified as follows:—

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners can take any steps to enable the tenants on the Lawlor estate, near Muckross, Killarney, to purchase their holdings, as the remainder of the estate has already been sold. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) No proceedings for the sale of this estate are pending before the Estates Commissioners and they are not aware that any negotiations for purchase are in progress. The case, therefore, does not appear to be one in which they can take any action.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have made inquiries into the claim of Mrs. Mary D. Herlihy, of Glandagh, Killeentierna, Farranfore, county Kerry, as an evicted tenant; and what has been the result of the same. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Mrs. Herlihy's application was received on 7th June last, that is to say, after the special staff of inspectors appointed to inquire into evicted tenants' applications had ceased work. The Estates Commissioners have, therefore, bad no inquiries made into the case, and have not yet decided whether they will take any action upon the application.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet ascertained if the Commissioners of National Education were unanimous in their decision to refuse to change the rules dealing with the civil rights of teachers in Ireland. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, in their opinion, it is undesirable, in the interests of the public service, to give information such as is asked for in the Question.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the numbers who, for the triennial period ending 31st March last, are to be disallowed promotion to second-of-first grade and first-of-first respectively through the adverse Report of a new inspector on his first visit to a school, though the two preceding Reports were up to the required standard of proficiency; and if the National Board take into account the representations made, on different occasions during the past two years, by the central executive committee of the National Teachers Organisation, and protesting against teachers being so deprived of promotion by investigating all cases of this sort in which the managers requested a re-inspection and were refused. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the promotions of teachers who may be eligible by service are at present being made. It would be impossible, at the present stage of the work, to furnish the information asked for in the Question, but if the Commissioners should be supplied with particulars of any case involved in the terms of this Question the matter will be fully considered. No teacher is refused promotion without a careful investigation of all the circumstances of the case.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will direct the Poor Law officials in attendance at the forthcoming revision of the lists of parliamentary and local government electors to keep, according to each constituency or parliamentary division, a record of the number of persons disfranchised by reason of the non-payment of the poor rate within the statutable period, and of the receipt of union relief within the qualifying period. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It has already been decided to make arrangements with the object of securing that the record suggested in the Question shall be kept at the approaching revision.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have taken any steps to ensure the immediate provision of the additional accommodation recommended by the head inspector for the school at Ballyforan, county Roscommon, of which Mr. P. J. Geoghegan is teacher. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The manager of this school applied to the Commissioners for a grant towards the erection of a new school-house for the accommodation of the girls and infants attending the present mixed school. Owing, however, to the smallness of the attendance at the present school the formation of a separate school as proposed would not be admissible under the rules now in force. The question of providing suitable accommodation for the pupils in attendance, having regard to all the circumstances, is under consideration by the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can now state the result of the negotiations between the Admiralty and the London County Council with reference to the generating station at Greenwich, having regard to the fact that the Committee appointed to inquire into the matter reported on 17th December last.

I cannot add anything to the Answer given to the hon. Gentleman last Monday. † I understand the Council has now risen, and the question cannot come before them again till their next meeting at the beginning of October.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the position occupied by the Channel Fleet in reference to other fleets in the recent gun-layers' test was wholly or partly due to the deflection dials of the gun-sights of the heavy armaments being incorrectly marked in the case of new ships, the bulk of which have been placed in the Channel Fleet.

The reply is in the negative. The "King Edward VII.," with the same deflection dials used in 1906, was second ship in the Navy in the previous year in the Heavy Gun-Layers' Test.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the small expense involved, the Board will consider the advisability of placing the surviving Crimean veterans of the Navy on at least as good a footing as those of the Army; and, if this cannot be done from the charitable funds of Greenwich Hospital, whether it can be done by Order in Council.

It is not proposed to differentiate between men with war service in the Crimea, and others with equally meritorious service elsewhere. On the whole the Navy pension system is substantially more favourable to the men than the system in force in the Army.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the War Office has differentiated, and that the effect has been to put the men on an unequal footing? I can give him specific instances.

Any instances which the hon. Gentleman can give me I shall be glad to have considered.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if complaints have reached the First Lord of the Admiralty as to the loss incurred by salmon-fishery lessees along the shores of the Moray Firth through movement of the salmon to deeper waters owing to big gun practice of the fleet; and whether orders can be given that this gun practice should take place in the Moray Firth only after the close of the salmon-netting season or, alternately, that it should take place in the open sea.

The Admiralty are giving careful attention to representations made to them, and the Commanders in Chief of the Fleets which visit Scottish waters will be requested to bear them in mind in future years.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that for the two years ending June, 1907, two Admiralty dredgers were lent to the Egyptian Government without any payment being exacted for their services; that Lord Cromer states in his annual Report that they rendered very effective assistance in deepening the channel at the port of Alexandria; and whether he can explain the circumstances which induced the Treasury to sanction the loan of these dredgers free of charge for so long a period to a rich port which, in 1906, is stated by the Foreign Office Report on the trade of Alexandria to have dealt with entrances and clearances amounting to 7,800,000 tons of shipping.

It was considered by the late and the present Boards of Admiralty that as the improvement of the port would largely benefit the mercantile marine, and to a certain extent the Navy, the loan of these two dredgers was justified. The whole cost of their maintenance was borne by the Egyptian Government.

Could not the same thing be said of every port around the British coast? What induced the Treasury to sanction this?

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Transvaal Government has introduced a Bill to prolong the restrictions of the Chinese Labour Ordinance after that Ordinance expires in March next; and, if so, what action His Majesty's Government intends to take.

The policy of the Transvaal Government, so far as I understand it, is to repatriate the Chinese labourers at the termination of their indentures, without permitting those indentures to be renewed. Under the Letters Patent the existing Labour Importation Ordinance lapses on 21st March, 1908. An interval will therefore arise during which some provision for the government of the Chinese who are awaiting their turn to go is indispensible to the order and security of the Colony and, indeed, to the complete termination of the Chinese labour experiment. His Majesty's Government have always recognised that some measure of this kind would probably be necessary as part of the machinery of repatriation upon expiry of contract, and the Secretary of State explained the necessity in his place in Parliament in reply to a question on 17th June last. I have as yet no official information upon the provisions of the Bill which is said to have been introduced to that end, and in the absence of the full text it would be premature to express an opinion.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is anything in the law of the Transvaal which will make it impossible for the Kaffirs who take the place of the Chinamen to compete with skilled European labour?

asked whether the Transvaal Legislature would have to make a new Ordinance to carry on the contracts of the Chinese labourers after the expiration of the time fixed in March next for the completion of those contracts?

I fail to distinguish between the substance of the hon. Member's supplementary Question and that of the Question on the Paper.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the present Bill introduced into the Transvaal Legislature will cover the finishing contracts from the time of expiration in March next and also provide regulations or Chinese labour after March next?

Though I am not informed of the precise conditions of the measure, I presume it will provide for the government of those Chinese who are awaiting the expiry of their indentures. It is certainly not advisable that they should be turned loose.

May I ask whether this Bill will contain regulations dealing with restrictions on Chinamen after March next, and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will take these restrictions under review and, if they contain conditions of slavery, veto the Bill now before the Transvaal Legislature?

I think it would be very inadvisable for me to express an opinion as to that hypothetical question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question?

It is a question very largely of opinion as to the extent to which Kaffir labour will come into competition with skilled white labour, and whether that labour will compete to a greater or a less extent than the Chinese labour.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have a draft of the Bill in this country?

I do not think it has yet passed the Legislative Assembly, and after that it has to go to the Legislative Council, and then come here.

Have the Government been consulted in this matter, as the Bill practically re-enacts the Ordinance which the Government said they would not enact?

The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me. I do not know what the effect of the Bill is. It is not the practice of self-governing Colonies to submit their Bills to the Home Government before passing them.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the draft of a Bill, published in the Gazette of the Transvaal Government, which would deprive Natives of the Transvaal of the right of access to the Courts of law in certain cases, and render them dependent in such cases upon the arbitrary will of the Transvaal Ministry; and what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take.

At the same time may I ask the Under-Secretary, of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the proposed legislation in the Transvaal Legislature which is intended to abolish access of Natives to the Law Courts in the case of certain decisions of the Governor in Council, and to establish the right to depose, remove, and intern chiefs and headmen, and to transfer tribes and individuals from one district to another upon such conditions as the Governor may determine; and whether these conditions are in keeping with the principles embodied in the Transvaal Constitution for the protection of Native rights as to reserves, habitation, and the paternal care of this Government.

I would refer the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Gravesend to the Answer to Questions on this subject on Thursday the 8th instant.† The Secretary of State does not think that any opinion as to the Bill can be usefully expressed till he is in possession of its detailed provisions and of the reasons for which it has been introduced.

Is there any reason why all human beings in our Colonies should not be equal before the law?

That is rather an extensive programme to be dealt with by way of question and answer.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have now received from the Transvaal any I reply to their telegraphic inquiry as to the Bill published in an extraordinary Government Gazette of Saturday, 3rd August, abolishing the access of Natives to the Courts of Law in respect of decisions administratively taken by which individual natives or whole tribes can be transferred against their will from one district to another.

The Secretary of State is still awaiting the answer to his inquiry.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received any information to the effect that the Government

I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Bill introduced in the Transvaal Legislature for the re-establishment of the field cornet system was laid in draft before this Government previous to its introduction; what will be the duties and responsibilities of the new organisation; and whether it is intended to have any military functions.

The Bill in question was not laid in draft form before His Majesty's Government: it is one which is fully within the competence of the responsible Government of the Transvaal. The Secretary of State has no information as to the details of the Bill beyond what is contained in Press telegrams, not always conceived with the intention of representing the legislative projects of the Transvaal Government in the most favourable light.

Has not the field cornet system always prevailed in the South African Colonies since they were settled?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the loss of life that occurred at the Isthmus of Panama during the construction of the works by the original French company among the labourers recruited from Jamaica and the other West Indian islands; and whether, under the circumstances, the Colonial Office will recommend that the greatest circumspection should be employed with regard to any contracts or attempts to recruit labourers from any of our Colonies for the new Panama Canal works.

The Secretary of State has every reason to believe that the Governors of the various West Indian Colonies are acquainted with the past history of the works on the Isthmus of Panama, and that they are alive to the exigencies of the present situation. A copy of the hon. Member's Question, and of my reply, will be forwarded to the Governors.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to protect British-Indian subjects who are lawfully resident in the Transvaal Colony from the identical disabilities imposed upon them by the still unrepealed Law 3 of 1885 of the late Republic, against which protests were then urged.

It is impossible to deal adequately with the matters raised by the hon. Member within the limits of an Answer to a Question; but I may observe, first, that Law 3 of 1885 of the late South African Republic was amended in important respects in 1886. Secondly, that the Supreme Court of the Transvaal has put upon a very important section of that law a construction more favourable to the British-Indian than that which the Courts of the late South African Republic gave to it, holding that the law did not compel Asiatics to trade in locations. Thirdly, that the Asiatic Law Amendment Act passed this year is regarded by Lord Selborne as securing a permanent and substantial improvement in the position of Asiatics settled in the Colony by definitely recognising their rights in respect of residence, and by allaying the dread entertained by the European community of a large increase in the Asiatic population, and thus leading to a more favourable attitude on the part of the European community. Full information upon all these matters will be found in the Papers laid before Parliament; but it should be understood that His Majesty's Government have no power to protect British-Indians in the Transvaal from the operation of a law in force in the Colony.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the published draft Immigration Restriction Bill of the Transvaal, which threatens to inflict additional disabilities and humiliations upon His Majesty's Indian subjects; and whether he proposes to take any steps to protect them.

The Secretary of State has seen the draft Bill referred to by the hon. Member. It will be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure, but no statement can be made as to the action of His Majesty's Government with respect to it pending its receipt in the form in which it is passed by the Transvaal Legislature, when its provisions will receive attentive consideration.

Is it not the case that in some instances Bills are submitted by the self-governing Colonies to the Home Government before being discussed by the Colonial Legislature?

It is done sometimes as a matter of convenience. It all depends on the arrangement between His-Majesty's Government and the self-governing Colonies.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information which can properly be made public showing that the Persian Government has appealed to the Russian Government for assistance in consequence of internal disorders, or that one of the princes has raised an army against the Persian Government.

No such information has reached His Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the present position and whereabouts of Sir Harry Maclean; and whether there is any immediate prospect of his release.

Sir Harry Maclean is believed to be somewhere in the vicinity of Al-Casar, but we have no information as to his exact whereabouts. His Majesty's Minister at Tangier is doing all he possibly can with the view of obtaining his release.

Have the terms of the release been communicated to His Majesty's Government?

The hon Gentleman had better put down a Question.

I have put down several Questions on this subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the commercial attaches have been withdrawn from Berlin and other Continental capitals; and, if so, does this action mean an abandonment of the policy of commercial representation at embassies abroad.

My right hon. friend would refer the hon. Member to the Board of Trade Journal, No. 544, of May 2nd last, on page 213 of which will be found a statement giving the information desired. The new arrangements therein detailed took effect on July 1st last.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the charge on the Exchequer, arising out of the Small Holdings Bill in the year 1907–8, is to be £100,000 for the quarter ending 31st March, 1908; whether it is contemplated that the charge arising in future years will be, for the four quarters, £400,000 a year; and whether this annual charge will be deducted from the nucleus available for old-age pensions.

The expenditure in connection with the Small Holdings Bill during the current financial year will be very small, as the Bill will not come into operation until the 1st January next. The sum of £100,000 is, as was stated by my right hon. friend in introducing the Bill, a contribution from Public Funds to the Small Holdings Account for the first year. Whether any, and if so what, further contribution will be required in future years is a question which can be considered when necessity arises.

asked if, for the whole year, other three-fourths would be added?

I would rather not commit myself to any predictions.

But it is in contemplation that it may be necessary?

It may be necessary.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that during the passage of the Small Holdings Bill through Committee upstairs a clause was added such as that any loss arising out of action under the Bill may be charged against the National Exchequer instead of against the county council making the loss, that this clause was added by the Committee against the wishes of the Government, that in spite of the numerical strength of the agricultural interest on the Committee no attempt is being made in the House to restore the Bill on Report to its original condition; and whether, in view of the fact that no private Amendment to this clause can be reached under the scheme of closure by compartments, he will represent to the Board of Agriculture the advisability of putting down an official Amendment to prevent this application of public funds.

The attitude of the Government in regard to this matter will be fully explained, should the occasion arise, by my right hon. friend in charge of the Bill.

But the closure by compartments will prevent this being brought on.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to any apparatus for controlling the speed of motor omnibuses so as to prevent the possibility of their travelling beyond a fixed maximum; and, if so, whether he will cause experiments to be made with such apparatus with a view to its application to motor omnibuses within the Metropolitan area.

I understand that there is no such contrivance actually in use, but it is possible that mechanism which would effect the object proposed may be invented. In that event the Commissioner of Police will carefully consider the question of requiring such apparatus to be fitted to motor omnibuses in the Metropolis.

Will the Commissioner of Police make experiments with it?

said it was rather difficult to say whether it would be within his power to do so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the action of the Metropolitan Police in picketing and taking the names of speakers at open-air Socialistic meetings and not at other open-air meetings; whether this action is taken on his authority or on the authority of the police authorities; and why such action is taken; and, if for no legitimate reason, will he cause this system of shadowing Socialists to be abandoned.

There is no picketing by the police at any open-air meetings, Socialistic or other. Some police are placed on duty near all meetings, with instructions to keep the peace and regulate traffic. On occasions a record of names is kept, but such action is not confined to any one class of meetings.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Manchester Corporation have submitted to his Department new building bye-laws; whether he can state why they have not been confirmed; and is he aware that similar bye-laws have for some years been in force in Levensholme, a suburb of Manchester.

The corporation submitted the draft of bye-laws as to new streets and buildings to the Local Government Board, who returned it on the 15th June last for consideration of some notes and suggested alterations. The Board have not at present heard further on the subject. The draft differs in some respects from the bye-laws in force at Levenshulme. Moreover, since those bye-laws were made various modifications and improvements have been made in the Board's Model Series upon which they were founded.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that rural district councils desire to co-operate with county councils in the mitigation of the dust nuisance by spraying the roads with tar; whether the Local Government Board have decided that the rural district councils cannot incur expense in this direction; what are the grounds for this decision; and whether some modification of it is possible, in view of the fact that localities will be greatly benefited by this method of treating the roads.

I am aware of the desire referred to. I presume that the roads to which the hon. Member alludes are main roads. These in rural districts are maintained by the county council, and the question is whether a rural district council can legally contribute towards the cost of spraying them with tar. They could do so if the operation could be brought within the terms of Section 3 of the Highways and Bridges Act, 1891, but I am advised that it cannot safely be held that this is the case.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this during the recess?

Yes; that is one of the matters I hope to go into during the recess.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General when it is proposed to put into force such of the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Post Office Servants as have been accepted by his Department.

I am afraid I cannot say more at the present moment than that the recommendations of the Select Committee are receiving careful consideration.

Shall we have any pronouncement from the Postmaster-General before the end of the session?

I hope my right hon. friend will be in his place to-morrow, and he will then be able to answer questions on this subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when it is probable that the regulations governing the grant of £100,000 for new schools will be published.

I cannot yet fix the exact date, but I hope these regulations will be issued in the course of a few days.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can say whether the Swansea local education authority have refused to pay the full salaries of the teachers in the non-provided schools; and if so, on what grounds; what was the date of his interview with the managers of those schools; what was the substance of his letter to the Swansea local education authority; when was it sent; whether he has received any reply; and, if so, what was the substance of such reply.

I understand that the local education authority have paid all the teachers' salaries on the scale which the authority has hitherto recognised, but not on the scale which the managers claim. I had an interview with the managers on 16th July, and on the same date wrote to the local education authority inviting the observations of the authority on the statements made by the managers. This letter was acknowledged on 18th July with an intimidation that the holidays would prevent an immediate full reply, but that as prompt attention as possible would be given to it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the scale paid by the managers is the same scale as obtained in the council schools, and is the scale insisted upon by the National Union of Teachers; also whether this dispute has not been going on for some two or three years; and whether he does not see his way to induce the local education authority to arrive at a settlement?

I am most anxious to see a settlement attained. The dispute has been going on some considerable time, but not on the precise point now raised. I do not understand that any scale is required by the National Union of Teachers or exists in council schools. Every teacher is paid according to his own particular merits.

Does the right hon.; Gentleman know that these teachers were called out by the National Union on the question of pay?

I have not received any information on that point.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is satisfied that the teachers of the Roman Catholic school at Mortomley have now been paid the salaries which have been overdue to them for some considerable time.

I understand that the matter referred to by the noble Lord is in the course of immediate settlement between the local education authority and the managers of the school.

If the matter is not settled before the end of the week will the right hon. Gentleman use his powers to being about a settlement?

I think it unnecessary to make any statement on that point.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, in spite of the recent deputation from the border towns to the Prime Minister on the subject of the trout fishings in the Tweed, and his reply thereto, the obnoxious trespass notices are still in existence, and the people of the district are thereby debarred from enjoying their traditional privileges; and whether, in view of the feeling entertained in regard to the combined action of the new riparian proprietors, he will, before the end of the session, make a statement as to the intentions of the Government in the matter.

As my hon. friend is aware, the duty of informing myself fully upon this subject was laid upon me recently by the Prime Minister, with a view to its further consideration by the Government, and I am taking the necessary steps to that end; but it will not be possible to make any further statement as to the intention of the Government before the end of the session.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can say when the Report of the Committee on House-letting in Scotland will be issued.

The Report has not yet been received; but I understand that it will be received shortly.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three years ago the contract was entered into for the sale of the estate of Stanley V. Coote, Esq., Elphin, Roscommon, to the tenants under the Land Act, that the cash to be paid to the landlord has not yet been advanced, and that consequently the sale remains incomplete; and whether, seeing that the cash necessary to complete the sale in the case of the King-Harman estate has been found some time ago, he will say whether there is any special reason for the delay in settling the Coote estate, which was listed at the same time as the other.

The purchase agreements in this case were lodged two and a half years ago. The advances would, in the ordinary course, have been made before now, but there has been some delay in connection with the allotment of turbary for the use of the purchasing tenants. Arrangements are now being made as regards turbary, and as soon as these are completed the Commissioners will be in a position to make the advancess.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has considered the statement on oath, sworn before a magistrate, of William Welsh, a Protestant, father and only surviving parent of the two Protestant boys, William J. Welsh and Samuel Welsh, who are detained in Nazareth Lodge Roman Catholic Industrial School, Belfast, against his expressed wishes and conscientious convictions; and whether he will now make the necessary order for their immediate discharge to their father's custody under the circumstances that he is anxious and well able to maintain them.

I have received from the hon. and gallant Member the statement referred to in the Question, but as I have informed him by letter, I have found it necessary to direct further local inquiries to be made before arriving at a decision in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many owners of untenanted land have refused to sell such land to the Estates Commissioners for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants; and whether he will state, with reference to such cases, the acreage of the land which the Estates Commissioners desired to buy and the price offered per acre in each case.

The Estates Commissioners inform mo that in sixteen of the cases referred to in paragraph 41 of their special Report on Evicted Tenants the owners have refused to accept the Commissioners' offer for untenanted land, which was required for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants and for the other purposes of the Act. The land comprised in these sixteen cases amounted t') 3,405 acres, and the estimated price, inclusive of the bonus, averaged £22 4s. an acre. A reference to paragraph 41 will show that a large number of the owners of untenanted land who were approached by the Commissioners either failed to reply or refused to sell upon any terms, and therefore no precise offers were, or could be, made. In the case of thirty-three evicted holdings which are in the occupation of twenty-two owners, the owners have refused to accept the Commissioners' offer. The land in these thirty-three cases comprised 1,787 acres, and the Commissioners' estimated price, including the bonus, amounted to an average of £12 7s. per acre. A reference to paragraph 23 of the Commissioners Special Report will show that in 290 similar cases the owners refused to allow inspection, with the result that no offer for purchase could be made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-tenant of Ireland is he aware that on the Dickens' property in the townland of Crongheeveera, Ballybrood, county Limerick, there is a farm from which Thomas O'Brien was evicted some years since, but which has always been kept in the landlord's hands; and, now that the tenants have all purchased, will he ask the Estates Commissioners to open negotiations with the agent, Mr. Arthur White, of George Street, Limerick, with the view of admitting back to his father's farm, Patrick O'Brien, of Cloughadareen, Pallasgrean, county Limerick.

The eviction in this case did not take place within twenty-five years of the passing of the Act of 1903, and the evicted tenant's representative is, therefore, not eligible for reinstatement under Section 2.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister why no Minister representing the Scottish Office was present when the financial Resolution relating to the Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Bill was considered in Committee of the Whole House early on Wednesday morning; and whether, when Members are kept here very late to discuss Scottish measures, he will take care that some responsible Minister shall also be in attendance to facilitate their progress.

I am sorry I was not present, but I was not aware that the Bill was coming forward. I will do my best to be present in future.

asked if there was any way by which the Prime Minister could let his Ministers know exactly what business was coming on.

Ministers are like other men, and not always infallible, and sometimes are mistaken in their estimates.

Can the Prime Minister ensure that Ministers shall be present when Questions relating I to their Departments are asked?

I do not think that such absence often occurs [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] except when the earlier Questions are rushed through, for some reason, at a greater pace than usual, and so upset calculations.

It has occurred many times of late.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has been made aware that there is a widespread desire among Members of the House that Parliament, should not sit in the dog days, but should be prorogued about the end of June and meet again in the later months of the year; and can he undertake that the Government will consider during the ensuing recess whether this desire can be met.

I have repeatedly referred to this widespread desire, and am myself one of those to whom it has spread; and my hon. friend may be sure that it is always present to the mind of the Government in arranging the business of the session.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister for what day it is intended that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill shall be put down.

I cannot yet state the day.

May I ask when the Transvaal Loan Bill will be brought in?

I think the Resolution will be taken on, Monday next.