To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say how many boys and girls under twelve and between twelve and sixteen were apprehended by the Metropolitan Police in 1907; and what are the regulations with regard to the detention, care, and feeding of such offenders at the police stations. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Statistics for the whole year 1907 are not yet available. During the first six months of that year, 2,723 boys and girls, Tinder sixteen years of age, were apprehended by the Metropolitan Police. Care is taken to release such offenders on recognisance at the earliest moment, and if it is necessary to detain them they are detained (whenever possible) elsewhere than in the cells, a matron being in attendance in the case of girls and children of tender years. Meals, consisting of tea, coffee, cocoa, or milk, with bread and butter, are given.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many factory inspectors are appointed by his Department to examine the conditions of labour and inspect gear on floating craft in the port of London. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The staff attached to the four London districts and the Kent district, which is available for inspection of docks in those districts, and for the enforcement of the Regulations made under the Factory Act, is seventeen inspectors and three inspectors' assistants, but none of these is detached for dock inspection solely. The work of inspecting docks is done as part of the general work of inspection under the Act.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the number of the present staff of inspectors and assistant inspectors, male and female, of factories and workshops; and whether it is proposed to make any, and what, additions to their numbers in the immediate future. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The present authorised strength of the inspecting staff of the Factory Department, including all ranks is: Men, 152; women, 13. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not in a position to make any statement at the present time.

To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the number of acres of land for small holdings applied for in each county of England and Wales under the Small Holdings Act of last year, the number of applicants, and generally how the Act is working. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Our information as to the applications made to county councils for small holdings under the Act of last session is by no means complete, but the following statement shows that in twenty-seven counties in England over 4,700 persons have applied for nearly 87,000 acres—

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the principal sub-post office in Nottingham, situated on the Derby Road, was burnt down in October of last year; that the nearest sub-post office from which the inhabitants of that neighbourhood can get a halfpenny stamp or send a parcel by post is three-quarters of a mile in one direction and half a mile in another; and will he take immediate steps for opening a sub-post office in this populous centre, and, thus prevent a continuance of this inconvenience. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The office to which the hon. Member refers was re-opened yesterday. I approved the appointment of the new sub-postmaster on 11th January, but he could not be installed until certain structural alterations had been made in the premises he offered.

To ask the Secretary of State for India whether information regarding the economic policy of the Indian Government is available in any concise and untechnical form; and, if not, whether, in view of the misstatements and exaggerations regarding the so-called drain, he will consider the desirability of publishing a Memorandum similar to that drawn up by the Government of India in refutation of misstatements regarding its land policy and the incidence of its land assessments. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) A Memorandum of this kind would bristle with points of controversy, if it went beyond statement of material facts. Those facts, from whatever point of view they were selected and adopted, are all of them already accessible. But I may, perhaps, be allowed to draw attention to the official publications annually presented to this House, such as the financial statement of the Government of India and the explanatory Memorandum, both of which contain information on the subject.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say how many males, under the age of sixteen, were convicted during 1907, in the United Kingdom of cruelty to animals and the use of indecent language. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I regret that I cannot give the information which my hon. friend asks for. The figures of crime in England and Wales in 1907, will not be available for some time to come; and even when they are complete they will not enable me to answer this Question. The age of the offenders can be given only when they are apprehended, not when they are merely summoned and fined; and the use of indecent language is not a separate offence.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in Appendix 2 of the recent Report on the Cost of Living of the Working Classes in the principal industrial towns of the United Kingdom, the percentages of the total populations occupying overcrowded tenements, i.e., more than two persons per room, are given for the specified towns of England, Ireland, and Wales, but not for the specified towns of Scotland; it being stated that the figures for the Scottish towns are not available; whether he can state what are the corresponding figures for these Scottish towns; and whether he will consider the advisability of framing the forms for the next Census so as to obtain that information. (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. My attention was directed some time ago to the fact that the figures referred to are not given in the Scottish Census Report, and under my instructions a Return has been prepared for presentation to the House which will give full information on the subject for the whole of Scotland. The figures for the specified Scottish towns are as follows—

Town.	Percentage of population living more than two in a room.
Aberdeen	38·1
Dundee	49·44
Edinburgh	32·94
Glasgow	54·7
Greenock	54·17
Kilmarnock	55·94
Leith	43·8
Paisley	58·76
Perth	28·26

My hon. friend will remember that the Board of Trade Report [Cd. 3164] draws attention to the fact that the tenement system of blocks of small flats is in Scotland the normal type of working-class dwelling, and that the rooms are generally much larger than those of an English cottage. The question of including these figures in the next Census Report will receive consideration.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether penny postage is established between Great Britain and Shanghai, Amoy, Canton, and other places in China where there are British post offices, or agencies of the Hong Kong post office; if so, whether, under these circumstances, he will give instructions for the penny postage system to be extended to the British post offices at Constantinople and Salonica from this country; and what is the estimated cost of this reform. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There is at present a penny post for letters between this country and the agencies maintained by the Hong Kong Post Office at Shanghai and other places in the Chinese Empire. That Empire has not yet joined the Postal Union and the position of the Hong Kong agencies is therefore different from that of the British agencies in the Ottoman Empire, which like Great Britain is a member of the Union. Having regard to this and other circumstances of the case, it is not intended at present to extend the penny rate to these offices.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether Edgeworthstown post office is about to be made a sub-office instead of, as for years, being head office of the Granard district; if so, on what grounds this change is being made; is any reduction in staff contemplated; and will full inquiry be made before the change takes place. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) After very full consideration I have decided to reduce Edgeworthstown to the rank of a sub-office. The change is purely an administrative measure in order to improve control and organisation. One of the Edgeworthstown officers will be transferred to Longford to meet the increase of work there consequent on the change. The alteration will not in any way impair the existing postal facilities of the district.

To ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received a resolution from the Londonderry County Council referring to the recent refusal of the Irish Privy Council to sanction the fishery limit at the entrance to Lough Foyle as fixed by his department; and what action he proposes to take in reference thereto. (Answered by Mr. T. W. Russell.) The Department have received the resolution in question, and have informed the Londonderry County Council that the Lord-Lieutenant in Council declined to approve of the by-law referred to. As that decision is final, the Department are unable to take any further steps in the matter.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of boy clerks appointed in the years 1905, 1906, and 1907; and also the total number of appointments made to the following classes, viz., Second Division, Assistants of Customs, Excise, and assistant clerks, showing the number of these appointments which were gained by boy clerks excluding those gained by ex-boy clerks.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Lords of the Treasury will amend the regulations made under the Superannuation Acts in such a manner as to enable the service given by boy clerks employed in the Post Office, Dublin, who have been promoted to adult clerkships in the Second Division, to be counted after the age of sixteen years, for the purpose of calculating pension on retirement after continuous service, in the same way that sorters, stampers, porters and telegraphists are permitted to reckon all continuous service after the age of sixteen years for superannuation purposes. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Service as boy clerk, unlike the other cases referred to by the hon. Member, terminates

To ask the First Commissioner of Works what is the estimated life of buildings in reinforced or ferro-concrete, such as is now being erected for the post office in King Edward VII. Street, E.C.; whether he has had any report of how this kind of construction resists the effects of fire; and has he seen any reports or publications respecting the buildings so constructed after undergoing the test of fire at San Francisco. (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) Buildings of ferro-concrete are believed by experts to be at least as durable as those of brick or stone. I have received a very valuable report confirming this opinion on this subject from the Joint Committee of the Royal Institute of British Architects which is available to the hon. Member at the cost of 1s. The experience of San Francisco, though interesting, is not of conclusive value, as the buildings there were subjected to earthquake fracture before the occurrence of fire.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that a widowed woman named Mary Sheppard, of 12, Windmill Street, Limerick, made application for the discharge of her son, Henry Sheppard, from the Royal Navy, the said son being an A. B. on board of H.M.S. "Aboukir"; that she grounds her claim on the Widows' Act, that her husband died on 23rd September, 1907, that her son is her only means of support, and that his late father's employers have kept his position open for his son pending his discharge from the Navy; and whether under these circumstances the claim of this woman will be favourably considered, and her son discharged. (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) In reply to an inquiry made on 19th December, Mrs. Sheppard was informed that her son's application for discharge should be made through the commanding officer. Nothing further is known of the case, but inquiry is being made. Discharge on foreign stations is only allowed in special circumstances, the decision resting with the Commander-in-Chief.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board what were the number of deaths in 1907 in London upon which a coroner's jury returned a verdict of death from starvation, or death accelerated by privation; how many of these took place in Whitechapel; if he has not yet received the Home Office Returns as to these deaths, whether he will without delay obtain from the Whitechapel guardians or from the Poor Law inspector of the district the number of such deaths from starvation in Whitechapel in 1907; and whether he has conferred, or will confer, with the guardians of Whitechapel as to steps to prevent or diminish the number of such deaths. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am not able to give the numbers for the year 1907. The usual Return has not at present been moved for, and I understand that consequently the necessary particulars have not yet been obtained by the Home Office from the coroners. I have communicated with the clerk to the Whitechapel guardians as to the occurrence in that union in 1907 of cases of the kind referred to, and I am informed that the medical superintendent of the infirmary has caused a search to be made and can find only one such case, viz., that of George Wright, who died on 25th July last, and in respect of whom the verdict of the coroner's jury was that he died from pneumonia accelerated by neglect and want of food. I will inquire as to the circumstances of this case, but I am not at present aware of any need for action of the kind suggested in the concluding part of the Question. In connection with this matter the character of the district and the large number of persons of migratory habits attracted thereto by free shelters and common lodging houses must be borne in mind.

To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in the case of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Gorgie, the diagnosis was established as the result of naked-eye appearances or upon bacteriological evidence; and, if the latter, what are regarded by the Board of Agriculture as the bacterial characteristics of the disease. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The diagnosis was based on the naked-eye appearances of the disease. The lesions were so typical of foot-and-mouth disease that no experimental test was considered necessary to establish the diagnosis.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any further steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners towards purchasing the untenanted lands of Clonfin, in North Longford, for sub-division amongst the tenants of the surrounding congested districts. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I informed the hon. Member on 21st February, 1907, that the Estates Commissioners had been unable to discover what persons, if any, are entitled to sell the untenanted lands on the Thompson estate, Clonfin, which it is presumed are the lands referred to in the present Question. The Commissioners have not since succeeded in ascertaining the names of the persons who may be entitled to sell, but if the hon. Member is in a position to furnish them with the names they will make further inquiries in the matter.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what steps have been or are being taken by the Estates Commissioners to effect the reinstatement of Mrs. Mary Eagan in her former holding at Cahirduggan, on the Nason estate, county Cork, having regard to the fact that the farm is in the landlord's possession and derelict. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have communicated to the owner the price which they are prepared to give for Mrs. Eagan's former holding, and the landlord has signified his willingness to accept that price. The matter now awaits the institution of formal proceedings for sale by the owner.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received a copy of a resolution recently passed by the Lismore Board of Guardians with reference to the appointment of inspectors under the Seed Supply Act; whether the suggestion in the resolution that only persons nominated by the county committees of agriculture be eligible will be adopted; and whether he is aware that serious complaints have been made as to the unsuitability of persons appointed on former occasions. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have received a copy of the resolution referred to, but do not intend to adopt the suggestion contained therein. No complaints of the nature referred to in the concluding part of the Question have reached the Board.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to acquire the Parker estate, at Janeville, near Tallow, county Waterford; what have been the causes of the delay in the matter; and what is the present position. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In March, 1905, the Estates Commissioners issued to the Land Judge a request under Section 7 of the Act of 1903 in respect of the estate referred to in the Question. After the necessary documents had been lodged, the Commissioners had the estate inspected in October, 1906. The Commissioners then made an offer to the Land Judge, and, pending its reconsideration by them at the request of the Judge, the lands were let for grazing. On 31st ultimo the Commissioners sent in an amended offer which will in due course come before the Land Judge for consideration.

To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to the fact that the military gas works in Fermoy Barracks have recently been connected with the premises of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company; whether he is aware that the gas is supplied by the Fermoy Gas Company to the military barracks at 2s. 11d. per 1,000 cubic feet and from the military works to the railway company af 5s. 10d. per 1,000 cubic feet; will the gas company be obliged to refund the money received from the railway company; and if the War Office intends to allow the military works to continue to be used for the private supply of gas.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Fermoy Gas Company, a non-statutory body, supplies the military with gas at 2s. 11d. per 1,000, while charging the town 5s. 10d.; has Government sanction been obtained to the supply of the railway station from the barracks gasworks; will the money thus received for War Office gas be accounted for to Government; and whether, as the Irish Courts have frequently decided that this company acts illegally in breaking up streets without statutory authority or the consent of the local authority, the War Office will abstain from assisting the gas company against the town council in its struggle to compel the gas company to resort to Parliament for powers and rates of charge. (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The facts are substantially as stated in the Questions. The Army Council are of opinion that the Military Gas Works should not be permitted to supply any private customers of the gas company of Fermoy, and instructions have been issued accordingly that the supply at present given to the railway company should cease after a week's notice.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any fund is now available out of which a further compassionate allowance might be made to James Norris, Ardagh, county Longford, whose son was killed in the South African War; and, if so, will the case be considered with a view to a further grant. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) If the hon. Member will kindly have the application form, which was sent to him yesterday, duly filled in and returned to the War Office, the case shall receive full consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Private Thomas Morrissey, No. 4333, B. Company, 1st Lenister Regiment, who enlisted in 1894, and was discharged in 1898 suffering from a bad leg, brought on, in the doctor's opinion, by heavy route marching; also, that up to the present this man's leg cannot be cured, and that, through this cause, he cannot follow any regular employment; whether he is aware that this man has made repeated applications to the War Office and forwarded his papers, and has never been given a reply; and whether, under these conditions, a small pension could be given him to enable him to keep out of the workhouse. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This man was discharged after less than four years service in consequence of varicose veins in the left leg. The Medical Board which recommended his discharge was of opinion that his disability was not primarily caused by his service as a soldier. This case was fully considered by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital on his discharge in 1898, who decided that he had no claim to pension. He has been answered six times to that effect, and was informed in March 1906 that no further application could receive attention. He is not, therefore eligible for the award of any pension from Army funds.

To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether anything can be done to better the retiring allowance of quarter-masters who have attained the rank of honorary major, in view of the fact that a combatant major is granted £300 per annum on retirement at the age of forty-eight years, while a man who has risen from the ranks by sheer merit gets only £200 per annum on retirement as a major at the age of fifty-five years. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question has been recently considered, but it has not been found practicable at present to take any steps towards increasing the retired pay of these officers.

On behalf of the hon. Member for West Marylebone I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether every ship which took part in the Naval Review last August had its full complement of officers and men on board; and, if so, how many men of the Royal Naval Reserve and Naval Volunteers were embarked temporarily to man the ships; and what was the total proportion of untrained men carried.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is: Yes, with the exception of midshipmen and junior accountant officers. As regards the second part, none were embarked to complete complement, but about 147 Royal Naval Reserve men were undergoing their annual training in the Fleet at the time. After such a lapse of time the information asked for in the third part of the Question cannot be furnished, but the proportion must have been very small.

On behalf of the hon. Member for West Marylebone, I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many battleships and how many cruisers which took part in the Naval Review last August had to proceed into dock for repairs immediately after the review, or had to be docked before being able to go to sea; and what were the names of the ships, together with the date on which they were last in dock for repairs prior to the review, and the period of their stay in dock both prior to and after the review.

None, Sir.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he can state approximately when the main contract for the works at Rosyth is likely to be let.

Nothing can be done till Vote 10 is passed by the House. In the event of Vote 10 being taken early, it may be possible to let the contract during the summer.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when Vote 10 will be taken?

I propose to take it in accordance with the usual custom immediately after Vote 1, as new works cannot be undertaken till Vote 10 is passed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state when the Naval Estimates will be ready for distribution to Members of this House.

The Estimates are in the hands of the printer, and will probably be ready for issue about Thursday week.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the official publication by the Stationery Office for the General Staff at the War Office of a quarterly review of books of military interest, and to the inconvenience of combining with approval of the volumes reviewed, quotation of unfriendly references to allies, such, for example, as those concerning the Japanese Chief of Staff and the Japanese generals, on page 6 of the January number; whether these references have been communicated by the General Staff to the Royal United Service Institution and distributed at the public expense to headquarters of commands, educational establishments, units, and reference libraries; and whether he will direct care to be taken in future to avoid unguarded official quotation of individual opinion.

The aim of the reviews in the publication in question is to indicate to the officers of the Army the nature and purport of the contents of a book. To do this extracts are indispensable. These books are selected solely for their educational value as military works; and the fact that they are included in the list does not in any way imply approval of the opinions expressed in them. At the same time, I agree with the right hon. Baronet that such quotations as the one to which he has drawn my attention are better omitted, and I have directed that these reviews shall be in future confined to the purely military aspects of the books they deal with. The references were communicated as stated in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it be intended to reduce the number of men serving in the First Volunteer Battalion, Manchester Regiment, of which the headquarters are in Wigan.

I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if the Territorial Army scheme involved a reduction in the number of Volunteers in the counties of Moray and Nairn to about one-half; if he has received memorials from the county council of Morayshire and from the town councils of Elgin and Forres petitioning against the proposed reduction; and if, in view of any such petitions and of the strong feeling which has been aroused, and having in view the record and services of the 3rd Volunteer Battalion Seaforth Highlanders, he can now see his way to sanction the allocation of a battalion of the Territorial Army to the counties named.

The quota of troops which each county is to be asked to raise has not yet been finally settled. A scheme based partly upon population and partly upon units already existing has already been communicated to County Associations. They have been asked to consider this scheme and confer with the General Officers Commanding of their respective commands upon it. Until the reports of these conferences and the recommendations made at them have been considered by the Army Council and received its approval, it is impossible to say how far existing units will be affected by the new scheme, and I cannot therefore, reply to the specific points the hon. Gentleman raises. As regards the Question of the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, memorials have been received from the county council of Elgin and from the Elgin Town Council.

In the event of its being impossible to allocate a whole battalion to the county, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of allocating to it some other branch of the service so that the services of a large number of Volunteers may not be lost to the county?

When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer my Question?

When we have got the Report of the General Officer Commanding, which I hope will be very shortly, the Army Council will be able to consider the matter. We are doing our best to avail ourselves of the services of Volunteers, but, of course, military circumstances may preclude our taking advantage of the offer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a meeting that was held at the Star Hotel, Crieff, on Tuesday evening, 4th February, at which Captain Bathue, adjutant, delivered an address and conferred with intending recruits in connection with the Scottish Horse, Imperial Yeomanry, D. Squadron; and if he has sanctioned the holding of meetings in licensed premises for recruiting purposes.

Nothing is known of this matter at the War Office. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief concerned has been called upon to report upon the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sometimes licensed premises are the only places available for holding a meeting in rural districts?

That may be so, and it is very unfortunate. But it should be avoided wherever possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what proportion of the criminal work, original and appellate, in India is disposed of by district and other magistrates in whose case revenue and magisterial functions are combined, and what proportion is disposed of by magistrates who do not exercise revenue and other administrative powers.

The information asked for is not available in this country, and in view of the labour which would probably be involved, I do not think I should be justified in calling on the Government of India to supply it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that letters addressed to certain individuals in India have been tampered with and delayed in delivery; whether it is by the orders of the Government of India or the Secretary of State; and whether he will consider the advisability of putting a stop to this practice.

The Government of India reported to me that, for special reasons, they felt it to be necessary, in the early part of last year, to take action, which it was within their discretion to take, under the provisions of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. This action was, as I understand, entirely discontinued after about six weeks.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in the interests of good relations between rulers and ruled, he will advise the Government of India to repeal The Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act, 1907, and the Regulation of 1818, under which Lajpat Rai and Agit Singh were arrested and transported without trial.

I cannot admit that the best interests of rulers and ruled would be served by the measure that my hon. friend suggests, and the Answer to his Question is therefore in the negative. I may add that the Act of 1907 is in force in one district only, and that no meeting has been prohibited since it came into force.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Regulation of 1818 and Subsidiary Local Regulations conferring similar powers were of immense value in and after the pacification of Burma in ridding the country not only of the enemies of the Government, but of the enemies of the people, and that these Regulations were welcomed by all classes, notably by the Elders and by the best of the Buddhist clergy?

I am not aware of that, but I am very glad to hear it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the peace of India is promoted by the closing of meetings?

No meeting has been stopped.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Members of Parliament and correspondents of journals in England have been shadowed by detective police while travelling in India; and whether he will consider the advisability of putting a stop to this practice.

If the Gentlemen concerned will address the local governments, if they have been put to any sort of inconvenience by the alleged practice of which my hon. friend complains, I can promise that they will receive every consideration.

Is it not a matter of common knowledge that travellers in India are apt to fall into bad hands?

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State to the Colonies if he is aware that the town board of Port of Spain, under the Port of Spain Waterworks (Amendment) Ordinance, is now empowered the sole party to repair the pipes, etc., of the town properties; that notice of such repairs and payment for the same to the owners of such properties is in many cases imperfectly given and demanded; that on non-payment of such sum, in some cases only amounting to 12 cents. the board has power to enforce, and does enforce, payment by selling such properties or land by public auction before the doors of the town hall, intimation of such sale being generally by advertisement in the local newspaper; that when the board's solicitor does give notice he charges 80 cents. for such notifying letter; that members of the town board have been known to be the purchasers of such properties put up by auction; and, if so, whether he can state what action, if any, he intends to take, with a view to the adoption of a more just method in regard to the collection of such accounts.

The process for the recovery of arrears of rates and charges due to the town board as water authority is laid down in the Ordinance cited by the hon. Member, and is the same as that in force in respect of house rates in Port of Spain. Sale of the property is, however, not the only procsss, there being an alternative by way of distress. The Secretary of State is not aware that any abuses of the nature described by the hon. Member have occurred in Port of Spain, but the Governor will be asked for a Report in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the years in which there were deficiences in the income of the Crown Agents' Office, the amount of the deficiency in each of the last tea years, and the reasons for the deficiencies in each year in which there was a deficiency.

The following deficiencies in the income of the office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies have occurred during the last ten years—

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, by what amount the Crown Agents' Office Reserve Fund has increased during the year 1907; and if he will state the main items which have led to the increase.

The increase in the Crown Agents' Office Reserve Fund during 1907 amounted to £46,863. The main items were: Dividends on Investments, £12,280; commission on issue of loans, £17,422; and surplus income, £14,587.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the salary drawn by the senior Crown Agent for the Colonies is considerably in excess of that paid either to the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office or the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury; if so, what is the amount of the excess and the reasons for placing that office upon a higher rate of pay than that enjoyed by the last-named two officials; and whether, in all the circumstances, the Secretary of State will appoint an independent committee to inquire into and report upon the constitution, administration, and management of the office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies and the salaries paid to the officials thereof, to the end that it may be placed upon a footing in all respects with other departments of His Majesty's Civil Service.

I beg further to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the exhaustive inquiry instituted in 1901 by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham extended to the internal management and clerical organisation of the office of the Crown Agents; and, if not, whether he will himself institute an inquiry in this particular direction so as to satisfy himself on the head in question.

The senior Crown Agent for the Colonies receives £2,500 a year. As I explained to the hon. Member on Tuesday last, the Crown Agents are not Civil Servants and the true position is to compare their salaries with those given to officials of great commercial and financial institutions. The Secretary of State associates himself with the views expressed by his predecessors upon the work and administration of the Crown Agents Office as an organisation distinct from the Colonial Office; but he will be glad to consider the desirability of appointing a small inter-departmental Committee to report upon the best method of selecting the clerical and technical staff for the Crown Agents' Office, and particularly to consider the conditions of tenure, the scale of payment of salaries and pensions, and how far the arrangements in that office are in accord or can be brought into harmony with the principles governing the Civil Service.

Have the Government assured themselves that the kind of preference which is granted to British industries and merchant firms through the Crown Agents' Office is quite in harmony with the free trade policy of the Government?

asked for notice of the Question.

Was it not necessary lately to give a personal allowance to a Crown Agent to enable him to occupy the higher position of Under-Secretary?

I should not like to say one way or the other.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state how many indentured Chinese labourers there were in South Africa at the end of 1907; and at what date will the indentures of the last batch of Chinese imported expire.

The number on 31st December last, was, I understand, 35,676, and the latest term of labour under indenture will expire in January, 1910.

I beg to ask the Secretary for India a Question, of which I have given private notice, whether it is the fact that no Press correspondents will be allowed to accompany the punitive expedition which the Government of India is about to despatch against the Zakka Khels tribesmen; and, if so, who is responsible for this omission of the means of communication to the public here of the incidents of that expedition; and on what ground is this prohibition based laving regard to the restraining influence of the Press.

said he was not sure whether this regulation had been made or not, but he would inquire.

asked whether hon. Members would have any opportunity of expressing their opinion as to the policy of this expedition, or, indeed, whether it was wise at all?

said he did not know what his right hon. friend the Prime Minister would say, but personally he hoped that no discussion would take place till the expedition had at all events made some advance.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any indication as to the probable cost of the expedition, how many men were to be employed in it, or was this war to be entered upon like all other wars without the slightest consideration.

said that His Majesty's Government had sanctioned this expedition, and the expedition must therefore continue. If the House was of opinion that it was a wrong expedition, or that its cost was likely to be excessive, it would be for the House to pronounce its judgment.

asked what opportunities hon. Members would have of forming an opinion on the question, whether the information at the disposal of the Government was to be communicated in any way to hon. Members, or whether no opportunity whatever was to be given to them of expressing an opinion on a matter which would involve an expenditure of thousands and tens of thousands of pounds while people in this country were starving.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman, having regard to the importance of this subject, would have any objection to telegraph to the Indian authorities and Lord Kitchener asking whether it was true or not that this prohibition of war correspondents to accompany the expedition had been issued, and, if so, whether the House would be able to revise it.

said that he had already promised to ascertain the reasons for the regulation having been made; and, if it had been made, whether or not it might be altered.

gave notice that he would take the earliest opportunity to draw attention to the practice of the Government of the day embarking on military operations without giving the representatives of the people any opportunity whatever of saying whether or not the expenditure was justified, and to move a Resolution declaring that expeditions of this kind should not be undertaken without giving hon. Members some opportunity of expressing the opinion of their constituents on the subject.

said that the expedition was stated to be an expedition of a punitive character to inflict "speedy and condign punishment." Had the right hon. Gentleman considered the cost of money as well as of lives that would be involved?

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that during the last great war our Japanese allies not only refused to allow war correspondents to accompany their troops, but provided them all with comfortable hotel accommodation at Tokyo?

What is this war about?

said that if the information that had been already supplied to the House in the form of a Question and Answer circulated with the Votes that morning was read it would be seen that there was a perfectly good account given of the causes of the expedition.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would telegraph instructions to India that the troops were not to burn buildings, orchards, farms, and so on, and to turn women and children out into the cold.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in proposing to the Powers that the task of restoring public security in Macedonia should be undertaken by an increased gendarmerie force under the command of foreign officers with executive authority, and that the funds for the maintenance and equipment of this force should be secured by a reduction of the Turkish regular army now stationed in the country, His Majesty's Government have re-affirmed the proposition laid down by Lord Lansdowne that, in the event of the adoption of such a policy, it would be reasonable to expect that Bulgaria would be willing to carry out a simultaneous and corresponding reduction, and to enforce measures to the satisfaction of the Powers, with the view of preventing the organisation and equipment of insurgent bands in her own or Turkish territory; and that, failing a satisfactory arrangement on this basis, the Powers should give a collective guarantee that during the specified period, Bulgaria would not be allowed to occupy any portion of Turkish territory.

The proposition to which the noble Lord refers was not included in the proposals recently made by His Majesty's Government. These proposals were put forward in general terms, and a small decrease of Turkish troops, whose place would be taken by a corresponding increase of gendarmerie, would not necessarily raise so large a question. In the event of proposals of wider scope being made in the future, it would be reasonable that the question of some form of guarantee such as Lord Lansdowne indicated should again be considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when there will be laid before Parliament additional Papers relating to the proceedings at the Hague Conference; and whether he is in a position to explain the reasons which made His Majesty's Government, after proposing the creation of an International Prize Court of Appeal, unable to join in signing the Convention thus obtained at the time of its signature by many other Powers.

The Papers are in course of preparation, and will be issued as soon as possible, but they are very voluminous and have not yet been published at The Hague. The British Plenipotentiaries signed none of the instruments drawn up by the Conference before they left The Hague, and the same course of procedure was adopted on the occasion of the First Peace Conference. There was no reason for making the Prize Court Convention an exception to this course.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the speech of Baron Herenthal to the Hungarian Delegation to the effect that the employment of gendarmerie to hunt down the bands in Macedonia was impracticable; whether he has received favourable or unfavourable replies from the other Powers; and what steps he proposes to take to secure the acceptance of the proposals of His Majesty's Government.

My attention has been called to the speech in question; replies in this sense have been received from the Austrian and Russian Governments. As soon as the views of all the Powers are known, His Majesty's Government will consider what course they should adopt.

In what sense?

In the sense which is evidently familiar to the hon. Member who put the Question.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums, if any, have been issued to the Government of the Transvaal, under the Transvaal Loan Guarantee Act, 1907.

The Government of the Transvaal recently issued £500,000 six-months Treasury Bills, which are guaranteed under the provisions of the Act referred to. There has been no issue to the Government of the Transvaal under the guarantee.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the expediency of imposing a tax on titles.

I would refer my hon. friend to the reply which I gave him yesterday upon another suggestion for taxation.

As my Question was not reached yesterday, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what his reply was.

The reply has been circulated with the Votes. I am afraid the hon. Member had not the curiosity to look for it. It was this: "Any suggestion in regard to new taxation will receive my most sympathetic and careful consideration." Perhaps by this I may anticipate the answer to other Questions.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state whether he has been able to consider the petition handed to him last September with regard to the vital necessity of improving the Anstruther Harbour; and whether he can hold out any hope of a favourable reply.

The petition has received my careful attention, and I regret that, until the Anstruther local authorities are in a position to comply with the conditions which, as they have, been informed, apply to cases of this kind, the Treasury is precluded from making a grant for the harbour.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the case of Patrick Callighan, of Preston, who was sentenced to death for murder, was afterwards reprieved and is still in prison; whether he is aware that, owing to poverty, the witnesses for the defence were not all present at the trial, and that Martha Whiteside, the principal witness against the prisoner, went to the police, but that Detective-Inspector Simpson refused to hear what she had to say; that Martha Whiteside disappeared; that the prisoner's brother communicated these facts to the Home Department; that finally Police-Inspector Walmsley, who had charge of the case, disappeared; and whether he will institute an inquiry by his Department, or cause a public inquiry into this matter, without delay.

This case has received repeated and most careful consideration, and inquiry has been made with regard to the recent statements by the prisoner's brother. I find that the prosecution arranged to pay the expenses of the witnesses whom the accused wished to call at his trial, and he furnished a list of eight witnesses, who were warned to appear and told that their expenses would be paid, but the defending counsel in the exercise of his discretion decided in the prisoner's interest to call only-some of them. It is not the fact that Martha Whiteside went to the police, and that they refused to hear what she had to say, or that she has disappeared. I am informed that Inspector Walmsley has left the district for reasons which, have nothing to do with the present case. I can find no reason to doubt that the prisoner was rightly convicted of the murder.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to re-introduce the State Reformatories Bill this Session.

Yes; I intend to re-introduce the Bill, though possibly the name may be altered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of his resolution carried at the Imperial Conference on 9th May, that an inquiry should be held to consider how far, and under what conditions, naturalisation in one part of His Majesty's dominions should be effective in other parts of those dominions, for which purposes a subsidiary conference was to be held if necessary, whether this inquiry could be extended to the consideration of the desirability of uniformity as far as practicable in the treatment of natural-born British subjects of Asiatic descent, who are much more numerous than naturalised aliens of Asiatic descent.

The subject referred to at the end of the Question is, in my opinion—which is confirmed by that of my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, within whose jurisdiction it falls—outside the scope of any inquiry which could proceed from the resolution on the subject of naturalisation which was carried on my motion at the Imperial Conference.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman acquiesced in the proposition that natural-born Asiatic subjects should be placed in an inferior position to that of Asiatics naturalised under the proceedings contemplated; and, if not, whether the right hon. Gentleman would make representations on the subject to the Minister affected, whether at the India Office or the Colonial Office.

I think that is a Question for my right hon. friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is proposed to introduce the reduced scale of fees for naturalisation.

There has been no decision to reduce the fee charged for the grant of a Certificate of Naturalisation.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the fact that the British External Trade Returns for January exhibit a decline of £1,893,342 in imports of raw materials, a decline of £2,400,140 in imports of manufactures, and a decline of £999,468 in exports of manufactures; and whether, in view of the amount of unemployment and undeserved distress which these figures indicate, he adheres to his resolution not to legislate on the subject of unemployment in the present session.

I am aware of the figures referred to. I do not think that the returns, which only relate to a single month, can be taken as conclusive evidence of distress and want of employment in the country. I see no sufficient reason for altering the conclusion already arrived at with regard to legislation on the subject of unemployment during the present session.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in December the returns showed more out of work to the extent of 1 per cent. as compared with the return for the previous month?

Yes.

Do the Government not intend to propose any legislation with regard to the unemployed?

Only that which is mentioned in the King's Speech.

Is it not very easy to show by statistics that on any day in the present winter there must be at least 400,000 men out of work in the United Kingdom?

That may be so, but I should like to remind the hon. Member of his speech on 2nd November, 1907, in which he said: "To judge from; past experience we must expect depression in 1908, but there is little reason to anticipate disaster. It is not a black time but a slack time that is before us." I am prepared to meet that contingency with all the sympathetic and valuable methods at our disposal.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Nottingham, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the principal sub-post office in Nottingham, situated on the Derby Road, was burnt down in October of last year; that the nearest sub-post office from which the inhabitants of that neighbourhood can get a halfpenny stamp or send a parcel by post is three-quarters of a mile in one direction and half a mile in another, and will he take immediate steps for opening a sub-post office in this populous centre, and thus prevent a continuance of this inconvenience.

The office to which the hon. Member refers was re-opened yesterday. I approved the appointment of the new sub-postmaster on 11th January, but he could not be installed until certain structural alterations had been made in the premises he offered.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state how many head postmasterships in Scotland have been filled by officers from the Post Office service in England during the last five years; how many vacancies in England were filled by officers from Scotland during the same period; whether he can state the aggregate amount of the salaries in each category; and whether he can state how many of these officers were previously in service in each country before appointment as head postmasters.

I deprecate the comparison implied in the hon. Member's Question, since it suggests a separation, which fortunately does not exist, between the Post Office service in Scotland and England. I find that seventeen head postmasterships in Scotland have been filled by officers from the Post Office service in England during the last five years; thirteen head postmasterships in England have been filled by officers from Scotland during the same period; the aggregate amount of the salaries was £4,500 and £4,460 respectively. One of the officers who received appointment to a postmastership in Scotland was originally employed in Scotland, and four of the officers who received appointments to postmasterships in England were originally employed in England.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the observations on the subject of corporal punishment in the Revised Instructions for 1902, in which it is urged that no punishment which excites the emotion of terror should ever be employed; that in infant schools no punishment should be inflicted which causes bodily pain; that in schools for older children corpora punishment should be discouraged as an ordinary expedient in a boys' school and altogether in a girls' school; if he will say whether steps have been taken by the Board of Education to give effect to these observations; and what number of cases of the corporal punishment of boys, girls, and infants occurred during 1907 in the public elementary schools in London, Liverpool, Birmingham and Leeds.

The Revised Instructions have been superseded by a volume entitled "Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers and Others Concerned in the Work of Public Elementary Schools," on page 11 of which the subject of corporal punishment is dealt with. The attitude of the Board is substantially the same as that indicated by my hon. friend's quotation. The discipline of the school and the means taken for enforcing it are primarily matters for the local education authority, and the Board do not intervene unless specific cases of alleged excessive punishment are brought to their notice. I have no information as to the last paragraph.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the necessitous area school grants are to be confined this year to those areas which established their claim to them last year, although other areas have now greater need; whether these original beneficiaries have now established a special right to a subsidy from the Exchequer not enjoyed by other districts; and how long this subsidy is to continue.

In order to ensure that the sum available for distribution should not be exceeded, it was necessary to limit the recipient authorities to those who established a claim in the preceding year. I hope to bring forward in connection with the forthcoming Education Bill financial provisions dealing with Exchequer grants in aid of the expenditure of local authorities under Part III. of the Act, in which due regard will be had, amongst other things, to the rate-burden in certain areas.

asked whether any reduction in the advances to necessitous districts had been made this year.

said he could not tell in each individual case whether it was so or not; but a limitation had been put on the amount which was allowed for the purpose of administration.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there were now many local areas in the country not entitled to the grant, where the rates were heavier than in other areas which were receiving these grants.

said there were such areas, but they were very few.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the conviction of Mr. James Rich, of Rodbourne, Malmesbury, a well-known Wiltshire farmer, for allowing 208 sheep to be removed from Castle Douglas, in Scotland, to Wiltshire without having them dipped in accordance with the recent Sheep Dipping Regulations; whether he is aware that the chairman of the bench stated that Mr. Rich was liable to a fine of £1,000, according to the Sheep Dipping Regulations; and whether he will take steps to obtain such information from practical farmers, with a view to making these regulations a proper safeguard instead of an arbitrary restriction and danger to traders.

The Board have been informed by the Clerk to the Wiltshire County Council that Mr. Rich was convicted for having removed 308 Scotch sheep from his farm in Wiltshire without having dipped them twice in accordance with the provisions of the Wiltshire Sheep Scab Regulations of 1905. These Regulations are made in pursuance of Article 9 of the Sheep Scab Order of 1905, which was issued by the Board as the result of the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee on sheep-dipping after hearing the evidence of farmers and others possessing a practical knowledge of the subject. The Board have no information as to any statement made by the Chairman of the Bench.

asked whether many experienced farmers were not of opinion that salving sheep, though a more costly and difficult process than dipping, was a better safeguard against sheep scab; and whether, therefore, farmers who wished to salve their sheep instead of dipping them, might not be allowed to do so.

said he was aware there were some farmers who held that opinion, but on the other hand the medical officers of the Board held the contrary view.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, owing to the strong opinion of agriculturists that a full inquiry should be immediately instituted into the whole subject of swine fever, and the fact that such an inquiry must necessarily occupy many months, the President of the Board of Agriculture will reconsider his decision on the subject, and will appoint a departmental committee on the subject forthwith.

The suggestion that the Departmental Committee should be appointed was very carefully considered by my noble friend, but he came to the conclusion that before any step was taken in this direction it would be better to await the results of the new Orders which are about to be issued and are based, as he has already indicated, upon actual experimental investigations conducted by the veterinary officers of the Department.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, how much has been spent in the last ten years on re-afforestation in Great Britain and how much in Ireland by the Woods and Forests Department; and how much is received yearly from Ireland by that Department in the shape of quit and Crown rents.

The amount spent by the Commissioners of Woods during the last ten years in England and Wales on afforestation, by which term is meant planting new areas not previously under timber, as distinguished from replanting in old woods, is about £5,000. The cost of land in England and Wales bought during the same period for afforestation is about £1,200. There has been no expenditure on planting new areas in Scotland or Ireland, but £25,000 has recently been spent in buying land in Scotland for afforestation. The Commissioners of Woods receive about £30,000 annually in the shape of quit rents on land in Ireland.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if any part of the purchase money for the estate recently acquired for the purposes of afforestation will be paid during the present financial year.

The whole of the purchase money was paid last November.

asked on what Vote this money appeared.

replied that there was no specific Vote in connection with this matter, but if any hon. Member desired to call in question the policy he could do so on the salaries of Ministers.

The money has been paid. On what Vote does it appear?

The money has been paid by the Woods and Forests Department. It is a matter of administration.

Then has the money been spent without the authority of Parliament?

I understand that is so. £25,000 was the money required for the purchase of the estate, and that has been spent without any direct Vote in Supply.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he can state how many persons were appointed county magistrates for the county of Lancaster during the year 1907; and how many of those appointed were working men.

In the years 1906 and 1907 there have been 449 new magistrates appointed for the county and boroughs of Lancashire, viz., 147 for the county, and 302 for the boroughs. The total number appointed in the five preceding years was 700. I am not able to classify the occupations of the magistrates who have been appointed.

Has it been the invariable practice not to nominate as county magistrates gentlemen already appointed as borough justices?

Yes, I consider it undesirable that the two should be combined. Where a man is on the borough bench there is no reason why he should be put on the county bench. If the office is regarded as an honour it should be distributed, and if as a responsible duty, the duty should be divided among as large a number of gentlemen as desirable.

But is it not sometimes desirable to have a county magistrate in a borough to whom officials may go when they want documents signed or summonses issued?

I have given the question my best consideration, and I think the balance of argument is against one man holding the two offices.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that the salaries of several professors of Scottish universities are paid out of Parliamentary grants, and that these professors are subject to religious tests before being appointed; and whether he will introduce legislation making these public appointments of teachers open to all, irrespective of the Church to which the applicants belong.

My hon. friend was good enough to draw my attention to this subject last session; but I am not able to give any undertaking as to legislation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many evicted tenants have been restored to holdings in county Clare up to the end of 1907; and how many evicted tenants remain to be dealt with in the same county.

Up to 31st December, 1907, the number of evicted tenants in County Clare who had been reinstated in their former holdings or provided with new holdings, was eighty; and the number remaining for whom the Estates Commissioners propose to provide holdings, if possible, is fifty nine.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the resolutions adopted by the county council of county Down in August, 1903, and again in December, 1907, urging that the Parliamentary polling districts should be remodelled so as to make them coterminous with the electoral divisions and that such a change would effect a saving to the county funds, besides facilitating the preparation and revision of the lists of voters; whether the Local Government Board has also considered the suggestion of the same body that powers should be given to the county councils to have the register of voters made out alphabetically in town-lands, or, as regards urban districts, in streets, where the county council may consider that course necessary or desirable; and whether he will undertake to introduce a Bill to give effect to these recommendations or give facilities for a private Member's Bill on the subject.

The Local Government Board have no powers in regard to the division of Parliamentary counties or boroughs into polling districts. The attention of the Irish Government has, however, been directed to the resolutions referred to in the Question. The boundaries of Parliamentary counties in Ireland are based upon the boundaries of baronies, half-baronies, and parishes, which areas-are no longer administrative units for any purpose of local government. The administrative units are the district electoral divisions, and these are not coterminous with any of the areas mentioned. It would be very difficult if not impossible, to carry out any general provision by Statute to the effect that Parliamentary polling districts should always be coterminous with district electoral division" or groups of divisions. It often happens that an alteration of one or more of such divisions is an administrative necessity, and upon every such change it would be necessary to make corresponding alterations in the Parliamentary polling districts. The inconvenience thus caused would probably outweigh any advantage which might attend the adoption of the first of the county council's suggestions. The second proposal relates to a matter which does not appear to be of first importance, and I am not aware that any very useful purpose would be served by its adoption. It will, however, receive consideration. I do not, as at present advised, propose to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendations, nor can I promise facilities for a private Member's Bill.

asked if it was not possible to follow the precedent set in regard to London and appoint boundary Commissioners to inquire and report on any possible readjustment?

I will consider that proposal, but I am very much occupied at the present time.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on reconsideration by the Estates Commissioners, the claim of John R. O'Sullivan, evicted tenant on the Lady Singleton estate, county Cork, has been admitted; and, if so, whether steps are being taken under the provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act, to provide him with a suitable holding.

This evicted tenant's application for reinstatement is at present under reconsideration by the Estates Commissioners.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when the Report of the Royal Commission on the Feeble-Minded will be issued.

The Chairman of the Royal Commission informs me that the Report of the Commission, which is in an advanced condition, has recently been delayed by unforeseen circumstances; but it is confidently hoped that it will be completed before Easter.

asked the Prime Minister when he proposed to introduce the Amendments to Standing Orders with regard to blocking Motions.

They will be taken when it is ascertained that they will be unopposed.

Has the right hon. Gentleman asked the Patronage Secretary if he intends to oppose them.

said that one day last week his noble friend the Member for the Chorley Division asked a Question of the Chief Secretary in regard to the Vote for which a Supplementary Vote was now asked, and the answer given had caused him and those who worked with him some little trouble, because it was very difficult to identify the statements made in the reply with the figures to be found in the Estimates. The Question was "What had been the expenditure for law charges in Ireland under the sub-head 'Fees to law officers and fees to counsel,'" and the Chief Secretary's reply included the statement that fees to law officers amounted to £7,000. He could not find in the Estimates those figures at all. He found that the fees to law officers in the Estimates stood at the sum of £1,000, and that the £7,000 was found in the Estimates as fees to counsel. That was a totally different question altogether, and was included in his noble friend's Question, but was not replied to, and he hoped that they would have an explanation of this discrepancy. But that was not really the serious aspect of the Supplementary Vote. The Government the other day took part in a debate initiated to call attention to the condition of affairs in Ireland, and they declared through the mouth of the Chief Secretary, the law officers and others, that everything was fairly satisfactory and much better than it had been. It was a most remarkable fact that in face of these declarations for the first time for many years the Irish Executive had to come forward and ask for Supplementary Vote in respect of law harges for expenses incurred in connection with criminal prosecutions, and also in regard to the police. Not only was the Estimate which the Government made for this particular purpose proved to be insufficient, not only was the £1,000 proved to be altogether inadequate, but the Government now had to come to the House of Commons and ask for a Supplementary Vote of £2,500. He believed he was right in saying that this particular sub-head of the Vote was created in 1879–80, and he thought that he was also right in saying—and he challenged the Chief Secretary to contradict him—that since 1879–80 there had been no equal to the sum now expended; he found that the average for the ten years ending March 31st, 1906, for all but eight or nine months of which the Unionist Government were in power, and practically prepared the Estimates, was only £886 on the Appropriation Account. That was more eloquent than the speeches of Gentlemen opposite in regard to the results of their administration, when they asked them to accept their simple statement that the condition of things was all that could be desired, and that all it caused was a certain amount of anxiety. When they found that the first result of the tenure of office of the Party opposite was to increase the law charges so that they had to come to Parliament for an extra Vote, they were justified in saying that here again, as in the statistics produced the other day, there was far more powerful and eloquent testimony to be found in support of their contention than in any of the arguments produced by the Government. He was aware of the fact that a few years ago additions were made to this vote in respect of the Public Works Department, and that that amounted to about £12,000 a year, and that had to be taken out altogether in comparing the figures, which he had done. Under the whole Vote there had been unexpended in the year 1902–3 £6,500, the next year £8,400, the next year £6,000, and the next year £1,100. This year there was nothing to surrender, because everything had been expended, and in addition to that the Government as a result of the policy of conciliation had to come and ask for more money. The last thing he would do was to oppose the Government in an honest endeavour to secure justice and enforce the law; but did this represent expenditure which had been honestly incurred in such an endeavour? The result of this money paid to law officers for State prosecutions were two convictions involving eight persons. The other day, in the debate, the Solicitor-General stated—and he listened with amazement, because it came from one of the law officers speaking with all the authority and responsibility of his office—that the Government in making these prosecutions had found that the real difficulty which confronted them was due to the statements made by Members of the Opposition that the Government were in sympathy with the offence of cattle driving. He had read the references to these trials in several Irish papers, but he did not remember having read one single statement by counsel representing the people prosecuted to the effect described by the Solicitor General. He did remember a statement made by counsel to a very different effect, viz., that these prosecutions were a sham, and that there was no reality in them. He had made it his business to look up the reports of these cases, and he would take one statement alone. He did not think the Chief Secretary or the Attorney-General would attempt to argue that it was an exceptional statement or in any way inaccurate. On November 25th, in the Nisi Prius Court before Justice Wright, Mr. Macdermott acting for the accused, said—

"If the Attorney-General said, like Mr. Birrell, that these practices were reprehensible, perhaps they were, but they were not illegal. If cattle-driving was illegal, where were the men of education and position, and where were the Members of Parliament, who, on every platform throughout Galway, month after month and week after week, advocated this form of agitation? They were told that the Irish Executive itched to prosecute members of this great political party, but the same Executive in fact prosecuted five farmers in the West of Ireland, who had no criminal intention, but who were endeavouring to undo the work of devastation done in the county in the past. He asked the jury to come to the conclusion that these people were gilty of no crime. They would be lending themselves to do the dirty work of other people if they found any other verdict than not guilty."

That was the language of a counsel de-fending these people, who they knew from his distinguished reputation would have used the best arguments he could command in defence, and if he could have brought home to the Opposition the charge made by the Solicitor-General, that it was due to their misrepresentations, he was sure he would very gladly and properly have done so, but he made no reference to it. It was never referred to until the Solicitor-General spoke on behalf of the Government, and he hoped they would have some further justification for such a charge, for which there was not a shadow of foundation. This expenditure of public money had been absolutely wasted, and he was convinced that Mr. Macdermott represented the views of the great majority of the people in Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom when he said that if they were going to embark on the expensive and laborious process of State prosecutions, surely in common justice and fairness they should prosecute all those who came under the charge, whatever might be their position in life or in Ireland in regard either to a political or any other movement. The Chief Secretary told them in his speech that his fingers itched to prosecute one Member of Parliament, who had since been sent to prison. He did not know what the sensation of itching fingers might be, but he was perfectly certain of this, that whatever may have been the condition of the Chief Secretary's fingers, his hands were paralysed. If he and the Government had intended to make these prosecutions real they would have prosecuted all concerned in the offences, regardless of individuals and the position they held in the world. They prosecuted these farmers from the West of Ireland, these farm labourers, these lads, and the juries acquitted them or disagreed; and could anybody blame the juries? They knew very well that in this country it was a difficult thing, in a case where popular opinion was largely aroused, for a jury to give a verdict against that popular feeling, but it was far more serious and difficult in Ireland, for a juryman, if he found a verdict contrary to popular opinion, was likely to find himself an unpopular person, which probably meant social ostracism and might mean that the man and his wife and family could not get even the necessaries of life. The Chief Secretary when he took office talked of boycotting, and told the House that he knew something of boycotting, the boycotting of Nonconformists in Church of England parishes. He thought the Chief Secretary's language about boycotting now would be very different from what it was then. He did not think now he would get up in the House and compare boycotting in a county in the West of Ireland with boycotting of Nonconformists in an English parish where there was a vast majority of Church of England people. The responsibility for the ridiculous results of those State prosecutions rested solely with the Government counsel, for those who prosecuted put the whole case in the words he had just read to the House. If they had intended that this public money should result in something practical, the Government would have taken steps very different from those they did adopt. He was in this difficulty, that it was not part of their policy to interfere with the Government in the fearless discharge of their duty for the maintenance of order, and, therefore, he had not thought it right to put down an Amendment to reduce this Vote; but he did not hesitate to say that this money had been wasted in a profligate manner owing to the want of courage and determination on the part of the Government. The prosecutions had failed, not because there was no evidence, but because the Government had failed to carry them through with courage and determination, and it was a remarkable fact that for the first time they should have a Supplementary Estimate in regard to these law expenses, and that at the same time they should have the results he had described, unsatisfactory in themselves if one compared them with the expenditure, and ten times more un satisfactory if one judged of them by the effect they must have had on the people and on the maintenance of law and peace in that country.

said that with reference to the first question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin he would reply as well as he could, and explain the discrepancy in the figures. The answer which the Chief Secretary had given the other day in reference to the amounts spent on law officers' salaries related to the salaries of the law officers. The Supplementary Estimate which they were now discussing was for fees.

The Question was about fees and not salaries.

said the Question might have been misinterpreted as well as the answer, but he had the return, and the figures had reference to the salaries of the law officers and not to fees.

Here is a copy of the answer given by the Chief Secretary. It says—

"Fees to law officers, voted £7,000, expended £5,740. General law expenses, etc."

said that must have been a mistake. Those were the salaries and not the fees. He thought the right hon. Gentleman only wished for an explanation of an answer which was certainly a little misleading. The real question was the important one as regarded the increase in the expenses for these prosecutions, and the fact that a larger sum was asked for now than in previous years, and the fact that for the first time for some years a Supplementary Estimate was asked for. That was, he admitted, perfectly true, but he would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the general expenses for law charges had been continually reduced for twenty-five years, and were brought down last year and the year before to a lower figure by many thousands than they had been for a long time. In 1881–1882 the total amount voted for law charges was £105,669. In the following year, which was the largest on record, they rose to £126,396. They then came steadily down to £70,000 in 1893–1894. They came down in 1900 to £68,000, and rose in the following year to £70,000. In 1902–1903 they were £68,517; in 1903–1904, £68,600; in 1904–1905 £65,416; in 1905–1906, £64,416; in 1906–1907 £62,652; and for the present year the original estimate was £62,875. So that, with the exception of last year, the sum was smaller by several thousands than any sum voted in previous years.

What were the figures for 1898–1899?

The figures were small that year—£62,660.

Is not that less than last year?

said it was, but the following year, 1899–1900, they rose to £67,000. The total amount voted for the present year including the Supplementary Estimate would amount to £65,224, and that was actually less than for the year 1904–1905. In addition to this, several additional charges had been put in recent years upon the Vote for Law Charges that were not on before. In 1889 the expenditure of the legal department of the Board of Works, £3,500 a year, was added to the Vote, and considerable expenditure in connection with legal department of the War Department. In 1899 an addition of £8,400 was made to the Vote for the High Sheriffs' expenses of receiving Judges of Assize. These sums amounted to £12,000 a year, and in addition to that, in 1901 the law expenses of the Department of Agriculture were added to the Vote. He had not the figures but they amounted to a very considerable sum, for the Agricultural Department carried on business all over Ireland, and was constantly involved in disputes which led to legal expenses. He thought it would be reasonable to assume that they would not be less than £1,000 or £2,000 a year. There had been added since 1889 at least £13,000, probably £14,000, which were not charged upon the, vote before. If they deducted that from the total amount of the Vote for this year they would bring it down to very nearly £50,000 as compared with over £100,000 twenty-five years ago. No doubt there had been more expended in the last year than in previous years, and in view of what had been said as to the terribly disturbed condition of the country it was only natural that there should be. He had always admitted that there were some portions of Ireland in a disturbed condition, which gave very great trouble. In addition to that, when they changed the venue in criminal cases an immense amount deal of additional expense was incurred. They had been blamed for proceeding against these men in the way they had done. He supposed the only alternative was to put in force the Crimes Act, but he did not think that had been suggested by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, at all events without giving the jury system a trial. Whether they were right in persisting in it as long as they did was another question. He thought that they were, and that the results had justified their action. Whether they succeeded in getting convictions or not cattle-driving had died down, and he held it was due to the prosecutions. He held that the calling of public attention to the circumstances of the individual cases by trying them in the ordinary way before an ordinary tribunal had a very considerable effect in inducing the people of the districts to use their own influence to put a stop to cattle-driving. Nobody seriously doubted that the number of cases and the number of persons concerned had very greatly diminished. Cattle-driving was a very easy thing to do. One or two men could open a gate and turn the cattle out of a field. With reference to the Solicitor General's speech, his recollection of what his hon. friend had said was that the difficulties of the Government in regard to cattle-driving had been greatly increased by the fact that Members of the Opposition were stating that the Government were encouraging rather than discouraging it. There was no doubt that some people concerned in cattle-driving thought the Government were encouraging it, and public speeches in which that accusation was made, and which were published all over Ireland, must have had a very great effect in encouraging the very thing they wanted to stop. He thought hon. Gentlemen opposite had not really given them the help they might reasonably have claimed from them. It must be obvious to anyone that whether they were right or wrong in not prosecuting Members of Parliament, they were not wrong in prosecuting the men who actually took part in the drives. In the cases which had been referred to they prosecuted every person they could identify as having actually taken part in the driving of cattle. They did not prosecute any Members of Parliament who merely made speeches encouraging cattle-driving. The right hon. Gentleman said that they prosecuted one particular Member, but that was not so. One of the Judges of the Chancery Division exercising his power of committal for contempt of court had put an hon. Member into gaol for six months, but the Government had nothing to do with that. He did not think that that had had much effect upon cattle-driving, and it should not be overlooked that the most serious cases of cattle-driving were not in the hon. Member's county at all. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the subject of boycotting, and spoke of its serious character. As a matter of fact there was very little serious boycotting in Ireland now.

Oh, oh.

said he would read a report for the East Riding of Galway made by the county inpector in the month of October. He stated that there was no really serious boycotting in the Riding. There were a good many unpopular people who were boycotted to the extent of being unable to get work done locally and some were boycotted in the local shops; but they all contrived in some way to get what they required.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, in accordance with the invariable practice, lay the document from which he has just read upon the Table of the House.

Certainly. It was agreed that it was most difficult to stop boycotting by prosecutions, in fact, it was almost impossible, because prosecutions stirred up feelings against individuals and embittered them. In many cases the persons boycotted were most anxious that prosecutions should not be undertaken because the evil was only increased thereby.

said these Supplementary Estimates had been rendered necessary by the numerous cases that came before the Courts in one way or another in connection with cattle-driving, and it was to the attempts of the Government to deal with this crime that he intended to confine his remarks. On Tuesday last the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary declared that they had considerable difficulty in knowing what the nature of the charge was which the Opposition brought against the Irish Government. This debate would afford them another opportunity of making that point clear. The charge which they made was that the so-called prosecutions against persons charged with cattle-driving were undertaken at a time and under circumstances when the Attorney-General and the Chief Secretary must have known that they would be futile and the money spent on them would be thrown away The Solicitor-General acknowledged that the state of affairs existing in Ireland was a serious one and he asked what were the Government to do under the circumstances? That was not a question for the Opposition to answer. The Government had created the situation themselves, and it was their duty to solve it. They had failed to find a way out of the difficulty and they had handled the question in the worst possible way. Instead of showing a firm front in the early stages of cattle-driving, the Government led those engaged in it to believe that they did not look upon it as a serious offence, and four or five Members of the Government made speeches which he maintained could not be taken to mean anything else than that the Government did not intend to take any serious cognisance of this crime. The Solicitor-General tried to put the blame upon the shoulders of his political opponents for having created the present situation by their speeches. After having heard the declarations of his own colleagues on so many occasions that cattle-driving was not a serious offence and ought not to be treated seriously, the Solicitor-General had the effrontery to turn round and declare that it was his political opponents who had placed the Government in this difficulty. The Attorney-General claimed that cattle-driving had decreased and that the publicity given to the question by his prosecutions had caused that decrease. And yet the Opposition had been frequently blamed for giving publicity to cattle-driving cases by bringing them before the notice of the House of Commons and the country. They were all familiar with the name which the Chief Secretary thought fit to call the Unionist Members from Ireland in April last, for bringing before the House of Commons each case of cattle-driving as it occurred. Now the Attorney-General was claiming credit for stopping cattle-driving, by that same publicity which was a crime six months ago when brought about by a Unionist Member. To say the least of it, such language was highly inconsistent. They must, however, judge this matter by results. What had been the result of the legal proceedings instituted by the Attorney-General? There had been 572 persons proceeded against for cattle-driving, and out of that number only five were convicted. No amount of talk could prove more conclusively than that fact the absolute futility and ridiculousness of those prosecutions. What had all the mild remonstrance against cattle-driving which had lately been indulged in by members of the Government accomplished? Only five convictions out of 572 cases. Probably the Chief Secretary would reply that in 288 of these cases the defendants were ordered to find bail, but he did not see how he could get much comfort out of that. In a great many cases each individual man only took part or wanted to take part in one cattle-drive, after which he would wait until the Estates Commissioners divided the estate up, and then he would get his share. In the 136 cases in which proceedings were taken by indictment, five were convicted, twenty-seven were acquitted, and in 104 cases the jury disagreed. The right hon Gentleman said the Opposition were responsible for these proceedings.