To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Estates Commissioners have been offered by the landlords any untenanted land in the county of Monaghan for the reinstatement of evicted tenants; and, if so, whether he will give the names of the landlords offering such lands and state the decision of the Commissioners in reference thereto. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Proceedings have been instituted before the Estates Commissioners, and have reached various stages, for the sale of the following estates which comprise untenanted land, viz.: Dr. Steven's Charities, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, Trustees of C. E. Porter, Sir T. Jackson, M. S. Moutray, R. R. Fitzherbert, and S. K, Jackson. The untenanted land is not offered specially for the reinstatement of evicted tenants, but will be dealt with by the Commissioners for the purposes generally of Section 2 of the Act of 1903.

To ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in the case of an open-air school held under the terms of Article 44 (g) of the Elementary School; Code, the Board will require a medical I certificate in respect of every child attending such school that the child is unable to receive proper benefit in an ordinary elementary school, or will such certificates be reserved to children attending an open-air school under the terms of the Defective and Epileptic Children's Act, and for children refused admission under Article 53 (b) (3) of the Code. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Such a certificate as is referred to will not be required in the case of open-air schools conducted under Article 44 (g) of the Code for 1908. Schools conducted under The Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899, are subject to the regulations for special schools.

To ask the President I of the Board of Education whether it is I proposed to issue a special edition of the School Code for Wales this year; and, if so, on what date will it be placed upon the Table of the House. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Yes, Sir. The Welsh Code was laid upon the Table on the 2nd July.

To ask the President of the Board of Education whether training colleges, in order to be recognised by the Board, have to fulfil the conditions set forth in Sections 7 (g), 7 (h), and 8 of the Training College Regulations, 1908, and, if not, whether he will state the names of those colleges which are recognised without fulfilling the conditions of the above sections. (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I think the hon. Baronet must be under some misapprehension with regard to this matter. Section 8 of the Training College Regulations, as stated therein, is applicable to all training colleges, and the Board have no reason to believe that any college recognised by them fails to comply with it. Sections 7 (g) and 7 (h) are applicable only to colleges which are not recognised before the 1st August, 1907.

To ask the President of the Board of Education if, in view of the probable effect of the proposals of the Education Bill in single-school areas, the Education Department is prepared, pending definite legislation, to follow the precedent of last Session, by relieving trustees and managers of denominational schools in such areas from pressure in respect of expensive and structural improvements in their schools.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the respective sizes of the holdings of Patrick Early Coohaun, John Holleran Coohaun, and James Nestor Coohaun, annuitants to the Government on the Rosingrave estate, adjoining the De Blaquiere estate, Tubber, county Clare; and whether it is proposed to increase their small holdings out of the untenanted lands on the De Blaquiere estate. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The persons referred to do not come within the provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1903, and it is not proposed to increase their holdings out of the untenanted land on the De Blaquiere estate.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Michael Forde, of Fiddawn, Tubber, county Clare, holds 7 acres 1 rood 36 poles of land on the De Blaquiere estate, 15 acres 1 rood 10 poles on the Lahiff estate; and was he given 40 acres additional out of the untenanted lands on the De Blaquiere estate, and, if so, will he explain the circumstances. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Michael Forde, who holds an uneconomic holding on the estate, is being given portion of the untenanted land adjoining his holding.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Martin Burke, of Eathwilladown, Tubber, county Clare, has a holding of £13 worth of land on the Do Blaquiere estate; whether, in addition, he holds a farm of thirty-five acres at Carrowcraheen, county Clare, about eighty acres in Ballyhogan, county Clare, about twenty acres at Blakemount, county Clare, about fifty acres at Cap panaparty, county Clare; and will he explain the circumstances under which this tenant was given a further increase of about thirty acres out of the De Blaquiere estate. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Martin Burke is tenant of eight acres on this estate, and has been allotted twenty-one acres of the untenanted land. He does not hold any other land as tenant.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estate Commissioners purchased the estate of Mrs. De Blaquiere, Tubber, county Clare; whether the estate included the tolls and customs of the town of Tubber as well as about fifty acres of bog; and whether it is proposed to vest the bog and the tolls and customs in either trustees or the district council, in the interests of the people. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The tolls referred to were not included in the estate offered to the Commissioners. The bogs have been divided amongst the tenants.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the system of allocating the untenanted lands on the De Blaquiere estate, Tubber, county Clare, has given rise to dissatisfaction; whether he is aware that Edward Forde, of Fiddaun, holds 7 acres 1 rood 6 poles of land at a valuation of £6 5s. on the De Blaquiere estate, 26 acres 3 roods 25 poles, valuation £7, on the Labiff estate, and 61 acres 2 poles, valuation £12 12s., on the Rosingrave estate; whether, in addition, Mr. Forde holds a farm of about ninety acres at Ballyhogan, county Clare; and will he explain why, in view of the congestion which exists in the district, this man was given a further increase of land from thirty to forty acres. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Edward Forde holds a small farm at a rent of £4 14s. on the De Blaquiore estate and a farm on the Lahiff estate at a rent of £3 15s. His son has a farm on the Rosingrave estate of the valuation of £9 15s. Forde has been given a parcel of untenanted land adjoining his own at an annuity of £11 18s.

To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty on what date was H.M.S. "Defence," of 14,600 tons, laid down; whether he can state by what date her trials will be completed; and whether any of the German ships laid down in 1904 or 1905 are still awaiting trials.

To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the German battleship "Nassau," of 17,710 tons, was laid down on 22nd July, 1907, and is to be commissioned in August, 1909; whether any of the vessels recently commissioned or about to be commissioned this year in England, viz.: "Defence," "Shannon," "Minotaur," "Lord Nelson," "Agamemnon," "Indomitable," "Invincible," and "Inflexible," can show as short a space of time from laying of keel to commissioning; and, if not, on what information does he found the official assurance that it will be possible for ships of our 1909 programme to be commissioned; before the completion of the German ships to be laid down in 1908. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative, and the remainder accordingly does not arise.

To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state for what practical purpose are the engines of H.M.S. "Indomitable" being subjected to the strain of racing at full speed across the Atlantic; and whether it is sufficient to justify the expenditure of the coal involved. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The practical purpose served is that of an endurance test at high speed.

To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Lord Tweedmouth's Memorandum of 23rd February, 1907, stated; that the Fleets at Home will continue to be combined for war under the command of Lord Charles Beresford, and that therefore the Channel, Atlantic, and Home Fleets would carry out periodic peace exercises together under his command; whether, at the conclusion of the naval manœuvres, Lord Charles Beresford applied to the Admiralty that the Fleets might meet and carry out tactical exercises to gain experience of handling large fleets; whether he can state to what extent this request was complied with in accordance with Lord Tweedmouth's Memorandum; and whether the "Dreadnought" took part in these exercises so that the Commander-in-Chief designated to command the fleets in war might test the tactical powers of this ship for the first time. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I must decline to answer any Question relating to the manœuvres, the subject of which can only have been communicated to the hon. Member by a breach of confidence.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the decision given by the Liverpool stipendary magistrate in the prosecution against the Condensed Milk Company of Ireland; and whether, with a view to safeguarding the interests of genuine Irish products, he will state what further steps, if any, will be taken in this matter by the Public Prosecutor. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) My hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The proceedings were taken at the instance of the Board of Agriculture, who propose forthwith to confer with the Irish Department as to the steps to be taken in the position which has arisen.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that in 1898 100,413 cwts. of line-caught fish were landed in the island of Lewis by 666 boats, whilst in 1907 69,833 cwts. were landed by 451 boats, if he will state for each of these two years the number of steam liners and sail liners employed, and the quantity of fish caught by each of the two classes of boats. (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I am informed that the details desired by my hon. friend for the year 1898 are not available. In 1907 there were 14,714 cwts. landed by steamers and 55,119 by sailing boats.

To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board has the power to substitute two fishery boards for one with regard to the River Ribble, one to have the jurisdiction over the portion of the Ribble and its tributaries which flow in Yorkshire, and the other to have jurisdiction over the portion of the Ribble that flows through Lancashire; and whether, if the Board of Fisheries has this power of administration, the President will in the interests of efficiency, act upon this suggestion. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board could only take action in the direction suggested by my hon. friend on an application by a board of conservators. If any such application is made it will receive careful consideration.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he has instituted a full inquiry into the action of the magistrates at Kildorrery petty sessions in refusing to grant information in the case of an assault endangering life preferred against William Stackpoole; and if he has decided to take further proceedings to bring this man to justice. (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I have fully inquired into this case, and, upon a review of all the circumstances, have decided that the interests of justice do not require that further proceedings should be taken.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that certain head postmen, assistant-head postmen, and assistant inspectors of telegraph messengers at Birmingham have been given forms saying that if the work they are now doing is paid for at a higher rate, as is contemplated in a forthcoming revision, they will not be held to possess any claim to the new appointments; and whether men who have performed such duties for many years to the satisfaction of their superiors are to be considered to have no claim if it is decided to pay for these duties at a higher rate. (Answered by Mr Sydney Buxton.) I will make inquiry into the matter

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the Old-Age Pensions Bill, charities that are already granting annuities to the deserving poor would be allowed to reduce those annuities so as to bring the recipients to the limit of income to be given by the Government, namely £26 per annum, so that they can claim the Government pension. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) There is nothing in the Bill which can affect the discretion which such charities may at present possess either to increase or diminish the amount of allowances made by them. The amount of yearly means which disqualifies for pension under the Bill is £31 10s., not £26 as stated in the Question.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a case decided by the police magistrate of Bombay in which several persons have been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment for throwing stones during the recent Bombay riots; and whether any special reason exists, such as previous convictions or the like, which would appear to justify such severe sentences. (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) I have seen a statement to the effect mentioned in the Question in a telegram published in the newspapers of the 30th July. It is open to the persons convicted to appeal to the High Court.

To ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a case decided by the sessions judge of Allygurh in which a person was sentenced to seven years transportation for sending a telegram of a seditious nature; and whether any special reason exists, such as a warning neglected or previous conviction, which would appear to justify such a severe sentence. (Answered by Mr. Buchanan): I have no special information as to the circumstances of the case beyond what appeared in a telegram in the newspapers of the 30th July. It is open to the accused to appeal to the High Court against the sentence passed by the sessions judge.

To ask the Undersecretary of State for India if he will state what was the cause of the recent rioting in Bombay, on how many days the police and military fired on the mob, and how many persons were killed and how many wounded during the rioting. (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bolton on the 28th July. According to the latest information received by the Secretary of State, the police and military were compelled to fire on six days; among the rioters, fourteen persons were killed and thirty have been reported as wounded. Several police officers have also been wounded.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if there are any qualifications necessary for the appointment of deputy-lieutenants in Ireland, and, if any, can he state if they were complied with in recent appointments made in Queen's County; and whether instructions were recently sent by Dublin Castle to His Majesty's lieutenant of that county instructing him not to appoint Protestants as deputy-lieutenants. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The qualifications are prescribed in Section 33 of The Militia Act, 1882. Since the present Government came into office two appointments have been made to the deputy-lieutenancy of the Queen's County by His Majesty's lieutenant of the county with the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. No information has been received which would raise any doubt as to the qualifications of the gentlemen so appointed. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the distribution of land purchased by the Estates Commissioners, any Unionist or Protestant farmer's son will be accepted as a tenant for any part of such land, or will the selection of tenants be left entirely in the hands of the United Irish League; whether he is aware that in the county Cavan there are several Protestant evicted tenants who have been refused reinstatement because they would not join the United Irish League; and whether he can state, with regard to the distribution of 500 acres in the county Westmeath of a farm called Catharinestown, if the Estates Commissioners will give any portion to Protestant agriculturists. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners do not accept or reject applicants for untenanted land because they are the sons of Unionist Protestant farmers, nor is the selection of tenants left entirely, or at all, in the hands of the United Irish League. No evicted tenants, Protestant or other, have been refused restoration because they would not join the United Irish League. No allotment will be given or refused, on the lands of Catherinestown or on any other lands, on grounds of religion or politics. The Estates Commissioners neither inquire, nor do they know, the religion or politics of any person to whom they give parcels of untenanted land.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if there are only three small ordinary household baths available at the Royal Irish Constabulary Depot, Phoenix Park, for the accommodation of 500 men; if so, will he consider the advisability of more ample accommodation in this institution designed for physical training; if any members of the depot force have recently suffered in health due to insanitary causes, and have several beds recently had to be burned in the depot because of their dirty condition; and what steps, if any, will be taken to remedy the existing state of affairs. (Answered by Mr Birrell.) I am informed that there are at present only three baths at the depot for the use of the men. There are several wash-houses. The erection of six extra baths with hot and cold water has been approved. No members of the depot force have recently suffered in health from insanitary causes. One bed was destroyed about three months ago because its occupant, a recruit who had only then joined, was suffering from skin disease.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many constabulary recruits are at present stationed at Richmond Barracks and the Phoenix Park Depot; who is responsible for the purchase of provisions for these men; what steps, if any, are taken to see that their money is spent to the best advantage; if the recruits have any voice in the expenditure of their pay; if contractors are invited to compete, and by what means; if a depot sergeant is paid £3 a month for spending the recruits' money, and is he relieved of all other duties; and by whom is this money paid. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) There are 340 recruits at the depot and 221 at the sub-depot. A sergeant is detailed to purchase the provisions and supervise the recruits' mess at each depot. Mess sergeants are relieved of all other duty and are paid £3 a month each. They act under the supervision of a district inspector, and the mess accounts are carefully examined by the commandant and the adjutant. The recruits have no voice in the purchase of the provisions. The Inspector-General informs me that the recruits' mess is managed in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. In some cases articles are provided by contract; for instance, tenders for the supply of milk are advertised for.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how much money, invested and otherwise, stands to the credit of the Royal Irish Constabulary Depot canteen; from what source have the profits mainly accrued, and whether the reserve constables have any actual voice in its disposal; whether the depot gymnasium was built out of the profits made in the canteen, and, if so, by whose direction; whether a cricket pavilion, used chiefly by constabulary officers and their friends, was also built out of the canteen fund; and if he will explain why such profits are not devoted to the cheapening of provisions consumed by the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at the depot. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The total amount standing to the credit of the canteen fund is £779. The profits mainly accrue from the sale of liquor. There is a sub-committee, consisting of one head constable, one sergeant, one acting sergeant, and two reserve constables, and all special expenditure from the canteen profits is sanctioned by this committee. The depot gymnasium was built at the suggestion of the Inspector-General, and with the unanimous approval of the canteen committee. The cricket pavilion was built out of the same fund. It is used by all ranks at the depot for cricket, football, hockey, and athletic clubs. A small portion of the canteen profits is devoted to the cheapening of provisions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to two telegrams, dated respectively the 24th and 27th February, 1902, from Colonel Colenbrander, commanding Kitchener's Fighting Scouts in South Africa, to Lieutenant Webber, assuring him that all moneys expended by him in advances to men and personal expenses would be made good to him; whether he is aware that, on the faith of this explicit assurance, Lieutenant Webber expended considerable sums of his own money in the public service, no part of which has been refunded to him; and whether the War Office now repudiates the promise given by Colonel Colenbrander in respect of the refund of these payments.

The telegrams referred to are only two out of many documents relating to the case of Mr. Webber which have received my personal consideration. The time during which Mr. Webber can have been expending money on the strength of the telegrams was less than a month in duration, and I have no evidence of the expenses he incurred, during this time. I am afraid I can only repeat what has already been said to Mr. Webber, viz.: the service which he voluntarily rendered received a fair and reasonable recognition when he was granted a commission in the Remount Department. Much valuable assistance was rendered to His Majesty's Government during the war by others as well as Mr. Webber, but unpaid assistance thus voluntarily given and accepted cannot be considered as entitling those who gave it to claim a pecuniary reward years after the event.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider if the War Office cannot defray the expense incurred on the strength of the assurance?

I am afraid the War Office have no liability even for those expenses.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in dealing with the prohibition of the import of alcohol into southern Nigeria and the resulting loss of revenue to that Colony, he will consider the advisability of assimilating the taxation of Southern Nigeria to that of Northern Nigeria, where the principal source of revenue comes not from alcohol but from the land which is owned by the State.

The Secretary of State has proposed to institute an inquiry into certain controverted facts connected with the consumption of spirituous liquor in Southern Nigeria, but the question of prohibiting the importation is not under consideration.

Is there any intention of extending to Southern Nigeria the system of taxation which obtains in Northern Nigeria?

I could not answer a specific question of that nature without notice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any precedent previous to The Natal Indemnity Act, 1906, of a governor of a self-governing colony, duly authorised to give the Royal Assent to an Act of the Colonial legislature, deliberately withholding such assent until after the dissolution by him of the Colonial Parliament by which such Act was passed; and whether such procedure is sanctioned by the Colonial Office as legal and constitutional.

Sir H. McCallum was authorised on the 13th of August, 1906, to assent if martial law were withdrawn. It was not withdrawn till 1st October, and he then assented. In so acting he appears to have been carrying out the instructions of the Secretary of State consistently with constitutional usage, and the question whether the Colonial Parliament was or was not in session could not affect the legality of his action. I am not aware of any particular precedent or that any precedent was necessary. No precedent to the contrary has ever been cited.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that Her Majesty's Government in the year 1867 declined to advise the Crown to assent to a Bill of Indemnity for New Zealand, where martial law had been proclaimed pending actual warfare, on the ground that its term were too widely drawn and would cover acts wantonly and recklessly committed; whether the terms of the present Indemnity Bill for Natal are in substance identical with those of the New Zealand Bill to which the Royal Assent was so refused; and whether His Majesty's Government will, following this precedent, decline to advise the Crown to assent to the Natal Bill in its present form.

. Yes, Sir, I am aware that an Indemnity Act was disallowed in 1867 on these grounds. The Natal Bill is perhaps open to a similar objection, but, as I have explained, were His Majesty's Government to instruct the Governor to decline to assent, martial law, would be prolonged, and this is a result which it is generally agreed should if possible be avoided. In answer to a further Question by the same hon. Member,

said: I think it is undesirable to in any way jeopardise the situation which happily now shows signs of improvement as between the two Governments.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has caused any part of his recent speech in the House of Commons on the position of Dinuzulu to be telegraphed officially to Natal, and, if so, which part.

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has ever received any request from the London County Council to limit the rate of speed allowed to motor vehicles in London; and whether, in the absence of such a request, he has any power to act.

I do not find that any application under the Motor Car Act, 1903, has ever been received by the Local Government Board from the London County Council for regulations with regard to the speed of motor cars. In the absence of such an application, the Board have no power to act, except as regards any specified highway or part of a highway which does not exceed sixteen feet in width, or on which ordinary motor car traffic would, in their opinion, be especially dangerous. I should add that the powers of the County Council in this matter do not extend to the City of London.

Is the Local Government Board considering the desirability of giving the police power to settle the routes that these vehicles should take?

A private Bill has been introduced seeking to confer on the Commissioner of Police power to divert traffic. In my opinion the Commissioner of Police should have had that power long ago.

asked if the speed of motor-cars was limited to ten miles an hour in the Royal parks, while in crowded thoroughfares they travelled at a much higher speed.

said he was aware of the fact. But the Royal parks could not be compared with the London streets.

Is not the traffic much less in the Royal parks than in the main roads?

replied that the Local Government Board had no jurisdiction over the Royal parks.

asked if the Home Office had not some control over the Royal parks?

Yes, through the police.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of Mr. Stewart in the Liverpool Summons Court, in the prosecution under The Merchandise Marks Act, instituted at the instance of the Treasury, against Sir Thomas Cleeve and Mr. A. A. Cleeve, and heard on Wednesday 22nd instant; whether he is aware that it was admitted that the defendants were selling foreign produce under a name calculated to lead the public to believe that it was Irish, and that the magistrate declined to convict; and whether, in view of the injury likely to result to sellers of Irish farm produce, he proposes to take any further action in the matter.

My hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The proceedings referred to were instituted at the instance of the Board of Agriculture, who propose forthwith to confer with the Irish Department as to the steps to be taken in the position which has arisen. The Board are not aware that the defendants made the admission cited in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has any further information with regard to the alleged burning of a crofter's house in the parish of Creich, Sutherlandshire.

The Answer is in the negative; but as the Member for Ross-shire was informed by the Lord-Advocate the other day, inquiries are being made by the Crown Office.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will inquire if there was any necessity for what seems to be an inhuman and uncivilised practice of burning down the house with some of the tenant's effects in it; also whether the sheriff exceeded his duty in granting the warrant for burning the house, or whether the sheriff's officer exceeded his duty in firing the building without the sanction of the Local Board of Health.

I hope the inquiry which is being made will elicit all the facts.

Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a copy of the Report?

was understood to reply in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will instruct the Local Government Board (Scotland) to circulate to farmers in Scotland particulars with regard to the cultivation of tobacco.

The duty suggested by my hon. friend is not one which seems to lie in the sphere of administration by the Local Government Board.

Then to what Department should the Question be addressed?

The matter is one which affects the Treasury in the first instance.

said that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory reply given by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to his hon. friend the Member for Peterborough, in deference to the Natal Indemnity Act, he desired to say a few words of protest against the sanctioning by the Imperial Government of that Act. That Act was passed to cover in the widest terms all that had been done under martial law during the last seven months in Zululand, but it had never been pretended that there was any war or rebellion to justify the proclamation of martial law, or to care for its continuance. It had, in fact, been proclaimed and maintained directly in opposition to the views of the Imperial Government. The condition of things, therefore, under which that Government was asked to sanction the Act was quite unprecedented. But further than that, martial law had been used against a single individual, and for the purpose of prejudicing his defence against charges of the gravest kind never definitely sormulated. Everyone knew the circumstances attending the arrest, imprisonment, and long secret examination of Dinizulu. He had at length, after seven months, been committed for trial, and upon being committed he was reported to have made a striking statement to the Court, a few sentences of which he (Mr. Mackarness) desired to call to the attention of the Prime Minister. Dinizulu said—

"I emphatically say that I am innocent of the charges laid upon me. If the law called martial law had not been brought into operation in Zululand, and my lawyers prevented by it from going into Zululand, I am sure I should have proved and confirmed my innocence. The result of all this treatment of myself is that I have been shut up in gaol all these months without the opportunity given by the law of this land co all charged with crime like me of preparing their defence. At present I am ignorant of the names of those whom it is said I murdered, and also of the names of those whom in is said I incited others to murder. I now stand here about to be committed for trial on such charges."

He (Mr. Mackarness) appealed to the Prime Minister to consider what an evil precedent would be established if the Imperial Government lent its sanction to an Indemnity Act to cover martial law put to such purposes as those described in Dinizulu's statement. He was quite aware of the difficulties by which the Imperial Government were confronted, and their natural desire to avoid a state of friction with the Natal Government which all would deplore. But in that matter far-reaching issues were at stake, and, inasmuch as the Natal Legislation was still sitting, it was not too late to obtain some such modification of the Act as would bring it somewhat nearer, at least to the practice and rules which had been held in modern days to govern martial law.

joined in the protest against the terms in which the Bill of Indemnity was drawn. In the Question he had put to the Undersecretary, he had referred to the New Zealand Bill of 1867. In New Zealand before 1867 there had been a serious war; but in Natal there had been no war at all and no rebellion to suppress, and, in fact, the Bill left out any reference to a rebellion, or it did not pretend there had been any rising; indeed there had been nothing of paramount necessity to justify martial law. In New Zealand martial law was naturally and rightly proclaimed, and in 1867 the New Zealand Government came with a Bill of Indemnity. The Bill was reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure, and the then Secretary of State, the Duke of Buckingham, refused to advise the Royal Assent on grounds set forth in a despatch of May 15, 1867. The despatch had not been published, but it could easily be unearthed at the Colonial Office. What were the grounds stated? In the first place,

"That it is so worded as to indemnify, not only civil and military authorities and persons acting under them or under the authority of the Government, but to indemnify 'all and every other person whosoever' who shall have done or ordered, or directed any act, matter, or thing to be done, etc. Secondly, that, owing to the disjunctive form in which the second and third sections are drawn, the destruction of the property of a person suspected to be concerned in the insurrection would be covered by the indemnity given by the Act, even though such destruction may have been wanton and reckless and not inflicted or ordered in or about the suppressing or quelling of the insurrection. Thus, if a private individual acting under no authority has wantonly or recklessly destroyed or ordered the destruction of the property of a person whom he may have chosen to suspect to be concerned in the insurrection, he would be protected under the terms of this Act, though such destruction in no way directly or indirectly tended to quell the insurrection, and though the person whose property was destroyed should have proved that he was in no way directly or indirectly concerned in it."

The Duke of Buckingham concluded by expressing his opinion that—

"The Act should be limited in its phraseology to an indemnity for acts ordered or approved by some responsible military or civil authority."

The objections in the despatch applied with force to the Natal Indemnity Bill. In its present form it would, if passed, set an evil precedent, and it was right that a protest should be raised having in view the extraordinary circumstances in which martial law had been maintained in Natal and Zululand with the one object of preventing Dinuzulu's solicitor from going into Zululand to collect evidence.

asked if the Royal Assent had actually been given to the Indemnity Bill; would it be given automatically; did the Government really believe that the Bill would, if discussed, receive the approval of the House of Commons; and was it impossible to defer assent until Parliament had had an opportunity of discussing it.

said that, with regard to Parliamentary discussion, he thought the House had had exceptional opportunities for discussion. The Vote for the salary of the Colonial Secretary had been postponed until after the Bill was received and was in the hands of Members, who, he thought, had had the fullest opportunity for understanding, so far as it was possible to understand, the complicated circumstances before a decision was arrived at. He had told the House that the Government had decided to advise assent, and assent would be given, but he could assure his hon. friend they had been guided in this matter not only by the consideration that they wished to do that which the Government of a self-governing colony thought it would be wise to do, but also by the consideration whether sanction would make for justice or injustice. He had no hesitation in saying it would make for justice, and for this reason: any postponement would aggravate those difficulties to which allusion had been made in the way of the advisers of Dinizulu obtaining evidence in Zululand. If in any way the Act were delayed martial law would continue, and so long as it continued Dinizulu's agents could not obtain that evidence, or certainly not with that freedom they desired.

asked was it not within the power of the governor to issue a proclamation annulling the previous one.

said they were advised that, that would not be in accordance with constitutional procedure. It would, in fact, be an unconstitutional proceeding, and it certainly was not proposed to take that step. In conclusion, he had to say that the Government deprecated at this moment the use of any words which might tend to exacerbate feeling, and were most anxious not to disturb a situation which during the last twenty-four hours had become so much more favourable, and tended to show that the Natal Government were as anxious as were His Majesty's Government to do justice to the native races in South Africa and to secure for them complete fair play.

said he did not want to strike a note of discord on what ought to be the happiest day of the year, but there hung over them a kind of shadow of trouble to come. He did not want the Local Government Board to be sitting down complacently waiting for something to turn up. He had asked the House for four or five years that in time of peace and comparative prosperity they should be looking ahead for possible danger. There hung the shadow of the unemployed over them. All he asked at the moment was that the Department should not use only the critical part of its organisation, which was excellent in its way. He knew no Department of the State which had such excellent critics as the Local Government Board. They were like dramatic or musical critics. They were equal to anything. They could condemn and find fault with everything, but they were under no obligation to suggest an improvement. That was a great advantage for a critic to hold, but when Ministers were at the service of the State, one had to look to them for help. He had often made the statement which might be a very foolish one, that Cabinet Ministers might make mistakes in various directions. Treaties might go wrong, and all sorts of things, but where human life was not concerned it did not matter very much, and it could be got over. But where this great Department had to deal with human life it was an entirely different thing. They wanted to save the homes of the people. They were not at that moment concerned with new homes but with the preservation of existing homes, and it was a nightmare that men should be willing to work and unable to find it. There was a latent organising capacity in the Department which had never yet been put into operation. Foolish and unthought-out schemes he admitted had been sent, but that did not relieve the Department of the responsibility of suggesting better plans They had all the information. He would not say they had all the knowledge—he did not suppose anyone would admit that anyone else had all knowledge—but they had opportunities to acquire knowledge. What he and his colleagues had pleaded for was that they might be able to find out trend of trade and the possibility of employment, and to have a schedule of possible work. Had every local authority been asked in time of peace what work it could do in time of depression without injury to ordinary industry, so as to help men to tide over the difficult time? They could not expect a shipwright or a boilermaker to get back to the land. The question was what work they could offer to tide him over the difficulty, but they were only told "suggest a plan and we will look at it." They could not go on suggesting plans. This great Department ought to suggest means to prevent men becoming degraded. The longer they left a man the less chance there was of lifting him up. The man could not help it. He got so low that he could not even stand up to a square meal at last—it would he too much for him—much less could they expect him to stand up to work. He did not want to send Ministers away on their holidays with the impression that things were awfully had. That of course they who lived near slums had to put up with. They could not escape. They had no golf links or shooting. They had on their minds all the time the everlasting shadow of want and misery. He knew the House would forgive them if this was the last word to be spoken, when they implored the Department, with all its capacity for doing good, to put into operation some of its organising capacity to deal with the unemployed.

said he desired to support the appeal of his hon. friend. The President of the Local Government Board had spoken in a spirit of strong optimism of the prospect of the coming winter. Unfortunately, these views wore not shared by Prebendary Wakefield, the chairman of the Central Unemployed Body of London, who had recently said—

"I view with very great apprehension the next winter. I think we shall find a state of things of a very serious nature."

In these circumstances, he desired to make a very strong appeal to the President of the Local Government Board, that steps might be taken in good time.

said his hon. friends the Members for Woolwich and Bethnal Green bad addressed to him words of sympathetic appeal not to under-estimate the responsibilities of his office towards the subject which they had at heart, and which was shared in its proper proportion by every Member of the House. The hon. Member for Woolwich had suggested that his Department was capable of strong powers of criticism, and be believed was capable of powers of organisation. On this subject he must not forget that their hands had been tied considerably in the last two and a half years in dealing with this problem, by the fact that the Royal Commission specially constituted to consider this subject were traversing every one of the points and suggestions which the hon. Member thought he ought to snatch out of their purview. He did not intend to anticipate, probably in a wrong direction, some permanent remedy that it was their special function to provide. The Government had already been freely criticised because they bad ventured to deal with one aspect of the poor law and poverty problem in a bold and generous and practical way, by granting old-age pensions, and they had no right, on the question of the treatment of the able-bodied poor, and the many phases of the Poor Law problem to which the hon. Member had referred, to anticipate the suggestions and remedies that might be proposed by the Commission that would report, he trusted, in October or November. But, in the meantime, the hon. Member had not done his Department justice, because concurrently with the consideration by the Royal Commission of this vast problem, which no single Act of Parliament could settle, the Department had met local authorities in many cases by anticipation in the handling of the problem. Every scheme of work had been generously interpreted, every claim for money had been promptly met, and he was surprised that a man who shared with him the buoyant optimism of the cream of the working classes should be to-day in the position of a doleful Jeremiah, and he regretted that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green should so readily fall into the elusive trap that was being set in advance of the winter by tariff reformers, who were purposely and deliberately exaggerating the difficulties of the unemployed problem by giving figures and statistics, and creating alarm and panic which was political and not economic or social in its object or intention. He could assure the hon. Members that they could rely on the Department doing its best to grapple with this particular problem during the winter. When they met again next February, after the autumn session, the preparations they had made for the winter would be more than approved when the results of their activities were reviewed by Parliament. They would do their duty promptly and sympathetically.

May I ask if Prebendary Wakefield is a tariff reformer?

said he did not give that interpretation to the Rev. Russell Wakefield's speech which the hon. Member did.

said he desired to complain once more of the treatment of Scotland in the matter of the unemployed grant. Probably the Government were not bound legally to give an equivalent grant, but they were morally bound to do so, and Scotland had never had her equivalent grant share of that £200,000 yet. There were not many places in Scotland, but there were some, especially in Glasgow, that wanted it. He would like to appeal to the Prime Minister whether he would not see that Scotland was treated fairly in regard to the distribution of public money. He did not want to stop hon. Members from going away—they might do less mischief at home than here—but they ought to put public duty before holidays. He wanted to complain strongly of the want of opportunity that was given them to discuss the Estimates. It had always been understood by what they called the constitution that it was the first duty of the House of Commons to criticise the expenditure of public money, but under the present procedure, and especially under the present Government, they had had no opportunity of considering a large number of the Votes at all. For instance, there were a number of Scottish Totes, on which they did not want so much to consider party political matters as the social affairs of the country, but which had not been considered during the last three sessions. He did not say the Government was responsible for the guillotine, but he expected from a Liberal Government that independent Members should have an opportunity of considering these matters so as to let the Departments know what their constituents wanted. It was almost a farce to say that this House had any control over the national finance at all. The Government ought to give them more opportunities of discussing the Estimates. He knew they were not going to get any such opportunities in the Autumn Session, but he hoped next session more facilities would be given them for discussing these matters. He would like the Government to drop a very unfortunate practice. They knew that they could get all their Votes after the allotted days under the guillotine, and consequently any Votes they did not desire to be criticised could be carefully kept from the purview of the House, and that was the practice he desired the Government to drop. There were many Votes which they ought to have the opportunity of considering which never came before the House at all. On the face of it it looked as though the Government kept back some of those Votes, such as Army Vote 12, because they were afraid of discussion, and that was doing a great wrong to the country and to the House. In future, more especially as the Prime Minister represented a Scottish constituency, he trusted that the Government would give them some further opportunities of con- sidering the local affairs of what was the most important part of the United Kingdom. There were a number of matters upon which it would have been much more convenient if he had the Prime Minister's opinion before he visited his constituency, for then he would be able to tell them the Government view, but if the Prime Minister did not give them his views till early in October, it would be too late for him (Mr. Morton) to discuss the matter with his constituents this year. In regard to the land question in Scotland the Lord Chancellor had made a speech in another place in which he declared the Small Landholders' Bill (Scotland) to be defunct, and promised to consider whether the English Act of last year could be applied to Scotland. That speech, if made at all, should have been made by the Prime Minister, who was their leader. He (Mr. Morton) was anxious to assist the Prime Minister as far as possible, but if the right hon. Gentleman would not give him his advice in time to make any use of it what was the good of having a Prime Minister? The Government had given too much attention to the consideration of rich trusts and companies, and if the same consideration had been given to Scottish affairs it would have been all the better for the people of Scotland. Ho hoped the Prime Minister would give him some assurance that they would have more opportunities for the discussion of Scottish Estimates next session. He would also like some information in regard to the Land Bill. He trusted the Government would give the points he had raised their best consideration.