To ask the first Lord of the Admiralty whether it has been decided to give the work of converting the "Agincourt" or the "Ganges II." into a coal-hulk in Chatham Dockyard to seamen and marines of His Majesty's Navy; and, if so, whether, in view of the amount of unemployment in the neighbourhood, the Admiralty can see their way to reconsider this decision so that the work may be performed by local men. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The reply to the first part of my hon. friend's Question is in the negative.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether persons of the statutory age who are in receipt of Poor Law relief, the amount of which is recovered in its entirety by the guardians from the children or relatives of such persons, are disqualified by the receipt of such relief from receiving old-age pensions. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. It is with some others which have arisen under the recent Act, and which involve legal considerations, receiving attention, but for the moment I must ask my hon. friend to let me defer giving a definite answer to it.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland what acreage is to be planted on the Interliever estate before the end of the financial year; and what is the estimated outlay and the number of trees to be employed per acre. (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) I am informed that there is so much work to be done in preparing and fencing the area to be planted and the nursery ground and in putting up the buildings to accommodate the staff which will have to be housed upon the spot, that it has been decided not to begin the actual planting this year, but to prepare for a larger area being dealt with next year than would have been possible under the circumstances this year. From ten to twelve men will be employed upon the work. The number of trees to be planted per acre and the cost will vary according to the nature of the ground and the kind of tree planted.

To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what portion of the sum of £681 spent last year in Delamere Woodlands was expended on new planting; how many acres were so planted; and what was the number of trees employed per acre. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) About £178 were spent inclosing and planting new areas containing about twenty-one and a half acres. About 2,900 trees were planted per acre.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the system of obtaining entrance to the training college for the Navy at Osborne; is it by competitive examination; if so, is that examination open to all the boys of the country or must they obtain nominations before they are allowed to sit; and will he say from whom these nominations are obtainable and to what class of boys they are usually given.

The method of entry into the Royal Naval College at Osborne is fully described in the public regulations, of which I have sent my hon. friend a copy. The examination is not competitive and there are no nominations—the candidates being selected after interview.

Who are the interviewers? By whom are they appointed?

They are appointed by the First Lord for the time being.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the £54,000 spent on the salvage of the "Gladiator" is to be met by savings on other items; and whether he can now state if the vessel is to be repaired or whether she is to be replaced, as was done in the case of the two destroyers lost this year.

The question of meeting the cost of the salvage of the "Gladiator" is receiving careful consideration. As regards the other part of the Question, it has already been stated in this House in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Fareham, that the decision of the future of the "Gladiator" would be come to when the estimated cost of repair was known.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the purchase price to be paid for the two extra destroyers which have been bought this year to replace the two destroyers lost by collision; and whether he proposes to provide this sum by savings on other items of the Navy Estimates.

As the trials are not completed, no statement can yet be made as to the amount of the price, nor how it will be provided.

As the sum of money required for these two destroyers together with the repairs of the "Gladiator" will amount to at least over a quarter of a million sterling, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake it shall not be provided out of savings on repairs, which would only create future unemployment?

I regret I am unable to accept my hon. friend's estimate.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the amount of under expenditure caused by strikes, and which, as announced, will now be devoted to hastening the laying down of some of the ships of this year's programme.

Although it is not yet possible to give the exact figure, it is anticipated that the amount will be sufficient to meet the extra expenditure involved.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman indicate even roughly the amount?

No, Sir; as I have said, the amount is due to money not having been expended in consequence of strikes, and it is impossible to fix the total.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state why the Return of Fleets this year classes the "Blake" and "Blenheim" as first-class cruisers, seeing that they have been converted to the duties of mother-ships for destroyers and deprived of all but four 6-inch guns and four 12-pounder guns in their armaments, and have an armament inferior to many foreign third class cruisers.

As these vessels retained an integral portion of their original armament, it was decided to leave them in the Return.

The right hon. Gentleman has not said why they were included in the Return of first-class cruisers. Cannot he create a precedent and degrade them to the third class?

I shall be happy to discuss the point on a suitable occasion.

Could these ships properly be described as first-class cruisers?

Yes, and they are properly included and described in the Return as first-class cruisers.

Do the Admiralty consider that the armament these ships at present carry is the armament of a first-class cruiser?

Not the ordinary armament—but nevertheless they may properly be retained among first class cruisers for the reason I have stated, i.e., that they possess an integral part of their original armament.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House if any result has come of the consultation between his Department and the Board of Agriculture as to the breeding of horses for the Army.

In view of the great interest felt in this matter throughout the country, can the right hon. Gentleman explain the unprecedented delay?

I am aware great interest is felt in this matter. I am afraid that I have nothing at present to add to the information which I have already given to the House on this subject.

Is the matter out of the hands of the right hon. Gentleman?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will, as soon as the Old-Age Pensions Act comes into operation, make arrangements for a weekly payment of Army Pensions.

I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave to a Question put on this subject by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight Division of Hampshire on the 14th instant.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what proportion of the total store of small arms ammunition in this country is kept in one place.

The small arms ammunition is distributed over the country in stocks corresponding to local requirements on mobilisation. I do not think any good purpose would be served by giving the particular information required, but I may inform the hon. Member that no very large proportion is stored in any one place.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say what proportion of the revenue of Southern Nigeria was derived during the years 1906 and 1907 from the sale of gin and raw spirits; whether he has any information that these liquors are consumed by the natives alone; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of taking steps to provide that a Crown Colony shall not derive a large income from the sale of spirits, seeing that the sale of such liquors are prohibited to all natives in the self-governing Colonies of the Empire.

The revenue derived by the Government of Southern Nigeria from spirit duties (not from the sale of spirits) in 1906 and 1907 was £600,784 and £806,942 respectively, and the total revenue of the Colony in these years amounted to £1,088,717 and £1,459,554 respectively. The Secretary of State has decided, after correspondence with the native races and Liquor Traffic United Committee, to appoint a Committee to investigate the facts on the spot. I may add that the prohibition of the sale of spirits to natives is not quite universal in the self-governing Colonies.

May I ask if a member of this community will be added to the Commission of Inquiry on this subject as was practically promised?

What does the hon. Member mean by this community—does he mean this House?

This country.

The Committee is not yet complete. I will represent the views of the hon. Gentleman to the Secretary of State, and point out that some indication was given that some appointment of the nature should be made.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Regulations under the Pensions Act will be printed and laid upon the Table.

The Regulations were laid upon the Table on Monday last, and will be issued this week.

Will they be in the hands of hon. Members this week?

I am told so.

Does the Answer apply also to Scotland?

I understand not.

Or to Ireland?

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the hardship inflicted on monoglot Welsh-speaking applicants for an old-age pension in districts in Wales where the pension officer has no knowledge of Welsh; whether any request has been made to him on behalf of the Aberdare District Council, the Glamorgan County Council, and other public bodies to receive a deputation on the matter; and what reply, if any, he has made to such request.

Yes, Sir, I have been requested to receive deputations on this subject, but I postponed replying to the request because I was at the time considering how this difficulty might best be met, as I have been fully alive to the hardship in the cases referred to by my hon. friend. I am now causing arrangements to be made to supply pension officers in Wales with the services of interpreters in all cases where such assistance is required to enable the officers to communicate freely with applicants.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to cases of witnesses (especially of the female sex) suffering from extreme nervous exhaustion after standing a considerable time at the bar; and if he would issue an Order giving witnesses and prisoners the option of being seated during cross-examination.

I have no authority to issue any directions on the subject, which is one for the discretion of the Court, and I have reason to believe that permission for a witness to be seated is invariably granted if applied for.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the evidence of Surgeon-Colonel Lawrie before the Royal Commission on Vivisection, with reference to a vivisection performed by Dr. Gaskell, now a member of the Royal Commission; and whether, in consequence of that evidence, he will remove or advise the removal of Dr. Gaskell from the Royal Commission, which is now engaged in considering its Report.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Answer to the second is that I see no grounds for taking any such action as is suggested.

Are we to understand that one who has taken part in a cruel experiment is to remain a member of a Commission inquiring into the cruelty or otherwise of vivisection?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the evidence before the Vivisection Commission that the object of the operation performed by Dr. Gaskell was to enable a respirable anæsthetic to be administered and regulated, he will undertake that in cases where anæsthetics are only partially administered experiments will be confined to such animals as guinea pigs and absolutely forbidden on domestic animals.

My hon. friend is, I think, under a misapprehension. In all experiments on living animals which are calculated to cause pain, except those of the nature of inoculations, it is the established practice that the animal must, during the whole of the operative procedure, be under the influence of an anæsthetic of sufficient power to prevent the animal's feeling pain. This applies to all animals, whether domestic or not.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a largo number of the medical profession are distinctly opposed to these experiments on domestic animals.

The whole question is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he say how many gallons of beer were consumed by the inmates of Broadmoor Asylum during the year 1907.

During the year 1907 14,708 gallons of beer were consumed by the inmates of Broadmoor Asylum. This works out at a little less than half a pint per head per day.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the report of the Lunacy Commission, 32 per cent. of the inmates are in that institution owing to drink, and will he, in place of the drink, find some substitute, such as jam or pickles?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a speech of one of His Majesty's Judges alleging that many murderers were confined in Broadmoor Asylum though perfectly sane; whether he will say whether the decision of the doctor of this asylum as to whether a patient is insane or not is final; and whether no examination either by a medical board or independent medical men is permitted.

I have seen a report of the learned Judge's remarks, and I think that the hon. Member has somewhat misapprehended their purport; but I may say in reply to his Question that there are in Broadmoor persons guilty of murder who could not at the present moment be held to be insane, but who must be detained in Broadmoor in pursuance of the Order of the Court so long as there is a serious risk that, if set at liberty, they would relapse into the condition in which they committed the crime. In judging of the mental condition of patients, I rely on the advice of the medical authorities who see them daily, and who have exceptional experience of similar cases, and I should not be assisted by calling in other medical men, who, however eminent, could not have the same opportunities of forming an equally trustworthy opinion; in any case the present mental condition is by no means the only determining factor in deciding whether it is safe to release a man who, in a state of insanity, has committed a grave crime, and who, if at large, might again become dangerous.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking in the case of Daisy Lord; whether he is arranging for her release; and, if so, whether it will be long delayed.

I cannot say more with regard to this case than was said in the letter which has recently been published in the newspapers, a copy of which I will send to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he say the total number of deaths caused by motor-propelled vehicles in the United Kingdom during the first six or nine months of this year.

I am sorry that I cannot give those figures. The annual Report of the Registrar-General for England and Wales will contain the figures for those countries for 1907, and will probably be ready for publication about the end of this year; and, as my hon. friend the Under-Secretary stated last week, the police have been asked to furnish returns for the period from May to December, 1908, inclusive, of all accidents in streets, roads or public places which have come to their knowledge, caused by motor or horse-drawn vehicles respectively, resulting in death or personal injury.

Are not reports on all fatal accidents forwarded to the Home Office?

was understood to reply in the negative.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the number of cases in the first six months of this year?

We are getting the figures in pursuance of a promise given to this House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the total number of deaths and accidents to persons caused by motor-propelled vehicles in the Metropolitan police area during the first eight or nine months of this year.

The number of accidents during the months January to September, 1908, inclusive, in which personal injury resulted was 2,945. In 105 cases the injuries proved fatal.

asked if these accidents were not largely caused by allowing omnibuses to travel through narrow winding streets quite unsuitable for the traffic?

That is a matter on which hon. Members can form their own opinion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the question of an ambulance service for London accidents has reported; whether the Committee have adopted the scheme of motor ambulances asked for by the London County Council in its General Powers Bill, but places the control and expenditure in the hands of the Metropolitan Police; and whether there is any town in the United Kingdom where expenditure for such an object is not controlled by the ratepayers.

The Committee has not reported, and has, I understand, not yet adopted any scheme. Information on the last point mentioned in the hon. Member's Question will no doubt be given in the Committee's Report.

Have not some of the recommendations of the Committee already been published in the Press?

I am not aware of that.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can state approximately how many Italian warehousemen, co operative stores, grocers, confectioners, refreshment caterers, and other similar businesses will be affected by the inclusion of off-licences within the provisions of the Licensing Bill as regards monopoly value, local option, and prohibition.

I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. The Licensing Statistics for 1907, show that out of a total of 25,143 off-licenses, 14,024 were held in respect of premises where other goods besides liquor are sold. This figure would cover the trades indicated by the hon. and learned Member, but I have no information as to the number of off-licences held in connection with each of the trades.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can state how many licensing benches there will be under the Licensing Bill, the population in the smallest five licensing districts under the 1901 census, and how many parishes there will be with a population under fifty to which the local option proposals will apply.

I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. The Licensing Bill makes no alteration in the number of licensing districts. That number is at present 993. The respective populations of the five smallest districts are 265, 719, 1216, 1217 and 1328. Lastly, I understand that there are 759 rural parishes with a population of less than fifty.

Will an opportunity be given for discussing this matter seeing that it was precluded by the operation of the closure?

I must ask for notice.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any, and if so, what steps are to be taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which has reported upon the publication of the trade accounts of the United Kingdom.

The recommendations of the Committee are now receiving the careful consideration of the Board of Trade and the Customs, and I am hopeful that a decision with regard to them may be arrived at shortly.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the form of Return required by his Department under the provisions of the Census of Production Act, 1906; whether he is aware of the amount of labour and expense that the furnishing of the detailed information asked for involves on the part of manufacturers and others; and whether he will consider the possibility of simplifying the form of Return.

The schedules issued under the provisions of the Census of Production Act were carefully considered by the Board of Trade in consultation not only with a General Advisory Committee, but with Special Advisory Committees representing the principal trades of the country, and it is not possible to modify them at the present stage. Having regard to the very large number of Returns in the various trades which have already been received I have no reason to suppose that the obligations imposed by the Act are, generally speaking, found to be unduly onerous. We desire, however, to put manufacturers to the least possible labour and expense consistent with carrying out the provisions of the Act and where any difficulty arises in filling up the schedule every effort will be made to assist manufacturers if they will communicate directly with the Census of Production Office.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Agriculture as to the form of the Returns with regard to the production of timber and underwood, and will they consider the question of making the area the estate or the rural district rather than the parish, seeing that many plantations extend into more than one parish and it is almost impossible to make the Return parish by parish?

I will make it my business to bring the observations of the right hon. Gentleman under the notice of my right hon. friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the brewery trade, for instance, much of the information asked for must be conjectural?

I cannot answer as to the particular trades. But every effort is being made to obtain accurate information, and where the element of conjecture intervenes I think it will be made clear in the Return.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Government have yet settled what grant is to be made by the Treasury for the encouragement of horse-breeding for Army remount purposes in accordance with the recent announcements made by Lord Carrington; and, if so, whether he can state what part Ireland is to take in this scheme and what share of the fund is to be allocated to Ireland.

No decision has yet been arrived at in this matter, and it is therefore premature to consider any question as to the allocation of the grant.

Will there be a separate grant for Ireland?

The matter is now the subject of discussion between Government Departments; I can say no more at present.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the Charity Commissioners, in framing the scheme for the Weir Hospital Charity, assume or allege that the directions of the testator are incapable of accomplishment, namely, the establishment within the parish of Streatham of a dispensary, cottage hospital, convalescent home, or other medical charity with the two freehold properties and the large fund left by the testator for that purpose for the benefit of the inhabitants of that parish and neighbourhood; whether by the terms of the will income only is to be used for the establishment and maintenance of the charity; if so, on what grounds the Commissioners justify their proposal to appropriate £50,000 of the capital and the income of the whole residue of the trust funds to another purpose in another parish; upon what authority, statutory or otherwise, do the Charity Commissioners rely in applying for the benefit of a hospital in another parish and borough, viz., that of Battersea, a fund which was left for the expressed purpose of establishing a charity in and for the parish of Streatham, in the borough of Wandsworth, which parish has a population of 101,628 and an area of 4½ square miles.

I must premise my reply to this Question by saying that, as I am no longer responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Charity Commission, I should not be justified in entering into any discussion on the merits of the proposed scheme of the Commission. The final form of that scheme will have to be settled apart from my opinion. It is proposed by the scheme that a dispensary and also a nurses' home should be established in the parish of Streatham in the two freehold houses left by the testator, but the Charity Commissioners were of opinion that the whole of the charity funds could not properly be applied for these two purposes. It appeared to them that after providing for these purposes some other mode ought to be found for the application of the residue of the funds whether by way of capital or income, and they considered that the best means of attaining the testator's object of benefiting Streatham and the neighbourhood is that for which provision is made by the scheme. It appears to the Commissioners that the benefits reserved for Streatham and the neighbourhood under the scheme are considerably greater than the charity funds alone could provide for.

When will the scheme be laid on the Table?

The scheme is not of a character to be laid on the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he will state the grounds upon which the Commissioners refuse to publish the Report of the public inquiry respecting the Weir Hospital Charity or communicate it to the in habitants of Streatham, who are the beneficiaries under the testator's will, and will they lay it and the evidence and correspondence before the House, or supply a copy to the Member representing the inhabitants of Streatham; and whether the Charity Commissioners have received any, and what, protests, objections, petitions, or letters against the published draft scheme.

The report made to the Commissioners by their Assistant Commissioner of what took place at the Inquiry is confidential, and it is not the practice of the Commissioners to communicate such reports in the way desired by the hon. Member. The Commissioners have received numerous objections and suggestions with regard to the published Draft Scheme, all of which will receive their careful consideration.

wanted to know what was the object of a public inquiry if the report was not to be made public.

The object is to inform the Commissioners, and not the public.

asked whether as a matter of fact the Trust did provide that the charity should be established within the parish of Streatham.

That hardly arises out of the Question I have just answered.

I beg to ask the hon. Member' for the Elland division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the sum of £5,000 which was paid out of the capital of the Benjamin Weir Trust Fund to the Bolingbroke Hospital in Battersea, before any scheme had been published by the Commissioners, was made to secure two legacies from other testators, and, if so, will he state what those legacies were, by whom they were left and the conditions upon which they were bequeathed; whether the authorities of the King Edward's Hospital Fund who are alleged to have advised union with Bolingbroke Hospital knew at the time of giving that advice of the purposes for which, and the terms upon which, the testator had left his property, and of the directions which he had given for the application of the funds of the charity; and whether they never expressed any opinion that the wishes of the testator could or could not be carried out in the manner expressed in his will, and never advised that the fund was insufficient for that purpose.

The advance of £5,000 was made to secure the promised donations of £5,000 and £900 respectively of which the trustees informed the Commissioners. The authorities of King Edward's Hospital Fund were consulted only as to the best method of employing a gift of about £100,000 for the purposes of a medical charity for the benefit of Streatham and the neighbourhood. The determination of the legal questions arising in the case is a matter for which the Charity Commissioners accept responsibility.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question as to whether the authorities had expressed an opinion that the terms of the will could not be carried out as provided therein?

suggested that another Question should be put down.

asked when the £5,000 was paid out.

Notice should be given of that question.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Government intend to proceed with all the stages of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Bill this year; and, if so, is it intended to refer the Committee stage to the Scottish Grand Committee.

My hon. friend accurately describes the wishes of the Government; how far those wishes can be carried out must depend upon the general progress of business.

Have the provisions of the Bill been approved by the Cabinet, or is it merely a Departmental affair?

It is a Government Bill.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a certain Motion threatened in another place is passed, it will be impossible for this Bill to become law this year, if at all?

Yes, I am aware of that.

And—

The hon. Member has already had several shots.

When the Second Reading is taken will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is opportunity for full and unfettered discussion?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to new rules recently and unexpectedly issued by the Intermediate Board of Education in Ireland prohibiting pupils who had passed in any grade from examination in the same grade again, no matter whether qualified by age or not; whether he is aware that if proper notice had been given of the Board's intention many pupils would have waited longer before attempting the examination in order to compete for scholarships; and whether, in view of the hardship inflicted by the introduction of the new rule at short notice, he will urge its postponement till after the examinations in 1909.

The question of deferring the operation of the new rule was discussed by the Intermediate Education Board at their last meeting, and was then postponed for further consideration. I am at present in communication with the Board on the subject, and I hope shortly to be in a position to announce the Board's decision.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what were the circumstances which required the drafting of a considerable body of additional police into the town of Swords during the past week; how many constables have been injured; and whether any proceedings have been instituted against those responsible for the disorder.

It was necessary to send ten extra police to Swords to preserve the peace owing to ill-feeling caused by a religious meeting held by strangers in the village. No constables were injured. Two persons are to be proceeded against for throwing stones.

Is it not the fact the religious services in question were held with closed doors and not the slightest element of provocation; is it the case that on five different occasions the people attending them were molested and the doors of the building wrecked; and were the persons responsible for the outrage well known to the police?

I cannot answer those Questions without further inquiry. I only know that irritation was caused by the holding of certain religious meetings.

But surely the right hon. Gentleman knows if the meetings wore held with closed doors and without the slightest elements of provocation?

I am not in a position to say definitely.

Is it not a fact that these evangelical meetings have since had to be discontinued owing to the interference of inhabitants?

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the most cordial and happy relations exist between the Catholics and Protestants of Swords and that the Catholic priest and Protestant rector worked together in order to prevent disturbances? Have not the troubles now ceased altogether?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that United Irish League branches are holding illegal courts at which intimidatory resolutions are passed, which are after wards published in Nationalist journals, and acted upon; and whether, having regard to the increasing number of cases of boycotting in certain districts, he intends to take any proceedings to suppress incitements to this form of intimidation.

The Government are aware that certain newspapers in Ireland are publishing reports of meetings of United Irish League branches at which intimidatory resolutions are stated to have been passed. The facts have already been placed before the Law Officers of the Crown in order that they may consider what proceedings, if any, are called for.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that compensation has been awarded at Kilrush quarter sessions to Mr. James Griffin, J.P., for malicious injury to two horses and a mare, which had their manes and tails cut off, and that the evidence in the case disclosed the fact that the claimant was recently shot at wounded; and whether any persons have been made criminally amenable for these offences.

I am informed that compensation was awarded as stated in the Question. The injury to the animals consisted in cutting off their manes and the hair of their tails. It is the fact that Mr. Griffin was recently fired at and slightly wounded. No person has been made amenable for these offences.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the strength of all ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary on the 1st January, 1906, and on the 1st October, 1908, respectively.

On 1st January, 1906, the strength of all ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary was thirty seven county inspectors, 204 district inspectors, 235 head constables, and 9,474 sergeants and constables. On 1st October, 1908, the numbers were thirty-seven county inspectors, 195 district inspectors, 241 head constables, and 10,195 sergeants and constables.

Is this extraordinary increase of the police force in Ireland due to the governing of Ireland according to Irish national ideals.

I am not aware I am governing Ireland according to Irish national ideals.

Did not the hon. and learned Member for Waterford say so in America a fortnight since?

Order, order.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 2nd October last a band of disguised men, who wore crepe and had blackened faces, attacked a process server in the Leitrim Mountains, at a place called Aughacashel, ten miles from Carrick-on-Shannon, and robbed him of his documents and escorted him out of the locality; and what arrests have made and what sentences passed.

The police have no information as to any such occurrence.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Tuesday night, the 13th October last, a cattle-drive took place off the farm of Mr. James D. Going, Violet Hill, near Broadford, county Clare, when fifty-four head of cattle were driven; and what arrests have been made and what sentences passed on the perpetrators of the outrage.

The police authorities inform me that the facts are as stated in the Question. No arrests have been made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that about the 15th September last a cattle-drive took place (the second within a fortnight) from a farm in the occupation of Mr. George Frend at Army Hill, Moneygall, King's County, when thirty-three sheep were scattered and seventeen cattle were driven to Gilenigile, North Tipperary, seven miles distant; what arrests have been made; and what sentences passed on the perpetrators of the outrage.

The police authorities inform me that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. No arrests have been made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of firearms, including revolvers, sold in Ireland since the Peace Preservation Act was dropped by the present Government, to date, and for a similar period prior to 1st January, 1906; and whether, in view of the increase of outrages in which firearms are used, the Government intend to take steps to prohibit the sale of rifles, guns, revolvers, and ammunition to irresponsible persons in Ireland.

I am not in a position to give the figures asked for in the first part of the Question, nor am I aware of any means by which the Government could obtain precise information on the subject. The Government would be willing to introduce a Bill on the lines of the English Pistols Act if opportunity should offer.

Will the Government take an early opportunity to introduce a Bill to deal with this serious matter.

The Government recognise the serious nature of the increase in the number of firings into houses, but the question is how far legislation can effect a reduction.

Why did you drop the Peace Preservation Act?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number and names of hon. Members of this House who have publicly advocated cattle-driving in Ireland during the recent recess; in how many cases did the police take shorthand notes of the proceedings; in how many cases did the Government institute proceedings against them; and how many arrests of persons actually engaged in cattle-driving were made.

I am not in a position to state the number and names of hon. Members who have publicly advocated cattle-driving during the recent recess. The only case of which I have official knowledge is that of the hon. Member for North Longford, who recently delivered a public speech in which he is stated to have advocated cattle-driving. The speech was officially reported and the shorthand notes are at present under consideration. No proceedings have yet been instituted. During the period in question seventy-three persons engaged in cattle-driving were arrested.

Was the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman refers delivered since the same hon. Member was tried for inciting to cattle-driving, the jury disagreeing, and the Government taking no further action?

Yes; I think that is so.

asked whether the Government considered it fair that the people who acted on the advice of hon. Members should he imprisoned while the instigators went free.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the date on which he purposes introducing the Royal Irish Constabulary Bill; and whether he can assure the House that any increase of pay and emoluments proposed will date from the first of the financial year, as in the case of national school teachers.

I am anxious to introduce the Constabulary (Ireland) Bill as soon as possible, but I cannot at present name a date because, as I explained in answer to a Question yesterday, the Bill cannot be introduced until the necessary Financial Resolution has been passed by the Committee. It is not proposed to make the operation of the Act retrospective.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that about seven o'clock on Saturday night, the 10th October last, an outrage was perpetrated at Caherbullane, near Corofin, by Ennis, county Clare, when three gun shots and five revolver shots were discharged at a man named John Cahill and his uncle Thomas Cahill, some of the pellets striking the former on the cheek and legs; how many arrests have been made; what sentences have been passed on the perpetrators of the outrage; and what reason is assigned by the police for the attack.

The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. John Cahill was slightly injured, one grain of shot striking him in the cheek and another in the leg. No arrests have been made. It would be contrary to practice to state any suspicions the police may have as to the reason for the attack.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the observations of the Lord Chief Justice at the Clare Spring Assizes, on which occasion the learned Judge, referring to the returns of boycotting presented to him by the police authorities, pointed out that those returns comprised eleven cases which were described as instances of minor boycotting, and that in five of those cases people not only declined to associate with or deal with the boycotted families, but the latter were also compelled to go considerable distances for the necessaries of life; whether the cases of these five families have since been retained on the list of persons boycotted in a minor degree; and will he state in what respects their cases differ from others which are included in the category of serious boycotting.

During the twelve months ended 31st July last, 1,237 persons were charged with the offence of cattle-driving; 1,058 persons were ordered to find bail to keep the peace, and of those seventy-one were committed to prison for various terms, ranging generally from fourteen days to three months, in default of finding bail. In one case thirty-two persons were tried at Assizes, but the proceedings resulted in a disagreement of the jury.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the importance of the measure and the small amount of discussion hitherto in this House, apart from the Committee stage, on the Scottish Education Bill, he will consider the desirability of giving two days for the Report stage.

I cannot at present make any statement as to the exact amount of time that will be given to the Report stage of this Bill, but ray hon. friend may be sure that adequate time will be allowed.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he is now able to say definitely whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the further stages of the Education Bill as soon as the Licensing Bill has passed through Committee.

Yes, Sir. That is our intention.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the provision of the Motor Car Act, 1903, are habitually broken and ignored by motor-car owners and their servants, he will say whether, in view of the numerous deaths and accidents caused to the public if he intends to introduce legislation providing such penalties as will ensure that the law as enacted by Parliament is obeyed by all classes of the community.

I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave last Thursday to a similar Question by the hon. Member for the Newbury division of Berkshire.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that motor-car manufacturers were advertising the fact that ears of 60 or 70 horse-power were being supplied to Members sitting on the Treasury bench; whether under normal conditions those cars were bound to exceed the speed limit; and would he also say the number of Ministers, including himself, who have been convicted daring the last few weeks in respect of their cars.

The hon. Member should give notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the amount of suffering caused by the present state of unemployment, he can now state what the Government proposes to do to alleviate the distress, and when a day can be given to discuss the subject.

Seeing it is obviously unfair that the incidence of the relief rate should be imposed on the poorer districts in which the unemployed now congregate, will the Government consider the desirability of placing it on a broader basis?

Mr. Speaker, the statement which I am about to make I can only make with the indulgence of the House. I obviously cannot anticipate the legislative proposals which the Government intend to make at the beginning of next session to deal with the permanent causes and conditions of unemployment. I shall not, therefore, to-day attempt to lay down any of the principles which, when the problem itself has to be faced, will of necessity require careful statement and be properly subject to criticism and review. I will only ask the House to accept my assurance—made in the name and on behalf of the Government—that we do not mean to shirk any of the larger issues which will then be raised. For the moment, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question, we have to deal with a special emergency—not, as I shall hope to show, unanticipated and unprovided for, but calling for direct and immediate treatment, without prejudice to our ultimate policy. The situation is a grave one. No one is less disposed than we are who sit upon this bench to minimise its dimensions or to dispute its urgency. From causes, some of which are obvious and admitted and others disputable and obscure, there has been brought about—not in this country only, not in this country mainly, but throughout the allied and interdependent areas of the world's industry—a temporary dislocation of the machinery of production; and the result is visible in an increase of unemployment—not, indeed, beyond precedent, but substantially in excess of anything that we have experienced for some time past. There are faint, but welcome, signs on the horizon which encourage the belief that the existing distress, though acute and widespread, may be short-lived. But be that as it may, without attempting any numerical estimate—which at the best can only be a rough conjecture—there can be no doubt, I think, that during the present autumn and winter, if nothing is done, we shall be face to face with a large body of industrious men and women who, through no default of their own, find for the time no demand for their labour in the ordinary market, and who, unless steps be taken, must be compulsorily reduced to idleness and want. Sir, I need not say—speaking for a moment on behalf of the whole House—they have our profound sympathy. They have a right to demand, and it is our duty to give them, something more. The first, and in some ways the most important, part of the statement I have to make relates to what has been done and is being done by the Government and the local authorities. The likelihood of such an emergency as now confronts us was months ago foreseen. From the beginning of the summer—I may say even earlier—my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board has been assiduously urging the necessity of those in authority in the areas of probable distress making special preparations, both in the acceleration of work for which they had already power to raise money, and in setting on foot fresh works of public utility for which new borrowing powers would be required. My right hon. friend has been exposed in these matters to a great deal of criticism, and, I think, to a good deal of misunderstanding, and I want to take this opportunity of saying—and I speak from constant personal communication with him during the whole of this time—that he has been lavish of time and labour. He has sacrificed his leisure—practically, I may say, the whole of his holiday—day and night, week after week, and month after month, He has been, with all the energy which the House knows and admires, putting his whole soul in trying to prepare and provide for the emergency which now prevails. I will not go much into figures, but let me summarise, as briefly as I can, the result of what has actually been done, and is being done. First of all, I will ask the House to compare the figures for the amount of loans to local authorities for works of local utility sanctioned by the Local Government Board in three successive years between the months of June and October. In 1906 the amount so sanctioned was £3,530,000. In 1907 it was £3,589,000—no substantial difference—but in the present year it rose to £4,388,000. In other words, in round numbers there was an increase in the loans sanctioned during those four months to public authorities in the present year of no less than £800,000. But there is a more significant and instructive figure still. I ask the House next to take into account the number and the amount of loans in which the employment of the unemployed in the localities was expressly the object of the application. I take the months between August and October. In 1907 the number of loans falling within that category applied for was five, and the amount of money applied for £3,560. In the same months of the present year the number of applications rose to ninety, and the amount of money applied for to £719,000. That, I think, shows, on the one hand, the growing sense on the part of local authorities of the distress and emergency which they have to provide for, and, on the other hand, an equally strong disposition on the part of the Local Government Board to meet their reasonable requirements. But I must not stop there. On 21st October—within the first three weeks of this month—the loans applied for in the same way on a similar footing, and either sanctioned or awaiting sanction, amounted to £547,000, and there are still on the list to be dealt with—and they will be dealt with, I am certain, with my right hon. friend's usual promptitude—applications for £326,000. Add these figures together and the House will see that, starting from the month of August last and taking the moment at which we are now sitting, a sum of no less than £1,500,000 will have been added to the resources of the local authorities for the purpose of dealing mainly and substantially with unemployment. That is absolutely unprecedented in any previous Parliament. Even so, that does not complete the account. I spoke a moment ago of the acceleration of works under loans which have been sanctioned. Here in London and the Metropolitan area, and largely owing to the advice of my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board, there has been or there will be within a very short period, a commencement of works which would otherwise have been deferred to next year or perhaps a later date. I am only taking two or three instances—one, the Water Board and the construction of their reservoir, involving £520,000; another, the Wandsworth Infirmary, involving £100,000; and in the case of the London County Council—which I am glad to see is moving in this matter, and moving, I hope, strongly—there is a sum which is not at this moment defined, but which, I am sure, will be substantial. This special provision has been made in the course of this summer by local authorities, with the co-operation and sanction of the Local Government Board, to meet this special emergency, and I will ask the House to observe two things. These loans, the amount of which I have given, have been applied for and sanctioned on a double footing; first, I will not say with the sole object, but with the main and governing object that the large expenditure which is to be so incurred should be the employment of unemployed labour in the localities from which the applications came; and, in the next place, what is equally important—perhaps more important—that the work to be undertaken under the loans sanctioned should be work to be commenced at once, or, at any rate, without the interposition of any avoidable delay, so that the money can at once pass into circulation and become an effective wages fund for the employment of those at present in idleness. The House may ask on what kind of works this very large sum of money so sanctioned and borrowed is going to be expended, and that I think is a very important point. There is the broadest possible distinction, even when you are dealing with a temporary emergency, between spending money upon what I may call made work—work artificially called into existence, to glide over an emergency of the moment, which will leave no permanent result in the interests of the community—and work of real and permanent public utility. The great advantage of proceeding on these lines is that the money borrowed under the sanction of the Local Government Board is expended upon works for which the local authorities, either under their local Acts or under the provisions of the general law, are empowered to spend the money of the rates—on works like sewerage, drainage, street improvements erection of baths, the laying out of recreation grounds, the provision of installations for electric lighting, and all the various other channels by which, in these days, municipal enterprise finds a productive and fertilising outlet. Although I do not profess to be sponsor—who could?—for the wisdom and prudence which have guided the expenditure of money in any particular case—I have no doubt that here, as elsewhere, mistakes have been made, money has been squandered, a due sense of proportion has not been maintained—yet, if you look, as I hope the House will have the opportunity of doing when the return is presented, through the works upon which this sum of money is going to be expended, you will find that it is substantially work which will inure to the permanent benefit of the community in whose area it is being undertaken. There is another thing to say as to the cost of these works. The money has been borrowed upon loans of varying duration, but for the most part they are short loans, and the cost of repayment both of the annual interest and sinking fund, and ultimately of the principal, falls upon the rates. Therefore the whole burden of this expenditure—I am not speaking for the moment of the contribution from the Central Fund—in so far as it is defrayed by the sums raised out of loans, falls upon the rates of the localities concerned. I have said already that it is a condition of these borrowings and of works sanctioned under them that the business should be begun at once or without delay. The inducement, or one of the inducements at any rate, held out to the local authorities, and for which they in terms stipulate as a condition of their applying for those loans, is that out of the Central Fund—the fund voted by Parliament at the end of the financial year—the Local Government Board will contribute a sum in respect of each set of works which, roughly, represents the difference between the value of contract labour and the value of the unemployed labour which they are specially designed to meet. It is only in that way, by making good that difference out of the Central Fund, that you can provide a sufficient inducement in some cases—I will not say in all—for the work to be undertaken. It is, of course, further to be observed that these loans, which, as I have said, are a burden on the rate—

Can the right hon. Gentleman, say what the estimated difference will be?

It is extremely difficult to say until the end of the year. It varies between 5 per cent. and 40 per cent. in different places. It is really extremely difficult to say, and I do not believe any figures given at this moment would be of real value or instruction in arriving at a conclusion on that point. It depends, as the right hon. Gentleman will see at once, very largely on the character and quality of the labour that is employed, and upon the extent to which you can resort to the ordinary labour market and get men accustomed to the work to do it or you have to go outside. I made careful inquiry into that question myself, and I cannot say myself, the range is so wide, what the difference will be until we get to the end of the financial year. But I was going to add—not that I complain of the right hon. Gentleman's interruption—that these loans, which in themselves are a burden on the rates, have been and are being supplemented by large voluntary contributions—in Glasgow, for instance, £35,000; in Leeds and Manchester no less than £20,000 in each case have been subscribed. Now, Sir, in view of these facts, which I have recited in the baldest possible way to the House, I think it is impossible to say that the municipalities of the country as a whole have not shown themselves alive to their responsibilities in this matter. It has been suggested, and suggested in various quarters which are entitled to the greatest possible respect, that local authorities should be empowered by fresh legislation to raise a rate, not exceeding 1d. in the £, for the direct employment of unemployed labour. Some such provision was to be found in the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin four or five years ago, but it was ultimately dropped when that measure was passing through the House. In so far as the proposal proceeds on the view that national assistance—I will not say exactly or even proportionately—ought to be conditional on local activity, it is impossible not to sympathise with it. I think myself very strongly that we ought to be very careful and chary in giving a contribution out of the Central Fund to a locality which has not shown, in one way or another, its determination to do its best to the extent of its own resources to assist its own local people. But, without going into any question of principle—because we are dealing with a special emergency which calls for special treatment—the Government, after the most careful consideration, and viewing the matter in all its aspects, have come to the conclusion that the circumstances do not call for such a change in the law. I should like to make clear what are the grounds which have led us to that conclusion. In the first place, as far as we are aware, no municipality in this country has asked for this power. They have, as I have shown, been in communication for three or four mouths with the Local Government Board. They have applied for these loans and got sanction for them on the ground that in their view—I do do not say that as the law now stands they were not constrained to take that view—that was the proper method. But they have never suggested that they desired, in lieu of the policy of loans, a policy of rating themselves. On the contrary, the representations which I have received—and I have received a good number from the municipalities, and certainly the leading municipalities—have all been in this sense, that the emergency is such as to call upon the Government to deal with the matter on what they call national lines—that is to say, not to increase the burden that falls on the local community, but, as always happens in these days, to call upon the taxpayer, the central authority, to make good whatever the deficiency may be. But there is a more serious point. We have examined the facts very carefully, and we have come to the conclusion that if you gave this power to rate up to a 1d. it is extremely doubtful whether it would be largely taken advantage of, and, therefore, whether it would really be productive. What we want in these circumstances is money. We do not want an academic declaration on the Statute-book either of a principle or anything else. This is a matter of business, and we want to get money, if we can, from the right source. If you take what is called the distress districts, those in which unemployment really prevails, and exclude London, the total possible yield of a 1d. rate would not exceed £200,000. If you add London, a possible 1d. rate in London—I do not know whether the London County Council would like to levy it, but assuming they did, the yield would be £170,000. That is a total of £370,000.

It would realise over £200,000 in London.

I am told £170,000. Let us call it £200,000 and make the total £400,000, instead of £370,000. But these places are not going to rate themselves both ways. That is quite certain. If they have applied—and the great bulk of the distress districts have applied—for loans, the burden of which as I have shown, in respect of both principal and interest, must be made good out of the local rates, it is not at all likely that they are going to add to that the burden of a 1d. rate in order to provide a comparatively small addition to the resources which would otherwise be at their disposal. Further, I want to deal with this matter as a matter of business, and I can assure the House, and particularly some hon. Members below the gangway who attach great importance to this proposal of a 1d. rate, that I am looking at this purely as a matter of business, and with the sole object of dealing in the best way we can with the emergency we have got to face. You will get a great deal more money for the purposes which are immediately before us in the present winter, for the purposes of the next three or four months, out of your loans than you will get out of a 1d. rate. I have got here a list, which I shall be glad to have printed if the House likes, of twenty-four boroughs which include, I think, almost all the most necessitous and also very large municipalities, like Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Salford. If you take these twenty-four boroughs and add up the produce of a 1d. rate levied in each of them, you will find that that comes, roughly speaking, to £63,000. Thus, after allowing for Manchester, which produces £17,000, Liverpool, which produces £18,000, and Leeds, which produces £8,000, the total produce of a 1d. rate in these twenty-four boroughs would not exceed £63,000. In those very boroughs—I do not say in all of them, some of them have not applied at all—the loans sanctioned or contemplated between June and this present month of October amount to £602,000. In other words, they have placed at their disposal through the machinery of loans for the purpose of dealing with the exceptional circumstances of the country, nearly ten times as much as they would get from the produce of a 1d. rate. And let me add this—a not unimportant fact when you are dealing with this, as I say, as a matter of business, as an expedient to deal with a temporary emergency—that many of these places are places where the rates are already very high. They run up to 9s. 8d. and 9s. 10d. in the £ and, knowing as one does, human nature, and especially rate-paying and rate-imposing human nature, I suspect it would take a very long time before you could induce the governing body of one of these really necessitous areas to add to the burden of the rates for a temporary emergency a comparatively insignificant sum when, by the loans machinery which has been resorted to, they can provide much better for their wants. I have said so much on that point because I know it is one to which great importance is attached, and because it is one on which the judgment of the country ought to be determined, not upon academic grounds, and not upon grounds of dry economics, but upon practical and businesslike grounds. The Government have satisfied themselves that for these three, four, or five months which lie before us you will make a more adequate provision out of local resources to deal with the problem of local unemployment by resorting to the machinery of loans than you would if you adopted a 1d. rate. The House may well ask, What are the Government themselves doing, and what do they intend to do? Well, first of all, I will say a word about what has been done, or what is going to be done, by the Government Departments, because they have great responsibility in this matter. The Post Office, a very large employer of labour—probably the largest in the kingdom—in addition to various minor reforms in regard to overtime and so on, for the special purpose of dealing with this matter is taking on during the Christmas season, for the extra work which falls upon it at that time of the year—is taking on as it did last year—8,000 men, so far as possible men who are genuinely unemployed, largely obtained through the Central Unemployed Body of London, at wages which, owing to the action of my right hon. friend, have been raised from 20s. to 24s. a week. That may seem a small thing, but it is an important thing as far as it goes; and my right hon. friend, very wisely, if I may say so, has sought to extend the area of action in this matter by taking steps to provide with similar employment for these special seasonal purposes the unemployed in the great provincial centres of population. Then I come to the War Office. Let us see what that Department is doing. The replacement of the Militia by the Special Reserve has largely increased the amount of military employment in the winter months. A Special Reservist under the new system has only a fortnight's summer camp; but he does six months drill on enlistment, so that if he enlist early in the autumn, as the War Office encourages him to do, he is provided for throughout the winter. The War Office is prepared to take at least 24,000 recruits in the Special Reserve between now and March. We have got 5,000 already, and they are coming in faster, I am glad to say, week by week; and the War Office has decided, very wisely, to widen the choice of the intending recruit by throwing open the Army Medical Corps and the Army Service Corps, as well as the combatant branch, so that they may have a wider area of employment. If you take the lowest rank in the worst-paid arm, the emoluments are 1s. a day in cash, in addition to rations, and in addition to four payments by way of bounty of £1 each. If the 24,000 men whom the War Office want will join, that Department will spend during the winter of this year something nearly approaching £200,000. That is a very substantial addition to the provision made for the unemployed. Now I come to what is, perhaps, more important—the action taken by the Board of Admiralty. At Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham, Sheerness, Pembroke, and Haulbowline 2,100 men are to be specially engaged for repair work, which in the ordinary course would not have been undertaken this year. Those who have been previously employed in the yards will have first consideration, and their engagement will terminate on 31st March, 1909. The cost of that is £73,500. Tenders have been accepted for the construction of nine destroyers. According to the programme foreshadowed in the early part of the year these tenders would not have been accepted before the end of November. It is not advisable to disclose the exact amount of money involved, but it may be stated to be very nearly £900,000. Tenders for five unarmoured cruisers have been called for and are due on 5th November. According to the programme these orders would not have been placed until January, 1909. It is now hoped to place them by 26th November, possibly some of them by 15th November. The total of these tenders will certainly exceed £1,500,000 sterling. These orders meaning, as the House will see, £2,500,000 will be placed this year upwards of six weeks in advance of the time orginally proposed. Ante-dating the programme in this way by six weeks, and in some cases two months, means that, presumably, £200,000 more will be spent this winter by the contractors in executing the orders than would have been the case under the original programme. These orders will be distributed between the different shipbuilding centres, so that, as far as possible, they may fairly share them. Now let me come, in conclusion, to the central grant, which is directly paid out of the taxation of the country. Apart from the function to which I have already referred—that of making good, in the case of these municipal loans, the difference to the local authorities between what may be roughly described as contract and casual or unemployed labour—the central fund is applicable to two main purposes. In the first place, it can make grants to localities which are too poor to borrow or to borrow on any adequate scale. There are many such, and we know it is most desirable that where the rateable capacity of a locality is so low and at the same time its congestion of population and of unemployed is so great that ordinary conditions cannot be said to exist, the special fund should be allocated to that particular purpose. Another purpose to which the central fund can be applied is to pay for the employment of labour for purposes other than those for which loans are or can be sanctioned, but which fall within the scope of municipal enterprise. This is largely done by the Central Unemployed Body of London, a body to which I desire to pay a hearty tribute of gratitude and sympathy for the admirable work which it has done in the course of the last three years. We propose to increase the amount of the central fund. It is almost impossible at this moment to forecast with anything like precision what sum will meet the full necessities of a situation which is not yet fully developed. We propose in the first instance to double the amount of the central grant which was actually expended last year, which will bring us at once to an available figure of about £300,000. I do not pretend to predict the future in regard to that; but we are not content with increasing the amount of the central grant. We think a clear case of necessity has been shown for rendering more elastic the provisions and conditions under which it has been distributed. We propose to give the most elastic and most liberal interpretation possible to the character of the work which is to be aided out of the grant. When you are dealing with a special emergency like this, I am satisfied, as I believe everybody who hears me is, that you may stretch the limits which quite properly from a business point of view would be imposed when conditions were more nearly normal. Further, with regard to the special conditions under which this grant is administered, we propose they should be relaxed in two important particulars—first, so as to allow assistance to be given, in proper cases, to persons who have been receiving Poor Law relief during the last twelve months, who are at present excluded; and in the second place—and I think this equally important—so as to remove the disqualification of persons who have been assisted under the Act in each of the last two years. With those three modifications, elasticity in the character of the work and the removal of the disqualification in respect of Poor Law relief and assistance during the last two years, I believe the main objection which has been taken and the main criticisms of the present administration of the grant will be effectually removed. May I add how much can be done at a time like this, in addition to anything that the Government or local authorities can do, by landowners and well-to-do people in every walk of life, not merely by benevolent contributions, but by anticipating and accelerating work which in the normal course of things would have to wait until a later date to be carried out? The proposals which I have laid before the House on the part of the Government, I need hardly say, even for the purpose of dealing with the emergency in front of us, make no pretence to the character of finality. If and when the necessity should arise we shall be perfectly prepared to consider in what direction and to what extent they may need to be supplemented. But we believe them to be both adapted and adequate to foreseeable needs; I am sure that as we are in the presence of a national misfortune they will not be canvassed in the spirit of Party. Like all expedients of the kind they are little better than anodynes to produce temporary relief, which do not go down to the root of the evil. And we submit them merely as such, and with the hope and the intention that before this Parliament ends its labours we may be able to strike a real and an effective blow at the permanent causes of unemployment.

, on behalf of the Opposition, thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his extraordinarily clear statement, and asked how soon he proposed to give the House an opportunity of discussing the matters he had brought before them. So far as he was concerned he did not want the day to be fixed too soon, not this week, nor perhaps next week. [LABOUR cries of "Oh!"] He would give his reasons. The right hon. Gentleman had necessarily travelled over a very wide field and had referred to questions of extraordinary interest and intricacy. They would enter on the discussion far better equipped for debate if they were allowed some time to think over the right hon. Gentleman's statement and by Question and Answer to elicit replies from the Ministers concerned which would make them thoroughly acquainted with the proposals of the Government. Therefore, although he was the last person to wish to see the discussion delayed, he thought they ought to be allowed a few days before they approached the most complicated and most important question with which it was possible for the House to deal.

desired to say on behalf of his colleagues how thankful they were that the Prime Minister had made a clear and definite statement on this important subject. He was not in a position at the moment to venture any opinion as to whether the proposals were adequate or satisfactory, but he would urge the importance of a day being granted for their discussion much earlier than had been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. The question was of extreme urgency; and on behalf of his colleagues he would urge that Monday next should, if possible, be fixed as the date of the discussion.

asked whether in his survey of distressed localities the Prime Minister had taken Ireland into his purview. Had he taken steps to ascertain the amount of unemployment in Dublin, Limerick, Cork, and elsewhere, and would those plans be taken into account in the administration of the central fund.

asked that he should have notice of Questions relating to Ireland. With regard to the date of the discussion, the Government would like to consult the general convenience of the House. He would not commit himself at the moment to any particular day, but he confessed that the inclination of his own opinion was to take the discussion on an early day, because it was obviously a matter of urgency and should be discussed as soon as possible.