To ask the Lord Advocate if he will explain why certain fishermen residing at Cromarty were recently summoned to appear first at Dingwall and subsequently at Tain in connection with offences alleged to have been committed at Cromarty within a quarter of a mile of the courthouse provided for the trying of local cases, especially bearing in mind that the Dingwall Sheriff attonded at Cromarty and conducted business there only two days after the men were before the court at Dingwall; and, seeing that the trial at Dingwall or Tain of offences committed at Cromarty imposes heavy expenses on defendants as well as on witnesses, will instructions be given for such cases to be taken at the court-house at Cromarty in future. (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) The Dingwall case was a private prosecution for poaching, and the fishermen referred to were convicted and fined. The offence to be tried at Tain is one of assault. I have made inquiries as to Tain and not Cromarty being selected as the place of trial, and I am informed that for several years cases of this character have been tried in Tain in consequence of disturbances which took place on the occasion I of the last Cromarty trial. It is the opinion of the sheriff and of all the authorities locally concerned that the practice should be followed on the present occasion, and I cannot see my way to countermand the order given for trial there accordingly.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a person who spent a number of years in the United States, but who left his wife and family in Ireland, contributing in the meantime to their maintenance, and who has been for the past eight years back in his own country, is entitled to an old-age pension, all the other requirements of the Act being satisfied. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The matter is governed by Article 29 of the Old-Age Pensions Regulations, to which I may refer the hon. Member.

To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the case of a Clyde pilot, William MacKinlay, who was tried at Glasgow, on 15th May last, for reckless navigation of the steamship "Maracas" on 11th November preceding, whereby H.M.S. "Harrier" was alleged to have been endangered; if so, will he say why so long a time was allowed to elapse before this case was brought to trial, to the great disadvantage of the defendant; why his Department took four months to instruct the prosecuting authority in Scotland and another month to give them fuller particulars; and if in future, if a charge is to be instituted in Scotland, he will see that no such delay as this occurs. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) My attention has been called to the case. There does not appear to have been any avoidable delay. Much inter-departmental correspondence was necessary, as well as reference to the owners of the "Maracas" and the Clyde Pilot Board, before the matter could be placed in the hands of the legal authorities. For the intervening period until judgment was given by the sheriff at Glasgow the Admiralty cannot be held responsible.

To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that in West Suffolk 254 applications have been made for small holdings and eighty-three of these have been approved, and that no applicants have yet been provided for by the council and no land acquired; and what steps he proposes to take. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Yes, Sir. The county council are however negotiating for the acquisition of several properties, and the Board have every reason to believe that the council will submit some schemes before long. If they fail to do so the Board will take all necessary steps in the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a communication from Khartoum stating that a force under Major Lempriere operating from Dilling, South Kordofan, made a demonstration against the tribes in the Tilul Basran district, and that the hill was stormed on 3rd November and the chiefs of the village captured, the Government casualties being three killed and twenty-four wounded, and the enemy's loss sixty; by whose authority was this punitive expedition undertaken; was the Foreign Office aware of its having been undertaken, and were these hostile proceedings commenced with the direct sanction of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and, if so, will he be able to communicate the information on which he authorised the expedition; whether the loss of the enemy was the loss of sixty lives; how many were killed and how many wounded, and what became of the wounded or what treatment was accorded to them; and whether he will be able to give particulars of this expedition and the reasons for it, and to state whether it was accompanied with the burning of villages and the destruction of crops; and whether any further hostilities in the Soudan are contemplated by the Government. (Answered by Sir Edward Grey.) I have received no official information with regard to these operations except that no casualties have occurred among the British officers engaged. It is, of course, within the competence of the Government of the Soudan to take, on their own initiative, any measures that may be necessary for protection and the maintenance of order.

To ask the Lord Advocate whether, having regard to the acceptance by the Government of the Resolution of the 27th February, 1906, he can now state when the Report of the Truck Committee, promised to be presented before Easter, and subsequently for this month, will be in the hands of Members; and if arrangements can be made to expedite the circulation of the evidence. (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) The full draft of this Report has been prepared and is about to be circulated for consideration by the members of the Committee. It is still hoped that the Report, evidence, and other relative papers will be issued this month.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the method by which he drew the attention of a magistrate who had ordered the imprisonment of eleven ladies for offences arising out of the suffrage agitation, who were placed by his order in the third division, to the fact that these ladies belonged to the class of prisoners for whom the second division was intended, with the result that the magistrate removed these prisoners from the third to the second division; whether there is any, and, if so, what, other instance of a member of the Executive Government communicating with a magistrate; and whether he will explain his reasons for determining to advise the Crown, in the exercise of its prerogative, to order the transfer of these ladies from the third to the second division, instead of bringing pressure to bear on a magistrate to modify his sentences in accordance with the I suggestions of the Executive.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the fact that the Commissioner of Police in London is under his control and jurisdiction, he accepts responsibility for the institution of proceedings against ladies by the police authorities, in relation to matters arising out of the suffragist agitation, in which they have been summoned to police Courts to enter into recognisances to be of good behaviour with the alternative of imprisonment in default of entering into such recognisances into which it was publicly stated by them they would decline to enter, and that by this method these ladies have been sentenced to imprisonment in the second division which is not regarded at law as conviction of any offence with power of appeal to a higher tribunal; and whether these proceedings have his sanction; and, if so, on what grounds does he base their justification. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I accept full responsibility for the proceedings taken by the Metropolitan Police. The adoption of preventive measures for the preservation of order in the streets was, in my opinion, amply justified by the circumstances of the case.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the names of the thirty-three local authorities who applied for permission to establish distress committees and were refused, giving the population within their areas, and also the names of the eleven authorities who applied and afterwards withdrew their application, giving the population in each case. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The following tables give the information for which my hon. friend asks. Table A refers to the thirty-three local authorities and Table B to the eleven local authorities to whom he refers:—

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state whether an Order in Council will be issued to amend No. 25 of the Old-Age Pensions Regulations, and, if so, when. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) A draft Order in Council, annulling Article 25 of the Old-Age Pensions Regulations as from the 1st January, 1909, is being prepared, and will be laid before His

^* Fresh application now under consideration.

† See note at foot of Table A.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can recommend, with a view to discovering the genuine unemployed, that a column should be added in the printed registers for applicants for work on distress committees showing what reason each man gives for leaving the work afforded by such committees. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The hon. Member will see from the regulations of 13th January, 1906, a copy of which I lately sent him, that the record paper prescribed by them contemplates the entry of a record of the after history of the case, and this entry would properly include such a matter as that referred to in the Question. It is open to a distress committee to enter in the register which they are required to keep, by Article VII. of the Regulations of 10th October, 1905, particulars under this head extracted from the record paper, but I doubt whether it is necessary for me to make any special recommendation on the subject.

To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will state the total number of applications that have been made for allotments under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act; the number of applicants approved as suitable; and the number of those whose applications have been satisfied. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No detailed information has yet been obtained as to the demand for allotments. There are over 14,000 allotment authorities, and it would not be practicable to obtain Returns from them more often than once a year. The information will be obtained for the Annual Report.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state on what basis are pension officers in Ireland to calculate the income of a small farm; whether by the rent paid, or if he can state what is to be the procedure in such cases. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) As I informed the hon. Member for East Tyrone on the 10th inst., pension officers have to exercise their discretion in dealing with this class of case. The assessment of the advantage derived from the occupation of a holding is a matter of considerable difficulty, and, while the amount of the rent in many cases provides a useful working measure of such advantage, it has not been possible to lay down an invariable rule on that basis. Each case has to be considered upon its merits with reference to the amount of rent paid and to other considerations affecting the value of the holding to the occupier as a source of income and means of subsistence.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in reference to subsection 3, Section 48 of the Land Purchase Act of 1903, all agree-

To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state what are the total aggregate amounts which have been devoted to naval expenditure during the last ten years by Great Britain, Germany, France, and Russia, respectively, and how far those amounts are affected by the expenditure mentioned in Appendix A in what is known as the Thomasson Return. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.)—

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the order posted up in His Majesty's dockyard, Devonport, viz., all men seeking entry must be out of employment at the time, preference to be given to men who have served in the yard before, but out of employment; and if he is aware that the officials at the dockyard have been entering men who were in employment at the time of entry; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter.

The conditions set out on the notice to which the hon. Member refers, are in accordance with recent Admiralty instructions relative to these special entries of workmen in His Majesty's dockyards. Every care has been taken to exclude men already in employment, and so far as is known, none but men actually unemployed have been entered, except one joiner, who was under notice of discharge by his employer when he applied for work. One man who was in evening employment was also entered in ignorance of the fact, and directly it was discovered, he took his own discharge. Ten men who were skilled mechanics employed as labourers have been rated as mechanics, namely, eight smiths and two plumbers, and their places filled by men entered as labourers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has yet been reached as to the supply of cheap ammunition to rifle clubs; and whether he is aware of the steps which have been taken by the National Rifle Association to secure the same object.

The question of the supply of cheap ammunition to rifle clubs is still under consideration. The War Office is not aware of the steps taken by the National Rifle Association in this direction.

Having regard to the fact that shooting in miniature rifle clubs is now commencing, will he accelerate, as far as possible, negotiations on the subject?

Yes Sir.

When may we hope for an Answer?

I have already enunciated the general principles, and I am now working out the details.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many baths with hot and cold water are provided per 100 soldiers at Parkhurst Barracks, Isle of Wight.

There are two baths for non-commissioned officers and eight for men giving approximately 2·22 per cent. for non-commissioned officers and per cent for men.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the provision for soldiers in this respect is far worse than that in the adjoining convict prison?

There is not the smallest analogy between the two cases. The soldiers are willing bathers. The arrangements were settled just before I came into office, and I am informed that they are in exact accordance with the regulations.

Will the conditions be improved?

I am not aware that that is required.

May I ask the Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, if he will state whether, looking at the state of affairs in India, he will hold in abeyance the removal of any troops from South Africa to home, and whether it is his intention to despatch any reinforcements to India beyond ordinary drafts, or to keep time-expired men in India for the present.

I received notice of the hon. Member's Question a couple of hours ago. I am certainly not aware of anything which necessitates the taking of any such steps as he suggests.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman—[Cries of "Order."] May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will remember the fact that South Africa was saved by an Indian Brigade being there in time?

Is it not a fact that owing to the nature of the armaments of the British troops they are now at least 400 per cent. stronger than an equal number were fifty years ago?

I think that any discussion of this kind is very much to be deprecated.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether pension officers are authorised to reckon charitable pensions which are voluntary, and have not been a condition of the applicant's previous service, as part of his income disqualifying for a pension.

Pension officers have been instructed to treat in their reports to the Pension Committee such sources of income as forming part of the means of the claimant for the purpose of the Old-Age Pensions Act.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many baths with hot and cold water are provided per 100 prisoners at Parkhurst Prison, Isle of Wight.

The Answer is seven.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can explain why a letter written on 29th October by William Williams, a prisoner in Pentonville Prison, was not delivered to his friends until 16th November; whether he is aware that as a consequence Williams' friends were kept in entire ignorance of his whereabouts and suffered much anxiety, whilst the Metropolitan Police force were searching for him all over London; and whether he proposes to take any action to punish those responsible for keeping back the letter, and will issue regulations to prevent the recurrence of such an incident.

The notice to the prisoner's friends was sent on the 29th of October to the address given by the prisoner, but it was returned on the 3rd of October marked "Address not known," and the prisoner was so informed. On November the 13th he applied to re-address the letter, and this was immediately done. The delay was due to the prisoner's mistake, and the prison officials are in no way responsible for it. The hon. Member has given me private notice of a further Question relating to the same case, and in reply to that, perhaps I may be allowed to say now that I am making inquiries into the matter.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state how many telegraph messengers of less than sixteen years of age it is proposed to employ on men's duties during the Christmas period in the Post Office; whether it is contrary to the regulations to employ boys of less than sixteen years on men's work; and, if not, whether, in view of the un-desirability of the practice, he will issue an instruction upon the subject.

Instructions have already been issued that telegraph messengers under sixteen years of age should not be employed upon men's duties during the Christmas pressure if any other arrangement is practicable.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can see his way to extending the cash-on-delivery system in Morocco to Casablanca, Mazagan, and Mogador; and if he can state to which towns in Morocco the French and German systems are extended.

I am making inquiries as to the advisability of extending the cash-on-delivery system to the agencies maintained by the British Post Office in towns on the coast of Morocco. The postal union system for the collection of trade charges appears to be extended to all German postal agencies in Morocco; but the service, so far as the French agencies are concerned, is confined to parcels addressed to Tangier and Tetuan.

Will the British subjects have the same facilities as foreigners?

That is what I hope.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that adult night-messengers at several offices have been informed that they must accept appointments as town postmen; and whether, as it was the clear intention of the recent Select Committee that they should be made established adult night-messengers, he will have them placed on the established list, as was done in the case of the unestablished telegraphists at the Central Telegraph Office.

A number of adult night-messengers have been offered nominations to postmen's places, but there has been no compulsion. The postmen's places carry higher pay. All who are eligible under the recommendations of the Select Committee and who do not desire postmen's places will be established as adult night-messengers.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what grants in aid of elementary education are secured to the local education authorities by statute; what is the average amount per child; and what grants will be secured by statute to the local education authorities for elementary education if the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill becomes law in its present form.

The grants secured by Section 19 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, Section 2 of the Education Code (1890) Act, 1890, Section 1 of the Elementary Education Act, 1891, and Section 10 of the Education Act, 1902. These grants amount, on the average, to about £1 per child in average attendance. It is generally admitted that the existing system is unsatisfactory, and it is, therefore, proposed to repeal these enactments in order to leave the way clear for the introduction of more satisfactory methods of distributing grants in aid of elementary education. For this purpose it is essential that the basis of distribution should not be defined by statute.

Will the new regulations be enacted by statute or by code?

I presume by code.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that there are now on the Statute-book about forty requirements to be fulfilled as a condition of public money being applied in aid of an elementary school, and that most of them are repealed by the Elementary Education (England and Wales) Bill, and nothing put in their place; and, as that Bill is entitled a Bill to regulate the conditions on which public money may be applied in aid of elementary education, will he state the number and terms of the conditions remaining on the Statute-book if the Bill becomes law in its present form.

The Bill now before Parliament provides that no grant shall be paid in respect of an elementary school other than a public elementary school, unless the conditions specified in Clause 2 are satisfied. I do not think it is possible to state the number and terms of the requirements which must be complied with if a school is to be recognised as a public elementary school.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, how many schemes have been received by the Board of Agriculture up to date, and how many have been approved.

One hundred and fifty-four schemes have been received, of which eighty-five have been approved, four disapproved and three withdrawn, leaving sixty-two still under consideration. In most of these cases the acquisition of the land has been approved, but the details of the scheme have not been finally settled.

asked in how many counties no schemes had been submitted.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that Question.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how many persons will be provided for by these schemes?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what county and parish councils are exercising the powers given them by the Small Holdings and Allotments Act for the erection of houses and buildings on small holdings and allotments.

In the schemes approved the following county councils have arranged to erect houses and buildings on small holdings, viz.: Cambridge, Cornwall, East Riding of Yorkshire, Gloucester, Holland, Isle of Wight, Montgomery, Radnor and Worcester. We have no information at present as to the action taken in this direction by parish councils as they are not required to submit their proposals to the Board.

asked whether in the last resort, if the county council refused to erect these houses, the Commissioners were empowered by the Act to erect them on their own initiative.

That is a very important question. The hon. Member must give me notice of it.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, of how many applications, out of the 23,000 applications which have been made for land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, the Small Holdings Commissioners have particulars in their possession.

The Board do not keep a register of applications, not considering it necessary to do so, but they will be happy to obtain specific information from any county council about any particular application.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that, out of nearly 13,000 persons who have been approved by the county councils as suitable applicants for small holdings, only 595 have obtained land under the Act, he will now consider the advisability of establishing a register of applications so that every approved applicant may have a satisfactory assurance that his application will in time be dealt with.

As I have previously informed my hon. friend, the Board do not propose to keep a register of the nature suggested.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how the Board will ascertain when it ought to enforce its powers?

The Board has full power to ascertain the particulars of any case.

Will it ever be considered necessary?

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of establishing a register without delay?

It is not necessary, as the Board can always apply to county councils for particulars of cases.

But how is it possible for the Board to know in what cases it should apply for information?

Are not hon. Members raising a purely hypothetical case? Has any case actually arisen?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the county of Sussex 330 applications for small holdings have been made, and 170 of these have been approved; whether no applicants have been provided for by the council and no land acquired; and what steps he proposes to take.

Yes. The county council are, however, obtaining valuations of several properties which have been offered them, and we hope that it will not be long before some land has been acquired.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are two county councils in Sussex?

The figures in the Question apply to both divisions of the county.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, when the Board receives a specific complaint from any applicant for a small holding whose application has been refused, what method of investigating has it adopted.

The usual procedure is to ask in the first place for the observations of the county council. If the reasons assigned for the rejection appear insufficient, the county council is requested to reconsider the application. If necessary, an inspector is sent down to make a personal inquiry into the case. No case has occurred where a county council has refused to reconsider an application on being asked by the Board to do so.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what means have been adopted to ascertain the extent of the demand for land in those counties where the county council has shown itself reluctant to administer the Act.

No county council has failed to take the necessary steps to ascertain the extent of the demand for small holdings and to invite applications, and the Board are in possession of full information as to the extent of the demand in each county.

Is it the fact that many of the county councils have not yet completed their inquiries?

asked for notice of the Question.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the county of Surrey 244 applications have been made and 104 of these have been approved; that no applicants have yet been provided for by the council and no land acquired; and what steps he proposes to take.

The facts are as stated, but the difficulties of acquiring land in Surrey are exceptional owing to the building value of most of the land in those localities where there is a demand for small holdings. The county council are in active negotiation for land, and the Board are satisfied that they are carrying out their duties with all possible expedition.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the Board will direct all county councils to make a full report on every application and to state in detail the reasons why any particular application is rejected.

The President does not think that any useful purpose would be served by adopting this suggestion. Full inquiry is made into every specific complaint that is received.

But how does the Board know the number of applications rejected?

A report is made to the Board on all applications, whether approved or disapproved.

Is it not the fact that the county council has quite as much knowledge of the nature of the application as the Board of Agriculture?

Naturally it has local and detailed knowledge.

Have not the Commissioners reported that county councils take in many cases a very narrow view?

And is it not the fact?

I think hon. Members are rather exceeding their rights.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if, in view of the fact that the Board has only received copies of 2,360 applications out of 20,000 applications made to the county councils, the Board will issue instructions to county councils to forward immediately copies of all applications received.

The Board are unable to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend, as it would place a great deal of additional work on county councils and on the Board without any corresponding advantage being gained. The Board are, however, in continuous communication with the county councils and do obtain any information they require from them as occasion arises.

Will the Board instruct the county councils to give the reasons in all cases for rejecting applications?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that in a circular issued by the Board on 1st January it is stated that the expenses incurred in relation to the acquistion of land would ordinarily be held to include the expenses of any local inquiry; and whether this can therefore be paid out of the Small Holdings Account.

The local inquiries referred to are those held in connection with the application for a compulsory order. The expenses of such inquiries will be paid out of the Small Holdings account.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether it is the intention of the Small Holdings Commissioners to compile a complete record of all applications received and dealt with under the Small Holdings Act of 1907.

The Board can and do obtain from county councils any information they may require as to applications received, and the President does not think any useful purpose would be served by adopting the suggestion of my hon. friend.

Is it possible to ascertain the demand for land as required by the Act without compiling a record?

Certainly. [Cries of "How?"]

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the county of Stafford 214 applications have been made for small holdings and 112 of these have been approved; that no applicants have yet been provided for by the council and no land acquired; and what steps he proposes to take.

Yes. The county council are, however, in negotiation for 520 acres, and the Board are informed that they hope to have acquired a considerable area by next Lady Day, which is the usual date of entry in the county.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Mansfield division of Nottinghamshire, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been directed to recent legal proceedings where one E. T. Hooley, of Nottingham, an undischarged bankrupt, was shown to be having large financial transactions in the name of his wife; will he say if he has any powers to prevent an undischarged bankrupt evading the bankruptcy law in this manner; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take.

I have received a communication from the solicitor to Mr. Hooley, in which he categorically denies the assertions contained in this Question. He adds that they appear to be founded on ex parte statements made in some litigation to which neither Mr. nor Mrs. Hooley was a party. However, as neither the solicitor nor my hon. friend could give me the date or particulars, I have not been able to learn much about it. If my hon. friend will be good enough to send me an authentic report of the statements on which he relies, I will see what can and should be done.

asked whether the solicitor denied that Mr. Hooley was an undischarged bankrupt.

I do not think the solicitor would deny that.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Hooley is not of Nottingham, but a native of the same county as the hon. Member in whose name the Question appears on the Paper?

I Leg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the boycotting during the past half-year of persons in the Riverstown district of county Sligo because they refused to join the United Irish League; and whether any Executive action has been taken, or is to be taken, to put a stop to the systematic intimidation practised upon these individuals.

The Government has taken, and will take all possible steps to afford protection to any persons in the district who may require it, and the police force in the district has been largely reinforced with that object. As a prosecution is pending it is not desirable to make any further statement.

Why did the Executive allow six months to elapse before they took any action?

was understood to deny that they had done so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received particulars of an extensive cattle-drive at Towerhill, Claremorris, on the 7th instant; how many farms were raided; and whether any persons were arrested or prosecuted.

This appears to be the cattle drive about which the hon. and gallant Member for East Down asked a Question yesterday. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply. I understand that the cattle were driven off three farms.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received information of a moonlight outrage at Corbehagh, East Clare, at the house of a farmer named Cummins; whether shots were discharged through the windows of the dwelling; and whether any persons were arrested or proceeded against.

The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that on the occasion in question four shots were fired outside Cummins' house, one of which passed through the window. No arrests have been made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the reason for the rejection by the County Court Judge of the claim of William Sheehan to a labourer's cottage on the farm of Jeremiah Hegarty, Ballyvourney, county Cork; was the house in which the applicant resides condemned by the medical officer of health for the locality; and was the sole ground of opposition to this man's claim that he participated in an agitation for the acquisition by the Estates Commissioners of a large area of land owned by Mr. Hegarty for the purposes of distribution amongst the labourers and uneconomic holders in a congested district.

The Local Government Board have not yet received a copy of the County Court Order in this case. It is the fact that the applicant's house was condemned as unfit for habitation. The petitioner, Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty, opposed the erection of the proposed cottage on several grounds, one of which was the unsuitability of the applicant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Commissioners of Intermediate Education in Ireland, having regard to the number of girls' schools which work under their supervision, to allot a due proportion of the new inspectorships to women.

It has been decided by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education that the first six inspectors to be appointed shall be men.

Will there women be any women inspectors appointed?

That is not a matter within my power, but I hope personally it will be possible to have women inspectors.

Will the right hon. Gentleman represent his personal views to the Intermediate Education Board? He has great personal influence.

The hon. Gentleman must allow me to estimate the force of my personality.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the decisions of Major Breddin, Inspector of the Local Government Board, in regard to the claims of labourers in the Charleville rural district have caused much dissatisfaction amongst the general body of applicants under the Labourers Act; did he reject forty-two applications for additional half-acres, although no opposition was offered by the occupiers in a large number of these cases; and, if so, will he state the reasons assigned for these rejections; were the applications of some labourers thrown out on the same grounds that they possessed a cow each; how long has this been recognised as a reason for rejection by inspectors of the Local Government Board; were others refused who were awarded prizes for the excellent way in which they cultivated their plots; and will he say whether a right of appeal should be given to labourers in cases such as these.

In this case forty-two applications for additional half-acres were rejected by the Local Government Board inspector, thirty-two because the existing allotments were very badly kept, and ten for various reasons which were communicated to the district council. The fact that the applicant kept a cow was not, and could not be, a ground of rejection in any case. The question whether a right of appeal should be given to labourers in rejected cases was considered when the Labourers Bill of 1906 was before Parliament and was decided in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount of purchase money agreed to under the Purchase Act of 1903, up to 1st November last in the county and parliamentary borough of Cork, and what is the amount paid for up to that date; what is the acreage covered by the agreements; how many occupiers have purchased and at what percentage of reduction and number of years purchase in the second term, first term, and non-judicial categories respectively; what is the average percentage of reduction obtained by the tenant purchasers as compared with the average reduction under previous Purchase Acts, and how does the average percentage of reduction obtained by tenant purchasers in Cork compare with the average reduction obtained by tenant purchasers in the rest of Ireland, abstracting the results obtained by the agreements in the county and parliamentary borough of Cork; whether there is any reason to believe that the purchase transactions in Cork have not given substantial satisfaction, both to vendors and purchasers; and whether, under these circumstances, he will consider the advisability in his forthcoming Bill of laying down the average prices agreed to in Cork as standard prices, above which the bonus will not be payable, relieving the vendors at the same time of the expense of proving title by recognising the receipt of rent for a fair number of years as sufficient proof for all purposes.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that up to the 31st October 1908, 17,507 purchase agreements were lodged for the sale of holdings in the county Cork, comprising an estimated area of 865,000 acres; the purchase money applied for in these cases amounts to £8,202,219, which is said to work out at 21·3 years purchase as compared with an average of all classes of rent of 22·5 years purchase in the whole of Ireland, but this figure is subject to revision. Up to the same date £1,960,875 was advanced in respect of 3,961 of these holdings, comprising an area of 183,032 acres. The Commissioners are unable to state at present in respect of the agreements lodged to the 31st October, 1908, the number of years purchase and percentage of reduction in second term, first term, and non-judicial categories, as only a proportion of the agreements have been so classified and analysed, but the hon. Member will find, on page 4 of the last Annual Report of the Commissioners, dated 28th July last, by counties and provinces, the number of years purchase and percentage of reduction in these categories of rent as regards the agreements which it had been found possible so to classify and analyse to the date of such Report. As regards the Question how the percentage of reduction obtained by tenant purchasers under the Irish Land Act, 1903, compares with that obtained under previous Acts, I would refer the hon. Member to pages 14 and 15 of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Irish Land Purchase Finance, where the matter is dealt with at considerable length. There is no reason to doubt that the purchase transactions in Cork have given satisfaction to both parties concerned. As regards the hon. Member's suggestion relative to the bonus, I must ask him to await the introduction of the Bill, His suggestion in regard to title is, I fear, quite impracticable. Not only must there be a prima facie title to sell, but title must be fully proved before the purchase money can be distributed.

As I understand, the Cork prices are, roughly speaking four years lower than the rest of Ireland. May I remind the right hon. gentleman he has omitted to answer my suggestion that the Cork prices should be standardised as the prices for the rest of Ireland. The figures he has given, as I suggest, would mean taking four years off the purchase price of the farmers of Ireland in general, and may I ask whether he is not aware that I have made that suggestion publicly on various occasions, and that it was never objected to by any landlord representative or by the landlord newspapers, provided always the vendors are relieved of the legal process of proving title?

I assure the hon. Member that we have boon for weeks past considering the question on the very lines he has now suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total amount of purchase money represented by agreements under the Purchase Act of 1903 up to 1st November last, with the number of purchasers and area of land covered by the agreements; what is the amount of purchase money remaining unpaid at that date; what is the number of tenant purchasers who have agreed to pay 3½, 3¾, and 4 per cent. interest, respectively, on the purchase money pending completion of the sales; what is the annual amount of the loss sustained by each of those categories of tenant purchasers as compared with the annuity of 3¼, to which their payments would be reduced if the purchase money were available; and, in case the failure to supply the purchase money should continue for five years or over, what will be the total loss to the tenant purchasers up to the time when their ownership will begin; and whether the forthcoming Bill will make any provision to remedy this injustice.

The Estates Commissioners inform me that the total amount of purchase money applied for, in the agreements lodged up to the 31st October last inclusive, in the case of direct sales was £69,595,103, the number of purchasers was 203,626, and the number of acres covered by the agreements was approximately 6,357,000. The amount of money applied for, but not advanced on that date, was £50,150,231. While the Land Commission, who collect the interest, know the rate which each purchaser has, by his purchase agreement, undertaken to pay, the agreements, as I stated to the hon. Member on the 11th instant, are not classified according to the different rates of interest. The Commissioners could not, therefore, give the numbers falling under each of the three headings mentioned in the Question without going over the whole 200,000 agreements again. I understand that the average rate of interest is about 3½ per cent.

I quite understand the difficulty of arriving at these figures. May we hope that in his statement Monday next the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some approximate of the penalty which the present breakdown involves upon the purchasing tenants?

Of course, I do not admit any breakdown.

Only two millions paid out of eight millions in County Cork.

The rate is going on as it always has been. There is no question of breakdown. Of course, the point the hon. member has in his mind is the difference between purchase annuity rate and the rate the tenant has to pay by way of interest upon the completion of his agreement, and I will certainly do my best to deal with that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of purchase agreements lodged with the Estates Commissioners, under the Irish Land Act, 1903, up to the 1st November instant; the total amount of the advances applied for; the number of purchase agreements completed at that date, with the amount of the advances made; and the amount of the bonus paid or payable in respect of these transactions.

As regards the first part of this Question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the Question asked by the hon. Member for Cork. The number of agreements for direct sales in respect of which advances had been made up to 31sb October last inclusive was 45,707 and the amount advanced £19,444,872. The bonus paid or payable thereon at 12 per cent. amounts to £2,285,982.

Leaving a balance, therefore, of about nine millions?

No, no; certainly not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, although artisans and labourers employed at the Cork barracks have not technically been dismissed by the military authorities, they have been discharged by the triennial contractors, owing to the military authorities having allotted to the field company of the Royal Engineers a large proportion of the incidental work hitherto executed by civilian workmen; whether the field company would be sufficiently employed on field works at Moore Park and Kil-worth camp, without taking the places of Cork working men at reduced wages; and whether, the War Office having pledged themselves to aid in coping with unemployment, they will withdraw these soldiers from competition with civilian workers at rates of pay inconsistent with the Fair Wages Resolution of this House.

I have called for a report on the matter.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the character of the so-called Protestant Mutual Defence Association formed at Riverstown, county Sligo, for the purpose of intimidating Protestants and compelling them to transfer their custom from the Catholic to the Protestant traders and mechanics of that village and generally of creating in the district that ill-will which has recently eventuated in murder; whether it is with his sanction that one of the Protestant traders, the local postmaster, has assisted in founding this boycotting trade society with the sectarian name and actively practices its policy; and, if not, what action he proposes to take to restore the non-partisan character of the postal service in the Riverstown district.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the association referred to has been formed for the protection of the lives and property of Protestants who have been boycotted for refusing to subscribe to the funds of the United Irish League?

That is hardly a Question which affects my Department. In reply to the hon. Member for Westmeath I have to say I am making inquiry into the matter, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

said the two Commissions appointed by the Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was the head, and composed of a majority of Tory Members, had proved conclusively that Sunday closing was a great success in Wales.

said he was only saying that they could make figures prove almost anything, but the House could see that he was not basing his arguments at all upon figures. He had been arguing upon a different basis. If Sunday closing proved a success, it would be because the general opinion of the country was behind it, and that it sprang naturally out of the character of the people. They were attempting a very serious experiment with this particular clause. He was sure that it was unwise further to restrict the hours in which public-houses should be open on Sundays. He believed that if they had them open for three hours they would only crowd into those three hours the amount of drinking that otherwise would be spread over six hours, and the effect, so far as drunkenness was concerned, would be nil, and the general moral result would also be nil. The complexities of a measure like this were naturally very great and the difficulties in the way of the Government which endeavoured to deal with temperance were very great. He did not want by anything he might say to make those difficulties greater, but he did say that in the last debate did not they have any good or well-founded arguments put forward why these restrictions should be made, and he hoped that that day convincing arguments would be adduced. As for applying the Sunday Closing Act to Monmouthshire, he could understand those who lived in Wales desiring to see that neighbouring county brought into line with their particular view but hon. Members opposite must not be surprised if it was pointed out from that side of the House that if drinking in Monmouthshire and in Wales was to be judged from the evidence of arrests for drunkenness, it would be found that the advantage lay with Monmouthshire. He believed, for instance, that there were ninety-one arrests for illicit sale of liquor in 1907 in Glamorganshire, and none in Monmouthshire. It was for the Government to show that there was good reason for believing that the inclusion of Monmouthshire in the area of Sunday closing would be for the good of that county, and would not lower instead of raising the status of morality there. He moved the rejection of the clause because he hoped there would spring out of it a discussion which would show to the House that the efforts of the Government in this particular clause could be well defended, and that the sense of the House as a whole was behind it, because unless they got the sense of the House and of the country as a whole behind every step they took in temperance reform or in any other moral reform, the result would only be to the disadvantage of the general character of the people and to the reduction of morality generally. He begged to move.

said his hon. friend had referred to certain figures that had been quoted by him with regard to drunkenness in Wales and Scotland, and had said that if those figures were to be taken as accurate they would show that Sunday closing had been a failure in Wales, and the hon. Member for Burnley somewhat discourteously stated that he would not take those figures. Those figures, however, did not come from his own side. His point was that if they were to go on figures with regard to drunkenness in Wales and Scotland for the last ten years from the findings of the Royal Commissions, there was nothing to lead the House to believe that the Government were justified in this principle of restriction.

Does the noble Lord refer to figures with regard to Sunday drunkenness or with regard to drunkenness generally?

said he was speaking with regard to the effect of restrictions on Sunday upon the amount of drunkenness, and he coupled with that what was quite as important, the number of prosecutions for illicit sales of drink.

This is an important matter, and in order to make it clear, will the noble Lord state whether the figures as to Sunday drunkenness include arrests for drunkenness on Saturday night?

said he did not propose to quote all these figures. He quoted them on the Committee stage of the Bill, and it was either the right hon. Gentleman himself or the Solicitor-General who said that figures could be made to prove anything. It had not been disputed on a former stage of the Bill that the figures for Scotland and Wales with respect to Sunday drunkenness and illicit sales showed that the effect of the Sunday restriction was to produce a large amount of sales of drink in unlicensed houses. Probably there would be less open drunkenness for the simple reason that people would get drunk on premises which were not under police control. If the effect had been to produce an enormous increase of illicit sales on Sunday, and not a corresponding decrease in drunkenness, then he said the system of restriction of sale on Sunday had broken down. He wished to put to the Government and their friends the temperance leaders, the exact position in which the country would be placed it the clause was adopted. The publicans of England would then be under what might really be described as three different laws or sets of regulations. In the first place, they would have to provide food without alcohol at any time, day or night, from twelve o'clock midnight on Saturday to twelve o'clock on Sunday night. Secondly, they would be under another regulation with regard to the sale of drink with meals. A publican was allowed, and, in fact, more or less compelled under the Bill, to supply alcohol with meals to any person who desired it on Sunday during those hours at which he was permitted to supply it at the present time. Thirdly, as he understood, the publican was permitted to supply drink with any kind of meal for one hour between noon and 3 p.m., and for any two hours between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. He had not the least hesitation in saying that there had never been anything in a Bill passed through that House so confusing and muddling as the regulations now set forth. They had never been dreamt of by any other Government or included in any other Bill. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking in the country a short time ago, said that the greatest intellects of the land were ranged on the side of this Bill.

Hear, hear.

said that no doubt the hon. Gentleman agreed with the President of the Board of Trade. All he could say was: If the right hon. Gentleman is right, may Providence protect any country in which the greatest intellects after thinking over it for two years can produce no clearer clause than that which we are discussing. He appealed to the Government on this point to take some step either there or in another place to have the regulations made clearer for the unfortunate publican. Referring to the first subsection of the clause dealing with the restriction of hours on Sunday, he said that, so far as he understood, there was nothing in the Amendments made by the Solicitor-General at the beginning of the Report stage which would safeguard the working man who wished to obtain his Sunday beer to drink with his dinner. It appeared to him that some districts would be absolutely prevented from supplying it if the magistrates chose to pass a regulation making the hour for Sunday opening between 2 and 3 o'clock. That would absolutely preclude the working man from obtaining a supply of beer for his dinner unless he chose to take his dinner in the public-house, which he was sure no hon. Member desired to see him do. That was an important point upon which the Government should give the House their views. It seemed to him that it would be very harsh that persons who had no cellarage accommodation in their own houses should be compelled practically to forego liquor for their Sunday dinner by reason of this restriction. As the Leader of the Opposition had pointed out on the Committee stage, the restriction might lead to the risk of working men laying in a supply not of beer, but of spirits and other liquors which were more easily stored than beer, and using them before the time of the Sunday dinner. It was important from the national point of view that the people of England should not be encouraged to drink spirits instead of beer. He should have thought the Government would have been most anxious to arrive at a compromise on this matter by which a regular hour would have been indicated for the opening of licensed houses on Sunday morning in all districts. He thought the arrangement of having houses open from 12 to 1 in one district, 1 to 2 in another, and 2 to 3 in the third was open to all kinds of objections while furnishing no possible advantage. As to the second subsection, dealing with the bona fide traveller, he desired to put a direct question to the Government and the hon. Member for Appleby and his friends. It seemed to him that the clause was based on a false idea. He imagined that the original framers of the Act dealing with bona fide travellers had two objects in view: firstly, they laid down the proposition that a traveller was entitled to a preference over other members of the public; and secondly, that in order to define a traveller it must be laid down how far he had travelled. He wanted to know in what way this clause from the temperance point of view bettered the present position. Why was a man who walked six miles more entitled to alcoholic refreshment than another who had walked three miles? Why was the man who walked six miles less likely to abuse the privilege? For the sake of illustration he supposed that two persons set out from the City of Westminster to walk towards South London. The first gentleman stopped in the borough of Peckham, where everybody got drunk on election days and succeeded in evading the vigilance of the police, and the second gentleman walked on to Balham or Mitcham. These two men were not specially addicted to the abuse of alcoholic liquors. Did the Government think that the man who walked to Balham or Mitcham was less likely to get drunk than the man who stopped at Peckham? He should say that the man who walked the greater distance was more likely to be thirsty. The whole thing seemed to him to be absolutely absurd. He had heard no reason to show that this clause was likely to improve the position. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might say it was not a very large alteration in the law and that it would not make much difference anyway. He regarded it as only another instance of the vexatious interference with the liberty of the subject which this Bill contemplated. In regard to Monmouthshire he would like some statement from the Government and from members of the temperance party representing Wales why it was necessary to include that county in the Welsh clause of the Bill. So far as he could gather from the figures there was less drunkenness in Monmouth than in the neighbouring county of Glamorgan, and he saw no reason why Monmouth should be included in the clause. It was perfectly true the Royal Commission desired to see the principle which had been put in force in Wales carried further and applied to the counties contiguous, but if they were going to do that there was no reason why they should not include Devonshire, Somersetshire, and other places. He had no doubt there was some reason for it, but he would like to ask the Government what was that reason. No doubt it would be said that the people of Monmouth were unanimously in favour of Sunday closing. But even if they were so, what was the reason for taking the county of Monmouth and making the law there different from what it was in the other counties of England? This was only another instance of the extraordinary things which the Government were anxious to do in order to please the extreme temperance party. He hoped that the House in discussing this clause would consider the actual effect of its provisions and not whether theoretically the restrictions on the opening of licensed premises on Sunday were good and desirable. If they were to discuss that, they on that side of the House would be compelled to take up the gauntlet thrown down, and go into the whole question of the facilities which existed elsewhere for Sunday drinking. He held that the House should consider the actual effect, the vexatious effect, which the proposals in the clause would have on the general public and the hardship which they would involve to members of the trade. The House should also consider the general effect which these proposals would have as part of a Bill, a large portion of the objects of which seemed to him, from the speeches which had been made both inside and outside the House, not to produce more temperance or less drinking, but to produce the maximum of annoyance to those persons in the country from whom the Party opposite disagreed.

The noble Lord who has just addressed the House said that the provisions of the clause we are now discussing were more confusing and more muddling than any other clauses in the Bill. I do not admit that any clause in the Bill is confusing or muddling, and I say that this clause is neither the one nor the other. I will explain to the House in a few words what the clause really means. It consists of four provisions. In the first place it says that the hours of Sunday closing outside the Metropolis shall be reduced from six to three. That is fairly simple. In the next place, that the hours for Sunday closing in the Metropolis shall be reduced from seven to four. That is equally simple. Then next, the distance which a man may travel before he can call himself a bonafide traveller is increased from three to six miles. That is a simple arithmetical sum. The fourth provision is that the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act of 1881 shall extend to the county of Monmouth.

I referred not to this particular clause, but to the general effect of the new regulations with regard to Sunday closing. That is what we have to consider.

I understood that the argument of the noble Lord was that the clause was confusing and muddling. I quite see how he tries to bring in some other consideration in order to introduce confusion in the discussion of the clause. The hon. Member for Gravesend made a speech covering a great deal of the ground which may be covered in a general discussion on temperance reform and he expressed the hope that there wouldspring up such a discussion, because such a clause as this would not be efficacious if it was against the sense of the House and the country. I am not sure whether I am in order in following the hon. Member for Gravesend. Fifteen or sixteen years ago I was much more familiar with the strict rules of the debates of this House than I am now; but I have some recollection that there is a rule of procedure much more honoured in the breach than in the observance, that when the House was considering a Bill on the Report ge, it was not supposed to know anything of what had taken place in Committee. That was a strict rule in the old ays. I do not say it is obsolete; but it more honoured in the breach than the observance now. We had a remarkable discussion upon the provisions of this clause when in Committee. At that time the Metropolis was excluded from the operation of the clause altogether, for the reason that the Metropolis had always been differently dealt with, at least in degree, in this matter, from other portions of the country. But by reason of the most interesting discussions on the Committee stage, by reason, for instance, of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. and right hon Members, by reason of the expressions of opinion from all quarters of the House.—[OPPOSITION cries of "No,"]—he did not mean from all Members in the House, but from all quarters of the House—it was decided to extend the provision with regard to Sunday closing to London and restrict the hours for opening from seven to four while in the country the hours were reduced from six to three. This is not the time to discuss local option generally, although it was introduced into his speech by the hon. Member for Gravesend. He further introduced into his speech observations which would have been more pertinent to Clause 20. The question that arises on this clause is whether or not it is in the public interest to diminish the hours for merely drinking in bars in a public-house. I will only make a few observations upon it. I think that no one would now argue that we ought to go back to the time when there was no restriction at all with reference to drinking facilities either during weekdays or Sundays. It was ordained so far back as 1872 that the public-houses in populous places should be closed at eleven o'clock, in non-populous places at ten and in London at half-past twelve; and I make bold to say that never in the course of these debates and never in any discussions on the question of temperance has it been suggested that these restrictions have been productive of anything but good. No one would argue that we should go back to the time when public-houses could be open at any time in the morning or night. But with regard to Sunday closing the question of Sunday drinking is a most interesting one, looked at historically and politically. [OPPOSITION ironical cries of "Hear, hear."] Yes, most interesting. There has been from the first time when legislation was passed in regard to the matter, a larger restriction on Sunday than on other days of the week. I agree that that arose from a desire to obtain respect for the Sabbath. It would be entirely out of place for me to discuss here and now the Sabbath as a divine institution; but I myself am profoundly of opinion that, as a human institution, the Sabbath or Seventh day, is one which we should preserve, and that is at the bottom of these regulations with regard to Sunday closing. I say that not only in the interest of those people who go to a public-house merely to drink, but in the interest of the people who keep licensed houses. I speak of what I know. In my own district I say that the licensed victuallers, or, at any rate, the more respectable portion of the licensed victuallers, would not dream of going back to the days when there was no restriction of the hours of Sunday opening. If that be so, we say three hours in the country and four hours in London are quite sufficient for Sunday drinking. As to the working man getting his dinner-beer on Sunday mentioned by the noble Lord, I can only say that his dinner-beer car be got quite easily in one hour; and the reason why we made that hour elastic was to make it possible for the justices, who know the circumstances of the locality, to make it perfectly convenient for the working man to provide his fresh dinner-beer for consumption in his own house at the ordinary dinner hour of the locality. Let me deal with the question of Sunday closing more generally. It may be said that three hours opening are sufficient for the country, but that four hours are not sufficient in London. There was a recommendation in both the Majority and the Minority Reports of the Licensing Commission in favour of the restriction of the drinking hours on Sunday. Let me deal now, however, with the last portion of the clause as to Monmouthshire and Sunday closing. The noble Lord said that he had never heard of any reason why Monmouthshire should be included in the Sunday Closing Act for Wales of 1881. Now, we had a very interesting debate on this matter in which the four Members representing the four divisions of Monmouthshire and a fifth who represented a county borough—Newport—all spoke in favour of Sunday closing in Monmouthshire. I made a few observations myself on this matter, and I know Monmouthshire very well. The noble Lord said, "Why not include Herefordshire?" At one time Herefordshire was a Welsh county but not so Welsh as Monmouthshire, and the latter must always remain to all intents and purposes a Welsh county. It was formed for the first time in the reign of Henry VIII. out of the marshes or Monmouth and the position of Monmouth in regard to its contiguity to Wales and with regard to the beautiful river which flows through the country is the strongest geographical reason on both sides why Monmouthshire should have extended to it the benefits of the Sunday closing provision in Wales. I summed up on that occasion the reasons why Monmouthshire should be included, but I have not my notes with me. I think I said that for political, ethnological, historical, episcopal, geographical, and for every other reason that I knew of, Monmouth ought to be included. With regard to the operation of the Act in various parts of the country, we have the most extraordinary consensus of opinion. First of all, we had a remarkable speech from my right hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone near me with regard to the operation of the Sunday Closing Act in Ireland, now surely historical, which was most interesting and instructive. The measure for Sunday Closing covered the whole of Ireland, except the five most populous cities or towns, but that was only a temporary Bill. It was included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill every session. I think that went on for over twenty years and it was possible for anybody by merely raising his hat to exclude that Act from the operation of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which comes up every year for discussion. That Act which was passed only as a temporary measure was included in that Bill year by year for nearly twenty years, when it became with everybody's consent permanently the law of the land for the whole of Ireland. We had a markable speech from the Lord Advocate who justified Sunday closing Scotland, and we know that those of who represent Wales, not only from our own experience are in favour of it, but we can point to the Report of the Commission presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh—a body which was called into being by those who at that time made it their business to attack Sunday closing—which is unanimous and is to the effect that the Sunday Closing Act has been beneficial in Wales, and that there ought to be no attempt to repeal it. Surely that being so, we can refer to other parts of this land, where Sunday closing has been put into operation, and we can say that it has worked for the good of the community, and as I have said, those who have experienced the benefits of it, who are engaged in the trade itself, would never dream of going back to the state of things which existed before the Acts came into force. We have put the restrictions in England and London on practically the same footing in regard to Sunday closing. It seems to be acknowledged that England and London are not prepared to vote for Sunday closing, but the principle is the same and I have discussed them generally in that way. The only other matter that remains for me to deal with is the question of the bona fide traveller. Upon this question we have the support of, I think, all the members of the Licensing Commission except two. We have the Report of the majority and the minority of the Commissioners upon it. In the one case, if I remember aright, the recommendation was that the three miles should be extended to six, and in the other it was that the three miles should be extended to seven. The noble Lord put some questions which would be very interesting if it were possible to discuss them, as to the possibility of a man getting more drunk after he had travelled six miles than after he had travelled three. I do not know how that is, but if I may go back for a moment to the question of Sunday closing, I think I may say that, generally speaking, if you open for six hours on Sunday instead of three, there is double the probability of a man's getting drunk. But in the case of the bona fide traveller e is nothing logical in it at all. We st deal with this matter practically.ere is no difference logically between o and a half miles and three and a half miles; there is no difference between we and a half miles and six and a half miles, but we must deal with this matter practically, and what was borne in upon the Commission, and what is known to every Member of this House, is that there are men who will travel for three miles for the purpose of getting drink; there are other persons who travel for six miles not for the purpose of getting drink, but who may desire refreshment when they get to that point of their journey. I say that underlying the Reports of both sets of Commissioners and this provision is the fact that you have in practice, as everybody well knows, actual mischief arising from the distance of three miles, and that you have people going three miles or three miles and a half for the purpose of getting drink. As a matter of law, if the law was strictly applied, the mere fact of a man's having travelled three miles does not entitle him to a drink at all; he does not thereby become a bona fide traveller; but in practice it is held that if a man has gone on his bicycle or legs or has travelled in any other way three miles, he probably is a bona fide traveller. In order to get rid of a practical mischief with which everybody is acquainted, therefore, it is desirable to extend the distance for which a man must have travelled before he is a bona fide traveller. A man may travel for six miles and if it is clear to the bench that he did it for the purpose of getting drink he is not a bona fide traveller at all. But if he travels six miles and he is bona fide in other respects he will be entitled under this law to be supplied. I have gone much more fully into this than I intended to do, but it is a very interesting subject. The change which is being made is not very much, but we think it is entirely wholesome and in the right direction, and I say that with regard to the fair, simple, clear, and unconfused provisions of the Bill, with regard to the reduction from six hours to three in the country, and from seven hours to four in London for ordinary drinking purposes, with regard to the extension of the distance now constituting a man a bona fide traveller, and particularly with regard to Sunday closing in Monmouthshire, I think it is the overwhelming desire of this House to give effect to those clauses, and that they should become portions of this measure.

said he had listened with that respect which was due to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General and to his justification of this clause, and at last they had it officially declared on behalf of His Majesty's Government that the justification for the Sunday closing portion of the clause was purely, absolutely, and wholly Sabbatarian. [Cries of "No."]

What I said was that in a great measure the feeling underlying the measure was decidedly Sabbatarian, but I did not myself put it upon that ground. I put it upon the advisability as a human institution.