To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on 7th November, the morning letters were not delivered in Ballyshannon until mid-day, and that on 9th November the second delivery of letters was not made till after ten o'clock; and whether, having regard to the frequent complaints of the delay and inconvenience caused by the defects in the postal service in Ballyshannon, he will consider the propriety of directing a public inquiry to be held by a responsible official, with a view to the removal of the causes which so gravely affect the business of the locality and the convenience of its inhabitants. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The delay in the delivery of letters at Ballyshannon on the particular occasions referred to was due to the late arrival of the train at Bundoran Junction. The only way in which the general service to Ballyshannon could be improved would, as explained to the hon. Member some time ago, be by using a train in place of a mail cart from Bundoran Junction to Ballyshannon, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to resume negotiations with the railway company on this matter.

To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the elective fighting tonnage of the navies of Great Britain, France, Russia, and Germany, respectively. (Answered by M'Kenna.)—

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of deserted wives and the number of their children in the various Poor Law establishments in England and Wales, differentiating between London and the provinces, and in what number of cases efforts have been made by the Poor Law authorities to prosecute the husbands. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Deserted wives and other women relieved apart from their husbands are classified together in the returns received by me, and the returns do not, as regards these classes, fully distinguish between indoor and outdoor relief. On the 1st January last the married women with children in receipt of relief without their husbands in England and Wales numbered 7,298, and they had 20,774 children dependent on them. These numbers include 1,164 women with 3,000 children who were chargeable to unions in London. Between a third and a fourth of the total number of these women is estimated to have been in receipt of indoor relief. The proportion in London estimated is one-half. I have no information as to the number of cases in which proceedings have been instituted by boards of guardians against the husbands of deserted women.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of unmarried women in the various Poor Law establishments in England and Wales, differentiating between England and the provinces, and the number of illegitimate children chargeable to the Poor Law. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Particulars of the total number of unmarried women in receipt of relief in Poor Law establishments in England and Wales are not available. The total number of illegitimate children under sixteen years of age in receipt of relief on 1st January last was 6,735. The mothers relieved with them numbered 4,181, of whom 740 were chargeable to unions in London. The number of these cases in receipt of indoor relief has not been ascertained, but it no doubt comprised nearly all of them.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state approximately the number of tenants in Ireland who still remain to be dealt with under the Purchase Act of 1903. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Land Commission inform me that the number of tenants who have purchased or agreed to purchase under the various Land Purchase Acts up to 31st October last, inclusive, was 323,853, but they are not in a position to say, even approximately, how many tenants may hereafter apply for advances. I may say, however, that it is believed that more than one-half the total number of tenants in Ireland have already purchased or agreed to purchase, but I am not prepared to hazard an estimate of the number now remaining.

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 Notts 225 applications have been made under the Small Holdings Act, 1907; that of these 65 have been approved; whether any applicants have yet been provided for by the council; and whether any land has yet been acquired. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The reply to the first and second parts of the Question is in the affirmative. No applicants have as yet been provided with land, but the Board have approved the purchase of 99 acres at Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, and the council are in negotiation for various other farms in different parts of the county.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of Canadian wheat was sent in bond through the United States to Great Britain during the years 1903–7; what number of Canadian live cattle were sent through the United States to Great Britain under bonding privileges in the same years; what quantity of dead meat was so sent; and

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that out of a classification of twenty-six superintendents in the Customs Service only eight have been promoted since the beginning of the year 1899; that some of them have been for years marking time at their maximum salary; that through changes which took place in 1899 some are actually receiving a smaller income to-day than they were ten years ago, though performing the same duties; that 69 per cent. of the superintendents entered the service by open competition and have spent an average of about sixteen years in charge of the smaller ports, he will explain why there is withheld from them a reasonable flow of promotion and less generous treatment given than is shown to any other grade in the department who entered the service under similar conditions.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the series of moonlighting outrages committed during the last three weeks in the Kilmihill and neighbouring districts of West Clare; whether he is aware that hay has been burned on the holdings of Mr. Marcus Keane, near Labasheeda, and a farmer named Collins, in the Knockena district; that an outhouse has been burned on the farm of Mr. John Crotty, D.C.; that a threatening notice, signed Captain Moonlight, has been posted on the door of a farmer named Benvaran, near Kinlea; that the house of a farmer named Fitzgerald, a district councillor, in Lower Kilmury M'Mahon, was attacked at night and the windows smashed; and that a mare belonging to Mr. Patrick Lillis has had its tail cut to the bone; whether the police have succeeded in discovering the perpetrators of these outrages or any of them; and whether it is intended to allow these proceedings to continue unchecked. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) My attention has been called to the cases in question. It is not correct to describe them as a series of moonlighting outrages committed during the last three weeks. Mr. Crotty's outhouse was burned down in September last, and the case cannot be classed as an outrage, as it cannot be determined whether the injury was malicious or not, pending the hearing of his claim for compensation. Mr. Collins does not know whether the burning of his hay was malicious or accidental, and he has not claimed compensation. The police have no knowledge of a threatening notice having been posted on the door of a farmer named Benvaran. I am informed that the breaking of Mr. Fitzgerald's windows was undoubtedly malicious. The mane and the hair of the tail of a mare belonging to Mr. Lillis were cut off, but the flesh was not injured and compensation has not been claimed. All the outrages or supposed outrages referred to in the Question occurred at night, and the police have not been able to ascertain who were the perpetrators or to make any arrests. They are using every effort to prevent misconduct in Clare, and an extra force is on duty in the county with that object.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what were the total number of applications and total amount applied for at 31st October under all the provisions of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907; and what addition, if any, should be made for estimated values, as indicated in the last footnote on page 11 of Paper Cd. 4377. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that up to 31st October applications amounting to £76,288,635 by purchasers, in respect of 228,938 holdings, had been made under all sections of the Act of 1903, including the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907. In addition, 385 estates of an estimated value of £3,807,626, were offered for sale to the Land Commission under Sections 6, 7, and 8, and the Congested Districts Board under Sections 77 and 79, for which negotiations are pending.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in the inspection of the Killasonna estate of the late R. Davoren, of Dublin, for the sale of which to the tenants an agreement was entered into four years ago. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate is not being sold direct to the tenants, but has been offered for sale to the Commissioners. It has been inspected, and the inspector's Report is at present under consideration with a view to an offer being made for purchase.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on the Report stage of the Tuberculosis Prevention Bill, he will agree to insert words which will give individuals or families notified a right of appeal to some properly constituted body before removal from their homes under the provisions of this Bill. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that power is sought under the Bill for the compulsory removal from their homes of persons suffering from tuberculosis.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any progress has been made by the Estates Commissioners towards acquiring the untenanted lands of Monydanagha, Strokestown, County Longford, which have been offered for sale to them by Mr. James W. Bond, D.L., the owner; and, if not, will they now move in this matter. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that an originating application was lodged on 8th November, 1907, by Mr. J. H. Bond for the sale direct to his tenants of his lands at Monydanagha, including 190 acres of untenanted land. The property will be dealt with in its order of priority and with due regard to the prior claims of other estates for the sale of which proceedings were instituted at an earlier date.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of Thursday, 12th November, about 9 p.m., an attack was made by a number of policemen armed with blackthorn sticks and batons upon the members of the Clonguish band as they were quietly and peaceably returning to their band-room at Newtownforbes; whether this attack was ordered and headed by a sergeant who is not in charge of the district, but is in charge of a police hut at Curry; whether the police were drunk on this occasion, and had been drinking in the public-house of a local magistrate named James McCann; and whether an inquiry on oath will be granted into the whole of the facts attending this attack upon respectable young men. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary informs me that on the night in question the Clonguish band, who were returning from Longford, stopped opposite a shop in Newtownforbes belonging to Mr. James McCann, who is boycotted, and began to groan and hiss. The sergeant in charge of the Curry protection post, who was present on duty with seven constables, ordered the crowd to move on, and cease groaning and hissing. While he was giving these directions he and one of the constables were struck from behind with sticks. The demeanour of the crowd became most threatening and the sergeant was obliged to order the police to draw their batons and disperse the crowd, which consisted of thirty-five men. A number of these men returned and resumed the groaning and hissing, when they were again dispersed. There is no foundation for the statement that the police had been drinking, and there is nothing in the occurrence calling for an inquiry.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received particulars of the attack made by a crowd of persons on the house of Mr. Charles N. Clarke, D.L., at Holycross, County Tipperary, on the night of the 17th instant; what damage was done to the house; were any of the police injured; and have any proceedings been taken against those who organised the attack. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Eight arrests have been made this morning in connection with this case. As proceedings are pending it is not desirable to enter into further particulars.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the practice of removing persons who become insane while in prison to the lunatic asylum of the district in which the prison is situated, irrespective of the place of origin of the patient, imposes hardship upon the ratepayers of the counties in which such asylums are situated; and whether he will recommend the Treasury to make a grant to the asylum authorities in respect of these criminal lunatics, seeing that in the absence of any law of settlement in Ireland it is impossible to remove these persons to the districts to which they belong. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have nothing to add to the reply to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member on 19th February last.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has yet been reached as to the appointment of captains of 3rd battalions to the staff of depots; and when applications can be made for such appointments. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Orders have been issued for officers of the Special Reserve of officers, who desire to be temporarily employed at the depot or with the service battalions, to register their names at the Record Office. As opportunity offers these officers will be considered for employment.

To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what precautions are being taken in the United States of America to prevent the spreading of foot and mouth disease from Pennsylvania to the neighbouring States; whether the Board considers that these precautions render the adjoining States sufficiently secure to justify the continued import of cattle and fodder from them into this country; and what steps have been taken with respect to imported hides and the hides of animals slaughtered at the port of entry. (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The most rigid precautions have been taken by the Federal Government, and include absolute prohibition of exportation of cattle of quarantined States, through which animals are only allowed to pass by rail in sealed cars under official supervision. Hides, skins, and hoofs of cattle or sheep, and hay, straw, and fodder, can only be exported from such State after disinfection under official supervision. The Board, as at present advised, see no reason for increasing the restrictions they themselves have imposed either as regards the importation of fodder or of hides generally. The Board's inspectors have ample powers for dealing with hides of animals landed at our ports.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the site of 6,886 square yards at Holmlea, Cathcart Bridge, purchased in April by the Cathcart School Board for £3,270 17s., if he will say what was the actual amount by which the annual value for rating of the larger subject of which it formed part has been reduced by reason of the severance there from of that purchased site. (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) As other portions of the larger subject have been feued besides the portion under discussion the only reply I can give to my hon. friend is that the reduction in the rateable value is calculated at the proportional figure of £2 9s. 10d. per acre, or £3 10s. 10d. for the site referred to.

To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange that the stationery and supplies generally, including clothing, for the Post Office work and officials in Ireland shall be of Irish material; that a receiving depçt and controller be arranged in Dublin; and that the audit and postal order business shall be transacted in Dublin. (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Stationery is supplied to the Post Office by the Stationery Office, over which I have no control. Cloth is obtained for the Post Office by the Army Council, who inform me that they cannot arrange to receive and test it in Ireland. I have a responsible officer in charge of the Post Office store depçt in Dublin, and all stores that can, without disadvantage to the public service, be received there are so received. Assuming the hon. Member to mean by "audit" the operations of any officers of the Post Office, the answer is that there is already an accountant's office in Dublin. The decentralisation of postal order business is a matter which will be considered in connection with other proposals for Post Office decentralisation.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has received the Report of the meeting of the Ramsey Urban District Council convened for the purpose of considering the Report of the county council's consulting medical officer of health on the prevalence of disease and the sanitary condition of Ramsey; if the steps proposed to be taken by the council fall far short of the alterations and improvements suggested by the medical officer of health; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take to deal with matters of grave consequence to the life and health of the town and district. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have received a copy of the Resolution passed at the meeting referred to. With regard to infectious disease the district council have determined to adopt the recommendation of the consulting medical officer; and they have decided to adopt some tentative action with regard to water supply and the disposal of refuse and excrement. I cannot regard the Resolution as satisfactory with regard to the disposal of sewage. I am addressing a communication to the district council on this subject, and am requesting to be informed in due course of the further action taken by them with respect to the other matters.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in calculating the means of an applicant under Section 4, subsection 1, of the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908, account shall be taken of the fact that the applicant has received money in sick pay during the preceding year; and whether account shall be taken of the fact that in the event of illness the applicant would become entitled to receive sick pay. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Under Paragraph (a) of Section 4 (1) of the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908, it is only in the absence of other means for ascertaining the income which the claimant may reasonably expect to receive during the succeeding year that the income actually received during the preceding year has to be taken into account. Unless there was a reasonable expectation of the receipt of sick pay during the succeeding year, the possibility of sick pay should not, I think, be taken into account.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a woman over seventy years of age who earns any sum less than 8s. a week, and whose husband receives outdoor relief in money for his own support, is eligible for an old-age pension.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a person over seventy years of age, who has received outdoor relief in money during the year 1908, is eligible for an old-age pension if the relief has been repaid to the guardians by him or his relatives or friends.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a man over seventy years of age, and earning any sum less than 8s. a week, who receives outdoor relief in money for his wife, is eligible for an old-age pension. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I will answer these three Questions together. The reply to the first is in the affirmative, and to the second and third in the negative.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to enable a board of guardians to obtain an order against the putative father of a bastard child born in the workhouse, charging him with the cost incurred by the ratepayers for the maintenance of the child and its mother. (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I may refer to the Answer I gave on Thursday last to a similar Question put to me by my hon. friend the Member for the Dartford Division. As I then stated, I am aware of the point raised. It is ore that will, I have no doubt, be touched upon in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, and, pending their Report, I do not consider that I could properly deal with it.

To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to statements reflecting on the management of Vaughan's Charitable School, County Fermanagh; whether any application has been made to him in reference thereto by any responsible body; and whether he will take steps to have an impartial investigation held with the view of testing the truth of the charges made. (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) My attention has been called to the statements referred to in the Question by the Secretary of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The school, however, is not under Government control, as the governors of it established a claim to be exempt from the operation of the Educational Endowments Act, 1885, and it is not subject to inspection by the Government. The only persons who appear to have responsibility for the management of the school are the governors, among whom are several gentleman of position in the county, and, I believe, the bishop of the diocese of the church to which the school belongs. I regret to say that I have no power to order an investigation into the charges made.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can inform the House if any pay of the two captains employed on the Official History of the South African War, since the cost has been removed from the War Office to the Treasury Vote, is charged against Vote 1 of the Army Estimates, or whether the £1,020 taken for the History in the Estimates of the present year is spent on the salaries of these officers and their military pay suspended. (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) No pay of the officers employed under the Committee of Imperial Defence in writing the History of the South African War has been charged to Army Votes since the work was transferred from the War Office. As regards the second part of the Question, there are now three officers engaged upon this work and the £1,020 covers the total emoluments of the three.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the amounts to be issued from the Exchequer to meet capital expenditure during the current financial year 1908–9 to the Admiralty, the War Office, the Civil Services, and the Revenue Departments respectively. (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The estimated amounts (given on page 5 of the House of Commons Paper 137 of 1908) are Admiralty £897,000, War Office, £300,000, Civil Services, £338,000, Revenue Departments, £1,250,000.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state, for each of the financial years 1894–5, 1905–6, 1906–7, and 1907–8, the total amount actually paid in respect of lighthouse dues to the Board of Trade and expended by them through the Trinity Board on lighthouses, buoys, and beacons; and can he say in what part of the accounts of the national expenditure this information can be found. (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The following are the figures asked for by the hon. Member:—Light dues collected: 1894–5, £539,037; 1905–6, £500,996; 1906–7, £536,834; 1907–8, £513,422. Expenditure by Trinity House: 1894–5, £233,561; 1905–6, £239,311; 1906–7, £258,753; 1907–8, £251,328. The information is published for the year 1894–5 in the accounts of the Mercantile Marine Fund, which appear in the appropriation accounts for that year, and in the other years in the accounts of the General Lighthouse Fund, which are presented to Parliament annually.

To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now able to give the answers to the petitions from the dockyard workmen; and, if not, when he expects to be able to do so. (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) As stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Chatham on Thursday last, it is anticipated that it will be possible to announce the replies to the large number of petitions which have been presented this year by the various classes of dockyard employees some time in February next.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the circular issued by the Local Government Board to local authorities dated 4th August, 1908, with reference to the formation of local pension committees, in which no reference is made as to the advisability of securing the assistance of guardians in their private capacity on such committees, notwithstanding that he stated to a deputation of the Poor Law Union Association on 26th June last that it would be difficult for pension committees to do the best by either the Treasury or the deserving poor without obtaining the assistance of prominent and well-known guardians in their districts; and whether he will consult with the President of the Local Government Board as to the advisability of issuing a supplementary circular to local authorities suggesting the desirability of prominent guardians being added to the pension committees. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have not altered my opinion that the assistance of guardians would be of great value to pension committees; but I do not think it would be proper for a Government Department to offer advice to the appointing councils as to the personal qualifications which should be sought for in selecting members of pension committees. I am not prepared, therefore, to suggest to my right hon. friend the issue of a circular in the terms proposed.

To ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received a petition from the owner of the estate of Penrose, Simla, which was purchased from the Rana of Koti in 1879, complaining that in the year 1900 the boundary of the estate was altered by Mr. A. Meredith, Deputy-Commissioner of Simla, without the usual notice to the Rana; and, seeing that a portion of the estate of which the present owner was deprived under the new boundary has been given to a Government clerk who owns the adjoining land, will he order an inquiry into the whole facts of the case with a view to the original boundary being restored. (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The Memorial referred to has been received by the Secretary of State in Council, who, after full consideration, arrived at the decision that there was no reason to interfere with the Orders already passed.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange that the clothing contracts at present under the management and control of the War office, London, for the supply of official uniform to the various departments in Ireland shall be placed under an Irish controller with a receiving depot in Dublin. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The clothing contracts for the Royal Irish Constabulary are not now under the management or control of the War Department, but are to be made directly by the Inspector-General, and arrangements are also being made for the equipment of a receiving and inspection depot in Dublin for constabulary uniforms. The cloth used by certain other departments in Ireland is tested by the Army Clothing Department, but the question of continuing this arrangement can be considered when existing contracts expire. The contracts are not otherwise controlled by the War Department.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Mr. Patrick Mulgrew, formerly tenant of a farm of twenty-three acres on the estate of the Earl of Ranfurly, in the County of Tyrone, from which he was evicted in 1882; and what progress has been made towards restoring him to his holding. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received an application from Patrick Mulgrew for reinstatement in his former holding, which has been purchased by the present occupier under the Land Purchase Acts. The application will be considered in the allotment of such untenanted land as the Commissioners may acquire.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when it is proposed to pay the sum due to national school teachers for the teaching of mathematics for the year ending 30th June, 1908. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for North Westmeath on the 10th instant.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the Report of the Poor Law Commission is expected to be laid upon the Table; and if it is his intention to introduce a Bill on the subject next session. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question on the subject asked by the hon. Member for Kilkenny on the 9th instant.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received from most of the boards of guardians and other public bodies in Ireland resolutions requesting that Section 3 (1) (a) of the Old-age Pensions Act, dealing with poor relief, be repealed; and whether, in view of the hardship this section inflicts upon the very poor, he can see his way to recommend the amendment of this section. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have received resolutions on the subject from a number of public bodies, and I am forwarding them to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the difference in price between a 27 and 33-knot destroyer.

To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state approximately the financial saving that will be effected by reducing the speed of the sixteen destroyers of this year's programme from the 33 knots promised by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, on 18th March, to the 27 knots now considered sufficient by the present Board of Admiralty.

To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the money which will be saved by the building of the sixteen torpedo boats of 27-knot speed instead of 33-knot speed as proposed, will be devoted to the building of further torpedo boats, so as to make up by increased numbers for the decreased speed of the torpedo fleet.

My predecessor, in his speech of 18th March, was, I believe, referring to the destroyers of the 1907–8 programme which, although ordered in January and February, were not actually laid down till May and June. The design for the destroyers of this year's programme was not considered by the Board till June of this year. A speed of 33 knots was never contemplated. There will be no saving on the cost of this year's destroyers as there has been no reduction in the estimated cost of these vessels. Had the destroyers been designed for a speed of 32 knots and to burn coal, it is calculated that they would have cost an additional £80,000 each.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Tweedmouth's statement in regard to these destroyers mentioned sixteen new destroyers? He could not, therefore, have been referring to last year's programme, which included only five destroyers.

In speaking of the type of destroyer I believe Lord Tweedmouth to have had in his mind the type of destroyer to be laid down in that year. I cannot understand that he referred to the sixteen new destroyers in the current year's programme, as these destroyers had not been discussed by the Board at all.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Tweedmouth's words were that we were going to lay down sixteen new destroyers, and can he say what reason, if any, there is for reducing the speed from that considered necessary last year to 27 knots, or three knots less than other Powers are adopting?

It would be most undesirable in the course of Answers to Questions to explain the whole Admiralty policy with regard to destroyers.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the sixteen new destroyers building or about to be built for the British Navy have a speed equal to the first-class destroyers building or about to be built for great foreign Powers; whether they can keep up a high speed for as long a time with coal as with oil fuel; whether oil fuel is much more quickly renewed than coal, and does it require much less labour for keeping up speed than coal.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. With regard to the remainder of the Question, it is undesirable to state the experience which we have obtained from the use of oil fuel.

Are we to understand that the new destroyers built for the British Navy are slower than those built or building for foreign navies, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that with coal the boilers and tubes get clogged much sooner than with oil, and that, therefore, the vessels cannot go at a high speed for so long?

The hon. Gentleman has repeated his Question to me, which I have answered fully.

I was asking a definite Question.

Which I have already answered.

Arising out of the first part of the Answer, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the new destroyers building for the German Government are 30-knot boats?

Destroyers being built for the German Government during the current year are boats of a much smaller size than the destroyers laid down for the British Government. That involves the whole question of relative size and speed.

Is the House to understand that the sixteen new destroyers have not the speed of foreign destroyers?

That would seem to follow from the reply.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty has he received from his professional advisers any official opinion that the enlargement of the Forth and Clyde Canal to a size sufficient to give passage to warships of the "Dreadnought" type, or the digging of a new Forth and Clyde Canal of a similar capacity, is a project of great strategic importance; has the question been recently considered, the line of country surveyed, and the approximate cost estimated; and is he aware that such a national undertaking would at the same time provide work, according to the measure of the necessity, to large numbers of the unemployed for a long time to come.

The question of constructing a ship canal between the Forth and the Clyde has been reported upon from time to time, and it is understood that certain evidence as to the commercial value of such a canal has been given to the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways. As the question cannot be dealt with apart from its commercial importance, it is proposed to await the Report of the Royal Commission before giving the subject fresh consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately what the cost of this canal would be?

I have heard of various estimates being submitted to the Admiralty ranging from £24,000,000 sterling downwards.

was understood to ask the cost of a canal without locks.

replied that he had not seen any estimate for that, but he assumed that locks would be necessary.

I beg to ask the First lord of the Admiralty whether the expenditure on the new naval base at Rosyth is to be provided for out of reveue, or whether it is intended to raise a loan for the purpose.

The expenditure is to be provided for out of revenue.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in recently accepting the definition of the two-Power standard as meaning a preponderance of 10 per cent. over the combined strengths, in capital ships, of the two next strongest Powers, he intended to extend the definition given by himself earlier in the year to the effect that the standard we have to maintain is one which would give us complete command of the sea against any reasonably possible combination of Powers.

The two statements are, in my opinion, under existing conditions identical in meaning and effect.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand from his reply that the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to our naval strength is, and has been, for some time, to maintain the standard of power specified in the first part of the Question?

Yes, Sir.

May I further ask, in order to dispel certain doubts which have been expressed, but not on this side of the House, whether by the words "the two next strongest Powers" the right hon. Gentleman means the two next strongest Powers whatever they may be, and wherever they may be situated?

Under existing conditions and under all foreseeable circumstances, I think that is so.

May I ask whether, in taking into consideration the two Powers, the right hon. Gentleman his had regard to any reasonably possible combination among those Powers against us?

The dominating consideration with us is that we should maintain our superiority at sea. As has often been explained by those responsible on both sides of the House, we regard the two-Power standard as a workable formula to give effect to that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any steps have been taken to revise the numbers and cost of head-quarters staff, in accordance with the repeated suggestions of the Public Accounts Committee.

I can assure my right hon. friend that I have not overlooked this point; but at the present time I have barely sufficient staff to cope with the extra pressure involved in the organisation of the forces of the Crown, including the Territorial Force.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what is the present organisation of the Historical or Literary Department at the War Office since the relegation of the official histories of the South African and Russo-Japanese Wars to the Committee of Imperial Defence, with a subhead in Civil Service Estimates; and whether the review of publications of military interest has been the subject of examination by him since the last information was given by him to the House.

At present there is no Historical or Literary Department at the War Office. As regards the last part of the Question, I understand that the directions I gave with regard to these quarterly reviews have been adhered to.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the engagement of men of the Special Reserve to come out for twenty-one days training is not in itself a guarantee according to law that they will receive twenty-one days pay whether they are asked to serve for the whole period or not; and, if so, whether he will give instructions for the men of the 3rd battalion Suffolk Regiment, who received twenty days pay only, to be given the remaining day's pay now owing them, especially as the whole sum involved in this and all other cases is trifling.

The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As I informed the hon. Member, I am considering whether in future it will not be possible to arrange that the full twenty-one days training, and consequent pay, shall be given.

Is not the War Office bound to pay for twenty-one days, seeing that the men are engaged for that period?

They are not engaged for twenty-one days.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence of fifty-six days imprisonment, with hard labour, recently awarded by a court martial at Brecon on No. 10,290, Private Alfred Wiltshire, South Wales Borderers, for an alleged theft of 1s., which punishment is being carried out in a civil prison; and whether, seeing that Private; Wiltshire is a young soldier of good character and with no previous convictions against him, and that the expressed policy of the Government is to withdraw soldiers convicted under the Army Act from contact with criminals in the civil gaols, he will consider the advisability of revising the sentence in question with a view to a reasonable punishment being carried out in a detention barrack.

This man pleaded guilty to two charges of stealing money from his comrades. As this offence is one against the civil law he has been sent to a civil prison from which he will not return to the Army. Detention barracks are intended for the confinement of soldiers convicted of purely military offences who will ultimately return to the ranks.

Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the statement made in this House that offences against the civil power shall be dealt with by the civil instead of by the military authorities?

was understood to reply in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say on what page of Command Paper 4353 the information is given of the number of civil servants of British birth in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies who, while being retained in the employment of the Colonial Governments, have had their status, rank, and salaries reduced since the grant of self-government to these Colonies, in order that other persons of Boer or Hollander birth, having a less period of service and experience, should be promoted over them; and whether, should this information not be available, he will obtain it from the Governments of those Colonies.

I referred to the Paper in my reply to the hon. Gentleman last Monday as containing all the information on the subject of changes in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony Civil Service which His Majesty's Government are in a position to supply.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman get the information asked for which is not in the hands of the Government?

I could hardly ask Lord Crewe to make the request in the terms of the Question.

But the information asked for is quite as important as that contained in Command Paper 4353.

The request implies a reflection on the motives of the Government of two self-governing Colonies—an imputation of motives which I very much regret.

May I ask if information which is only partial reflects credit while that which is complete reflects discredit on those who ask for it?

I do not quite know what the hon. Member means. I say this question implies a motive—["No, no"]—which ought not to be imputed to the two Governments.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies is aware that the poll tax of 20s. per head after twelve months' residence in Rhodesia imposed on natives has interfered with the supply of native labour from Blantyre and the Portuguese territory, to the especial detriment of the farming interests in Rhodesia; and whether, having regard to the fact that under the provisions of the Glen Grey Act passed by the Legislature of Cape Colony during the administration of Mr. Rhodes, natives with certificates for six or nine months work are exempt from the poll tax, while in Rhodesia natives with records of years of unbroken service are subject to the poll tax, steps will be taken with a view to the abolition or reduction of this impost in the interests of the country and in aid of the development of its resources.

The tax of 20s. a head, was imposed by an Ordinance of 1904. I am not aware that it has operated in the manner suggested, but I may point out that an arrangement was made recently for getting a party of labourers from Central Angoniland for work on Mashonaland farms. The provisions of the Glen Grey Act to which my hon. friend's Question refers were not found to work satisfactorily and were repealed by an Act of 1905.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been directed to the proceedings of a commercial body at Buluwayo, called the Rhodesian Native Labour Bureau, whose vice-president, and others of its principal members, are servants of the South African Chartered Company, which has announced that it will supply native boys from 5s. to 30s. per head; whether the Colonial Secretary is aware that complaints have been made that this bureau has interfered in the interests of the South African Chartered Company and of the mines with the native labour market in Rhodesia by the diversion of native labour from work on the farms to the mines, and that the farmers thus find it difficult to obtain native labour; whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies is aware of the charge against this bureau that natives have been prevented from going to work on farms and obliged to work elsewhere; whether there will be an independent investigation into this charge; and whether, in the interest of agriculture in Rhodesia and the liberty of the natives, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will consider the advisability of placing all agencies for the supply of native labour in Rhodesia under the control of a body by whom the wants and interests of the natives and of the community will be considered, which will be directly responsible to the Colonial Office.

The Rhodesian native labour bureau is a body constituted under an Ordinance of 1906, which was accepted by the High Commissioner and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for the purpose of collecting and distributing labourers and for facilitating their travelling. I do not find that it is under the control of servants of the company, though two of its members are nominated by the Administrator of Southern Rhodesia. I am aware that complaints have been made that the bureau neglects the interests of the farmers in favour of the mines, but I understand that the natives, who are free to engage in farm work if they wish, are attracted to the mines by the higher rates of pay which they can earn. In its last report for the year ended 30th June, 1908, there is a statement that the bureau ferried 12,000 natives across the Zambesi free last year, of which 4,000 went through the bureau and 8,000 sought work for themselves. The Secretary of State is not prepared to disturb the existing arrangements in the absence of definite evidence that the native is suffering under them, but he will invite the High Commissioner to obtain a Report from the Resident Commissioner in Southern Rhodesia upon any specific statement with which my hon. friend may furnish me.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the agents of this company have intercepted the natives returning to their farms and compelled them to work for the Chartered Company in the mines? Are not statements openly made to that effect?

If my hon. friend will furnish any information Lord Crewe will inquire into it.

Will it be treated as confidential?

Certainly.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received the Report on the Cairo drainage schemes.

We have now received a Report from His Majesty's agent at Cairo respecting the proposed drainage of that town. As previous Questions have been asked on this subject, I may state that it appears eleven different schemes for the drainage were prepared before a decision was come to on the subject. As regards opportunities for public discussion, the whole subject has been frequently ventilated in the local Press during the last few years. The actual scheme now accepted has not been submitted to the consideration of any public body, because there does not exist in Egypt any suitable body which could profitably consider proposals of such a highly technical nature. The scheme was drawn up by Mr. Carkeek James, Controller-General of the Cairo drainage works, who had previously successfully carried out the drainage of the city of Bombay. He devoted his entire time to the study of problems connected with the Cairo drainage for more than eighteen months, and his final proposals received the entire approval of Mr. Graham, Director-General of the Department of Public Health, of Sir William Garstin, the then Adviser to the Ministry of Public Works, and finally of the Council of Ministers. We are informed that a portion of the approved scheme of drainage is on the Shone system. This system of raising sewage by compressed air has, in the last twenty-eight years, been used in 300 towns all over the world, and the sewage of the Houses of Parliament is so lifted. There is now no patent in connection with this system. As regards the construction of the various sections into which the work is divided, it is intended to ask for tenders, open to all, by notice in the Official Journal in the usual manner.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the number of holders of French Rentes and of English Consols; and the average holding in each case.

The number of accounts open in French Rentes at the close of 1907 was 4,631,857, the average amount of an account being 4,790 francs. The number of accounts open in Consols in the books of the Bank of England and the Bank of Ireland at the end of March last was 144,398, the average amount of an account being £3,684. There were also 110,714 Stock Certificates outstanding, which represented £47,694,000 Consols, the average amount represented by each certificate being £430.

was understood to ask if in view of the fact that stock certificates seemed to be more popular with small holders the right hon. Gentleman would, consider the advisability of facilitating their issue?

I will consider that.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to securing the promised elasticity in the administration of the additional £100,000 proposed to be voted to the central fund for the relief of distress due to unemployment, the extra supplementary estimate in connection therewith will be so framed as to permit grants being made through approved channels other than distress committees.

As I informed the hon. Member on the 11th instant, the additional £100,000 will be voted as a supplement to the grant of £200,000, which has already been voted specifically in aid of expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, and can therefore, under the existing law, only be appropriated to the same purposes as the former grant. The Government, however, have the matter under consideration, as they are anxious to provide for all possible elasticity in the administration of these grants.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Bank of England wrote off, on 28th October, a sum of £14,055, on account of bank notes issued by the Bank of England but not presented for repayment; whether this is the total value of bank notes not presented in the period dealt with; how many years this figure covers; whether he can state the annual value of deposit accounts and unclaimed balances which revert to the Bank of England; whether these sums are appropriated by the Bank of England, and, if so, on what grounds; and whether he proposes to cause inquiry to be made into the extent to which these practices prevail in the Bank of England and joint stock banks.

The sum of £14,055 was written off on the 10th instant from the total of notes issued from the Issue Department of the Bank of England, in accordance with Section 6 of the Bank Act, 1892. That sum represents the value of the notes which, on 28th October, had been issued for more than forty years, and had not been presented for payment or previously written off. With regard to the remainder of the Question, I do not think that I can usefully add anything to the replies which I have already given to the hon. Member on the subject of unclaimed bank balances.

Are we to understand that this sum covers a period of forty years?

Yes, that is so.

Well, that is wrong. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these sums are being periodically written off by the Bank of England, and does he mean to suggest that it is forty years since the Bank of England last wrote any off?

If my hon. friend will wait until he has the Answer in writing he will see that is not the Answer I made.

I have got it in writing here.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a claimant, otherwise duly qualified, must under the Old-Age Pensions Act be refused a pension on the sole ground of residence abroad during fourteen of the last twenty years; and whether a pension officer is bound to refuse such a claim under recent regulations on the ground that eight years absence must be the limit, or whether some discretion can be allowed in this respect.

The matter is governed by Section 2 (2) of the Act and Article 29 of the Regulations, to which I may perhaps refer my hon. friend. He will see from that Regulation that the exceptions are much wider than his Question suggests. The section of the Act to which I have referred requires the term "residence" to be defined by regulations. It would not, therefore, be possible to leave it to the discretion of the pension authorities.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the remuneration awarded, under the Treasury regulations for the payment of clerks of local pension committees and sub-committees has proved inadequate in view of the work involved in the first year of their tenure of office; whether county councils have any statutory right to levy a rate to supplement such remuneration; and, if not, whether the Government are taking any steps to meet the difficulty.

No, Sir. I am not aware that the Treasury scale of remuneration to clerks of pension committees and sub-committees has proved inadequate, and, as the amount payable under that scale Appends in the main on the volume of the work dealt with, I think the scale will be sufficiently elastic to meet the necessities of the period of exceptional pressure consequent upon the introduction of the scheme. The present arrangements, are, however, necessarily experimental in character, and they will be subject to revision when the accounts for the first quarter have been received and considered.

Can the local authority legally increase the rate of remuneration out of the rates?

I should like notice of that Question.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether with a view to the better understanding of the recently issued Memorandum by Mr. Alfred Marshall on the fiscal policy of international trade, he will lay upon the Table of the House the terms of the request made to Mr. Marshall in 1903 that he should give his views on the subject.

No, Sir. I do not think it would be desirable for me to lay these Papers upon the Table of the House.

Was it the Memorandum written up to date which was quoted by the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech, or was it the old Memorandum of 1903?

I quoted from the Memorandum of 1903. There was practically no alteration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will communicate with the Prison Commissioners with a view to framing and allowing prison rules by which the Governors of His Majesty's Prisons at Brixton and Holloway may be directed to transmit to the councils of the Metropolitan boroughs, on the usual quarter-days, returns containing the names of the prisoners committed for non-payment of the general rate, with the sums mentioned in the warrants of commitment and the amounts remitted to the borough treasurers of the respective boroughs during the preceding quarter; and whether he will confer with the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain as to the desirability of adopting a similar procedure for Police Courts in the Metropolis, as provided for under Sections 2 and 9 of The Prison Act, 1898, and Section 29 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.

I am unwilling at the present time to throw on the staff of the prisons or Police Courts more additional clerical labour than is actually necessary, but I will give my best consideration to any suggestions that the borough councils may make to me on the subject to which the hon. Member refers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions during 1906, 1907, and up to date in 1908 have been instituted against florists for working women and young persons under the conditions which would be legalised by the Home Office Orders 806, 807, and 808.

No proceedings have been taken during this period for employment of women and young persons in the manner permitted by the Orders mentioned. I must point out that until last year the application of the Factory Act to florists was a doubtful point, and that since the decision was given in the case of Hoare v. Green last year, the representations from the trade, on which these orders were made, have been under my consideration. I should perhaps also add that the effect of the decision is not to bring the whole of the trade within the scope of the Act, but only those cases in which it can be shown that manual labour in the manufacture of wreaths, etc., is exercised to a substantial extent.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for the same police facilities to be afforded to Members crossing to the Houses of Parliament from the Embankment as is now afforded to those crossing from Parliament street.

To regulate vehicular traffic by the entrance to the House from the Embankment on the same lines as at the Parliament Street crossing (which the Commissioner of Police informs me is used by about four-fifths of the Members entering and leaving the House) would necessitate the employment of three additional constables. As there are subways provided for Members wishing to enter and leave by the Embankment, the same police assistance is not required there, and I do not think the extra expense would be justified.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the frequency of accidents involving loss of life and personal injuries arising from the ignition or explosion of petrol and other vapours; and whether he is prepared to take any, and, if so, what, steps to ascertain whether any means exist of preventing such accidents.

I have had this matter under my consideration, and I hope shortly to be able to appoint a small Committee to consider the question of the use of mechanical devices to diminish the dangers attendant on the storage of petrol spirit.

And will the Committee be asked to consider the necessity of any alteration of the law affecting these matters?

was understood to reply in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a Memorandum published by the Washington Department of Commerce and Labour on American wages and the retail price of food; and if he can obtain a copy of this Memorandum for use in the Library.

I presume that the hon. Member has in mind two articles which appeared in the Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labour for July last, of which one relates to "Wages and Hours of Labour, 1890–1907," and the other to "Retail Prices of Food, 1890–1907." I will have a copy of the publication placed in the Library as the hon. Member desires.

Cannot a synopsis of the Report be published in the Labour Gazette?

It has already been done.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Berlin Conference on Copyright has finished, and whether its recommendations have been signed by the representatives of all the countries present; whether a statement of the alterations proposed will be laid upon the Table of the House before any action has been taken by the Government to ratify them, such statement showing what alterations can be made by Orders in Council and what requires legislation; and whether, before the Government takes any action, those interested in the question will have an opportunity of laying their views before it.

A revised text of the Berne Convention was signed by all the parties to the Conference on the 13th instant. The Report of the British delegates has been received and will, as I have previously stated, be published in due course. Full opportunity will be given to those interested to submit their views before any action is taken by His Majesty's Government. Any alteration in the existing law of copyright must of necessity be made by legislation. An Order in Council, as stated in a reply given to the hon. Member for North Salford on Monday last, can only give foreign works the benefit of the existing law, and cannot alter that law.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether an applicant for an old-age pension will be held to be disqualified owing to the receipt of poor relief which has been wholly repaid to the guardians on his behalf.

I am advised that the Answer to the Question is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a man, aged eighty-five years, who is without any means, but is living with and supported by his son, is rightly refused by the local pensions committee an old-age pension under the new Act, on the ground that the equivalent of the board and lodging given by the son, which he is under no obligation to furnish, exceeds in amount the sum of twelve shillings a week.

If the value of the board and lodging given to the old man can be fairly taken as exceeding £31 10s. per annum the local pension committee would seem to be right in refusing him a pension.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a working man supporting his father would be only receiving ordinary wages?

All these facts have been laid before the Law Officers.

Are we to understand it is proposed to put a premium on turning old people out of their homes to be supported by charity?

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of so amending the existing Bastardy Laws that boards of guardians should have power, on paternity being proved, to obtain an order against the putative father of any bastard child born in the workhouse, charging such putative father with the cost incurred by the ratepayers for the maintenance both of the child and of the mother during the whole period of her being in the workhouse, such cost being limited to 5s. a week as in the case of ordinary bastardy orders.

I may refer to the Answer I gave on Thursday last to a similar Question put to me by my hon. friend the Member for the Dartford division. As I then stated, I am aware of the point raised. It is one that will, I have no doubt, be touched upon in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, and penning their Report I do not consider that I could properly deal with it.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has been asked to sanction any schemes of work for the unemployed of the Metropolitan Borough of poplar, suggested, to the Central (Unemployed) Body by the Poplar Borough Council and, if not, whether he can state what are the reasons which have prevented the Central (Unemployed) Body from forwarding any such schemes for his consideration.

I understand that three schemes were submitted by the Poplar Borough Council to the Central Unemployed Body. Two were for works of street paying and repair, and the third was for the widening of East India Dock Road, which it was proposed should be undertaken by the London County Council. The two former schemes, subject to a comparatively slight modification, have been submitted to me by the Central Body and are under consideration. With reference to the third, the Central Body informed the Borough Council that they were of opinion that they should receive any application for a contribution in respect of it from the London County Council, who were evidently the responsible authority.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to the fact that operations under the Westminster Improvement Scheme are practically at a standstill; whether the immediate prosecution of this scheme would provide work for large numbers of unemployed in London; will he say what authority is responsible for the delay; and will he make representations to the authority in question with a view of the work being proceeded with at once.

There are two schemes to be carried out in relation to this matter, one by the London County Council and the other by the St. John's (Westminster) Improvement Company. As regards the former, I am informed that the County Council have acquired practically all the property needed for the improvement, and that some of the works have been carried out. The County Council are, however, precluded from using the property of the London Hydraulic Power Company, until a new pumping station and works have been constructed, and the Westminster Supply Corporation are entitled to retain possession of their premises in Millbank for two and-a-half years from 1st November 1907. Both companies are erecting new works, but the Council are advised that until these sites have been obtained it would be impracticable to proceed with the improvement at Millbank. As regards the Scheme of the Improvement Company the Act authorising it was obtained in 1906, and the company are allowed five years for the compulsory purchase of the lands required. I understand that the company have acquired about one-fifth of the area, and that, as opportunity offers, they are acquiring further blocks of premises, but that at present practically no demolition has been carried out. When the Act of 1906 was obtained, it was hoped that when the area was cleared and new and wider streets were contsructed, the property would rapidly be purchased for a superior class of buildings, but hitherto this has not proved to be the case. It rests with the company to carry out the scheme which would of course provide work. They are no doubt aware of the desire that they should expedite the execution of the scheme, but they cannot be compelled to do so.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the unions in which the modified labour test has been sanctioned by his Department; and what are the conditions which must be complied with and the evidence which must be produced by a board of guardians before this method of dealing with distress due to want of employment can be adopted.

The order to which my hon. friend refers is, no doubt, that which is known as the modified workhouse test order, and which prescribes regulations where relief is given out of the workhouse to the wife and family of any able-bodied male person who is relieved in the workhouse. There is a permanent order in force at Poplar. The ordinary orders are only issued for a limited period in particular cases. Such an order is in force at present in the Poor Law unions of Fulham, Kensington, Wandsworth and West Ham, and is about to be issued to Woolwich. No special conditions have been prescribed which must be complied with before the order is issued. Application must be made by the guardians who desire to have the order, and the application should be accompanied by a statement of the grounds on which it is made.

Has any application been received up to the present?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state what are the unions in which he has altered the conditions of the modified labour test, as sanctioned by him in January of this year; and in what respects those alterations change the original conditions.

The ordinary modified workhouse test order is only issued temporarily. I have not altered the conditions referred to in it as regards any union in which it is in force. In the case of Poplar, where the temporary order expired at the end of June last, I have issued a permanent order laying down the conditions under which relief may be given out of the workhouse to the family of an able-bodied man relieved in the workhouse. By these conditions the period during which relief out of the workhouse may be given to the family in such cases is limited to eight weeks in any year ending at Lady-Day, and some restrictions are placed on the period during which the man may be temporarily absent from the workhouse. If the prescribed conditions are violated, relief to the man and his family during a period of twelve months can, subject to certain exceptions, only be given in the workhouse.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, in view of the complaints coming from the United States and Canada that British newspapers are not sent by German fast steamers, though letters are so sent, and that there is an unreasonable delay in the receipt of British newspapers owing to this service not being used for the transmission of newspapers, whether it is intended to take advantage of this service in the future.

My hon. friend is under a misapprehension in supposing that different treatment is accorded to letters and newspapers addressed to the United States of America. With the exception of parcels all articles of correspondence marked by the senders for transmission by German steamer are so sent.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will give the number scholars on the register of the 307 single area voluntary schools in Wales.

23,692.

I beg to ask the First Commis- sioner of Works whether he will state what circumstances have arisen which render necessary the immediate erection, at an estimated total cost of £95,000, of additional law Courts on the open space at the western side of the existing Law Courts, and the consequent destruction of the open space in question.

The necessity arises owing to the inadequate accommodation afforded by the existing Courts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently week after week existing Courts have been constantly vacant, and that there is nothing which can be described as pressure on the accommodation?

I know that occasionally Courts are vacant; but I am obliged to take the information which is given me by His Majesty's Judges.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Second Division clerks in the Estate Duty Office, London, elected at the beginning of this year to accept a reduction of maximum salary from £350 to £300, in return for an immediate increase of about £50 per annum; whether, in view of this expression of preference for immediate benefit, he will withdraw that condition of promotion to the First Division (Class 2) which requires those clerks to whom promotion is offered to reverse their decision and accept a corresponding present reduction, in consideration of the restoration of the £350 maximum, with a remote possibility of promotion to Class 1 in a few cases; and, in the event of his being unable to do this, whether, as the future scale of salary for these clerks will then be on the whole no better than their present scale, as Second Division clerks, he will state what steps he proposes to take to secure to the promoted clerks an adequate recompense for undertaking superior duties.

I have nothing to add to the replies which I have already given on this subject.

But this is quite a different Question.

I am afraid I cannot admit that. I have examined it very carefully.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of Second Division clerks in the Civil Service throughout the United Kingdom promoted to the First Division on or since 1st April, 1908; how many of them sustained loss of salary on such promotion, and in what offices these were located; how many of them sustained no such loss, and in what offices these were located; and the like particulars of promotions between 1st April, 1907 and 1st April, 1908.

I have not the information asked for, and the trouble involved in the preparation of such a statement would appear to be out of proportion to the results obtained.

Will the hon. Gentleman attempt to get any portion of the information?

I am afraid I cannot.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can acquaint the House with the exact terms of the Departmental Rule by which the Treasury now interprets the financial limits of its statutory power under Section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, to award to any person retiring or removed from the public service in consequence of the abolition of his office such special annual allowance by way of compensation as on a full consideration of the circumstances of the case may seem to the Treasury Commissioners to be a reasonable and just compensation for the loss of office; whether he can say at what date this rule was first adopted; whether it is applied in the case of Civil servants who entered the service before that date; whether it has any and, if so, what Parliamentary sanction or authority; and whether, and if so, when and in what form it has been communicated either to the Civil Service or to this House.

There are no financial limits on the statutory power of the Treasury under Section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, except the limits imposed by the provisions of that section. In ordinary cases the amount of the special annual allowance by way of compensation for abolition of office does not exceed the amount of superannuation allowance to which the retiring officer would be entitled if his retirement were due to ill-health. This rule is the outcome of a gradual growth of precedents, and it was stated to the House of Commons by Mr. Goschen as long ago as 22nd August, 1889. That statement was made in view of a Resolution by the House of Commons carried against the Government of the day on 12th June, 1888, condemning the grant of such allowances altogether. In considering awards under the section in question, the Treasury has felt bound to have regard to the wishes of the House of Commons as expressed in that Resolution and to the pledge given on behalf of the Executive by Mr. Goschen. The actual amount of the award, however, in each case is settled by the Treasury in virtue of the discretion given them by the section itself after due consideration of the merits of the case. There is no difference of practice as between officers who entered the service prior to, and those who entered the service since, any particular date.

Was not the pledge given by the Goschen Committee strictly limited to six months, and was there not a promise of legislation at the end of that time?

Not so far as I am aware.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the amount of money expended from the Imperial funds on the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle in England and Wales, respectively.

The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available. An annual contribution of £5,100 is voted under Class VII., Vote 2, to the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding, and the Commission informs me that out of this sum they offer twenty-eight premiums of £150 each for thoroughbred stallions in England, Wales and Scotland, but I have no means of ascertaining the amount that is actually spent in this way in England and Wales respectively. I am not aware of any expenditure of public money upon improving the breed of cattle.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the expense, disappointment, and inconvenience to which intending candidates for Civil Service examinations are put by the action of the Civil Service Commissioners in suspending, without adequate notice, such examinations during the revision of regulations; and whether he will take steps to ensure in future that no such suspension of an examination shall take place until after adequate notice has been given to its prospective candidates.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President

The Civil Service Commissioners can hold examinations only for the purpose of filling existing vacancies in the Civil Service or vacancies estimated to arise within the ensuing six months, and their function is to frame such schemes, and to hold such examinations as meet the requirements of the Departments concerned. When administrative changes in the public service, not initiated by the Commissioners, have the effect of reducing the staff employed in any class, and thus of suspending for a time the occurrence of vacancies in that class, it is often impossible for the Civil Service Commissioners to give long notice to intending candidates, but notice is always given on these occasions at the earliest possible date.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to take steps whereby the senior abstractors of the Statistical Department of His Majesty's Customs may be able to count the whole of their unestablished service in qualifying for pensions; what is the nature of the replies given by his predecessors; and when were those replies given.

The answer is in the negative. The previous replies to which I referred the hon. Member in my former Answer were as follows:—

None of it has as yet been actually spent, but heavy calls are likely to be made on it shortly.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the attention of the Board has been drawn to the statement of Earl Darnley, as chairman of the Small Holdings Committee of the Kent County Council, that if land cannot be obtained by agreement more expeditiously in the future than at present the compulsory powers will have to be put in force; and whether, under the circumstances, the Board will fix an early date after which they will advise county councils to apply for compulsory powers.

The Board are aware of the statement to which my hon. friend refers. The Commissioner advised the county council more than three months ago to take action with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land at the earliest date possible in those cases where there was no reasonable prospect of suitable land being obtained by agreement. Subcommittees are now meeting in every district to consider what land shall be acquired compulsorily, and under these circumstances my hon. friend will no doubt agree that it would not be desirable at present to fix any particular date for application by the county council for compulsory powers.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if there are any animals now on their way from Pennsylvania to Great Britain; and, if so, will they be watched or destroyed.

Four vessels from Philadelphia and three from New York are known to have left America with cattle for this country. The landing of cattle from vessels arriving from Philadelphia and New York will be made subject to special orders which give ample powers to the Board to deal with the vessels themselves and their cargoes.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will consider the desirability of scheduling the whole of the United States against the importation of live stock and also straw into Great Britain on account of the outbreak in Pennsylvania.

Owing to the spread of disease to the State of New York, the States of New York and New Jersey have been added to the Schedule of prohibited countries, but there seems no present necessity on the information available to extend the restrictions. The position is, however, being very carefully watched, and the Board will not hesitate to take further action if necessity arises.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us any further details as to the spread of this disease, and are precautions being taken?

I do not think I can add very much to what I have said, except to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Board are taking and will take every possible precaution. That, I think, is shown by the fact that they did not lose a moment on the outbreak occurring in New York in scheduling New York.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, after reading the Order, dated 1st October, 1908, on Black Scab in Potatoes (Ireland) Order, 1908, he will adopt the preventive measures there defined.

The disease is apparently much more prevalent in Great Britain than in Ireland, and it would not at present be practicable to adopt the measures to which the hon. Member refers.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if the British and Irish Boards of Agriculture do consult and exchange orders together; and, if not, will he arrange to do this so that the same procedure may be adopted in the two islands when the same disease is being taken in hand.

The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The conditions obtaining in certain diseases are not always identical in the two countries, and though action on similar lines is recognised as desirable it is not found practicable on all occasions to carry it into effect.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the numbers of samples taken under the Food and Drugs Act, or the corresponding Scottish Act, for the years 1905–6–7; how many prosecutions were instituted and with what result; and what is the average annual cost of working this Department.

The number of formal samples examined by analysts on behalf of local authorities to Scotland for the years ended 30th September, 1905, 1906, and 1907, and the number of prosecutions and the result of such prosecutions were as follows—

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the farm near Cahirciveen from which William Bourke was evicted more than twenty years ago is in the hands of the landlords, the provost and fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, and that this farm has for a number of years past been let as a grazing farm on the eleven-months system; and whether steps will now be taken to have the eldest son of the late William Bourke put into possession of this farm.