I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the conditions and specifications for the works at Rosyth as issued to the competing contractors; whether he is aware that under those conditions it must be at least six years before even one graving dock can be available for the use of the Fleet; whether he is aware that the plans also provide that the Admiralty may defer giving the order for the second graving dock for three and a half years; whether it is possible to modify these plans so that the construction of these docks may be commenced immediately, and may proceed simultaneously with the construction of the closed basin, instead of being deferred until the latter is completed; and can he state what steps the Government propose to take to provide for the docking of His Majesty's ships of the "Dreadnought" or larger types on the East Coast pending the completion of the Rosyth works.

The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the time for finishing the contract is seven years, but there is no limit to the amount of bonus which the contractor can earn for earlier completion. If the second dock is ordered within three and a half years, it must be completed at the same time as the remainder of the contract. The hon. Gentleman, from his experience at the Admiralty, will be aware that the lock, basin, pumping stations, caissons, etc., must be completed before any dock can be available. The question of other docks on the East Coast is engaging the attention of the Admiralty. I would remind the hon. Member that the design for the "Dreadnought," was passed in March, 1905, when he was himself the member of the Board of Admiralty responsible for works.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question with regard to the first of the two docks? He only referred to the second. Are there any engineering difficulties which would prevent the construction of the first of these docks simultaneously with the construction of the closed basin, as was done in the case of Keyham and other works of a similar nature?

I think that is answered in the part of the reply in which I say that "the hon. Gentleman, from his experience at the Admiralty, will be aware that the lock, basin, pumping stations, etc., must be completed before any dock can be available?"

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that was not the case when works were made at Keyham? And what special engineering difficulties are there at Rosyth which would make it impossible to construct these two works simultaneously, when it has been done successfully elsewhere?

These are matters with which I am not personally familiar. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will get a reply.

What steps are being taken with regard to further docks on the East Coast?

I can give no further information as to that, but the question is engaging the attention of the Admiralty at the present time.

Do these contracts include the fortification of the port?

No, Sir.

inquired whether it was true that it would take six years to complete the dry dock at Rosyth, and, in view of the fact that a large number of vessels would be built of the type of the "Dreadnought," whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of enlarging, at a much less cost than would be involved in the case of Rosyth, existing docks which had now become obsolete.

The hon. Member is opening up a very controversial question. The matter is engaging the attention of the Admiralty.

asked whether in the uncertain state of naval architecture the right hon. Gentleman had not better postpone the making of these harbours, and settle the final details of our great ships.

No, Sir. We have already such a large number of this type of ships under construction that, whatever the future type of ships should be, we shall nevertheless require docks of this size.

But shall we not require docks for even bigger ships?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in consequence of the fact that the labourers regard as unsatisfactory the wages paid to them by the contractors for the new lock at Portsmouth, and with a view to prevent similar questions arising hereafter, both to that class and to other trades, their Lordships can see their way clear to schedule in their future contracts the rates to be payable to the various trades, after conferring as far as is practicable with the representatives of the employers and the men as to what is the fair rate of wages, respectively, current in the neighbourhood.

All contractors are bound by the Fair Wages Clause in the contract, based on the Resolution of the House of Commons. This has been found to work satisfactorily, and after careful consideration the Admiralty think it would be inexpedient to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the clothing or effects of those men in the Royal Navy who were drowned or died through the collision between H.M.S. "Gladiator" and the screw steamer "St. Paul" in the Solent on 25th April last were their own private property; and, if so, why compensation has not been paid to the relatives of such men in respect of such clothes and effects where either lost, damaged, or destroyed.

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. Under Article 1,548 of the King's Regulations, compensation is only given to enable officers and men to reequip themselves for service, consequently no payment can be made to relatives.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether compensation has been made to any of the surviving officers or men of H.M.S. "Gladiator" whose clothing or effects were lost, damaged, or destroyed by the collison with the screw steamer "St. Paul"; and, if so, in what cases and the approximate value thereof.

Compensation for the loss of uniform effects has been authorised for payment to the officers and chief petty officers concerned. The remainder of the crew have been granted a gratuitous issue of clothing, etc., in replacement of that lost. The approximate expenditure involved is £3,900.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Surgeon-Captain James Swanson, late of the 1st battalion Highland Light Infantry, whose headquarters are in Glasgow; whether he is aware that this officer had a very distinguished career of fifteen years in that regiment; that he in two successive years won the challenge shield of Great Britain, and in a third year was second for it; that he was on several occasions complimented by his superior officers for his excellent work; yet when he expressed willingness to transfer to the new Territorial Army was not recommended in July for transfer to the new force; and will he inquire into this case and find out why the Service was deprived of this officer.

I have made inquiry into this case. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Scottish Command, reports that after full consideration of the case he was satisfied that in the interests of the Territorial Force this officer ought not to be transferred to it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to cope with the shortage of officers in the cavalry as shown in the Return recently laid before Parliament.

The present shortage stands at thirty-one. The majority of these vacancies will be filled in the ordinary course. The system of appointing probationers for cavalry is being continued, but it is not expected that more than three will be appointed.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the acute anxiety and disappointment felt by retrenched officials of the Transvaal administration, he can now say how many new posts have been created in the Transvaal Civil Service since the granting of responsible government; how many existing and employed officials have been transferred from other post or from obsolete posts to the new posts; how many retrenched Civil servants have been appointed to such posts; and what are the number of English and Dutch, respectively, appointed altogether.

I gave such information on (his subject as was at the disposal of the Secretary of State in the course of the debate on the Colonial Office Vote, on 28th July lust, when I stated that of the new appointments in the Transvaal Civil Service since General Botha assumed office, 59 per cent. had been given to English and 41 per cent. to Dutch. That statement was based on official figures, communicated to me by the Agent-General for the Transvaal, and, in reply to the hon. Member's inquiry, I am glad to give the House the actual figures, which are as follows: Of 556 new appointments in the Transvaal Civil Service made between 4th March, 1907, and 24th July, 1908, 329 were given to English and 227 to Dutch. At the last-mentioned date there were 3,870 English officers in the whole Civil Service, including police and prisons, and 737 Dutch. For reasons which I have explained in answer to previous Questions, the Secretary of State would not feel justified in asking the Transvaal Government to supplement, by further elaborate Returns, the very full information which they have already voluntarily given, but I may say generally that I have no reason to suppose that the proportion of English to Dutch officers has appreciably altered during the last few months.

inquired whether the Government realised, the anxiety felt by a large number of retrenched Civil servants who were promised positions and expected when transfers were made to be given new posts.

said the Colonial Secretary and the whole of the Colonial Office fully appreciated the anxiety of these officials, and sympathised with them, but from the figures he had given he thought it was plain that the Transvaal Government had behaved in the most correct fashion with regard to the new appointments, especially in view of the great disparity in proportion to population between the English and Dutch officials. The Government viewed the matter with great sympathy, and endeavoured to do their very best, consistent with the interests of the public service, to find places for these retrenched officials.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Shah of Persia has republished the proclamation abolishing the constitution and refusing a Parliament, which was withdrawn upon the representations of Russia and Great Britain; and whether he can say what steps those Powers propose taking to restore the constitution.

On 2nd December the Shah sent a message to His Majesty's Minister to the effect that the placarding of the document in question had been done entirely without his knowledge. He repeated the assurances already given, that he was resolved to keep the promise given in his Decree of 2nd October, and convoke a Medjliss suited to the needs of the country and in accordance with Mahomedan law.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Parliament is likely to be convened?

No, I cannot.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a deputation of the new council of state in Teheran on 30th November interviewed the Shah in company with the dragoman of the Russian and British Consulates; and whether he can give the House any information on this incident.

I have not received any information confirming this statement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Egyptian Legislative Council, on 1st December, unanimously adopted a Motion asking the Government of His Highness the Khedive to prepare a law conferring on the native effective participation in the internal government of the country; and whether His Majesty's Government will advise His Highness the Khedive readily to grant this reform, which was first asked for some years ago.

I have not yet received a copy of this Motion. The matter has been occupying the attention of the Egyptian Government in connection with provincial councils, and I can add nothing at present to the last statement made on the subject generally.

Will any statement be made to the House before the end of the session?

I have more than once this session explained the general aspect of the question. The subject of the reform of the Provincial Councils has been engaging our attention all the year.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the recent disturbances at Astrabad; and whether the inhabitants have revolted, closed the bazaars, and declared for the constitution.

His Majesty's Minister at Teheran reported or> the 2nd instant that demonstrations hi favour of the constitution had taken place at Astrabad, and that the bazaars were closed. I have no further information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the dissatisfaction in the Egyptian Civil Service with regard to the pensions for native officials and the opinions expressed on the subject in the Legislative Council, he will urge upon the Egyptian Government the necessity for a special inquiry into the whole question.

Sir Eldon Gorst stated in his last Report on Egypt, page 10, that a draft decree for the Amendment of the Pension Laws was to be submitted for the consideration of the Egyptian Government; and that if approved it would remove the anomalies which have caused dissatisfaction among the official class. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to address the Egyptian Government on the subject as it is already occupying their attention.

Has any progress been made in the matter?

I shall soon hear the result.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is in contemplation, on the part of the Egyptian Government, to reduce the addition made to the costs of the Army of Occupation after the Denshawi incident in 1906.

I must refer the hon. Member to the reply returned by me on 14th May to the Question asked by the hon. Member for East Tyrone (on behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo): the increase made in 1906 had been decided upon before the Denshawi incident took place, and there was no increase made in consequence of that incident. No change is at present in contemplation.

What was the cause of the increase?

The general unrest that had existed sometime before.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the total rate at which commission is charged on dealings made in investments belonging to a trust in the Department of the Public Trustee; and what proportion, if any, of the total commission so charged accrues to the Department of the Public Trustee.

The fee charged by the Public Trustee upon making any investment is one-half per cent. upon the money invested. Out of this fee the Public Trustee pays the broker. Consequently, the proportion, if any, of the fee so charged which accrues to the Department varies according to the balance of the fee left over after the brokerage has been defrayed.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is part of the duty of the Public Trustee, on the constitution of any trust in his Department, to review the investments belonging to the trust in conference with the Government stockbrokers and to offer advice, though unsolicited, to those interested in the trust as to the desirability of making such changes in those investments as he may consider advantageous.

The Public Trustee has no official broker, but endeavours where possible to give effect to Section 11 (2) of the Public Trustee Act by employing the broker previously employed in the management of the trust. As regards changes of investments, the Public Trustee, in proper cases, accepts the duty laid upon a trustee to draw attention to any changes whereby the permanent stability of the trust estate may be more certainly assured and depreciation averted.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that, where the Public Trustee offers un-unsolicited advice, he also makes it quite clear that he is departmentally interested pecuniarily in the dealing he advises?

I am not sure that I would interfere with the management of matters placed in the hands of the Public Trustee.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received resolutions from many of the public boards asking for the repeal of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908, which debars persons in receipt of poor relief from the benefits of the Act; and, inasmuch as this clause excludes the most deserving poor, will he take steps next Session to have the clause repealed?

I have received a certain number of resolutions to the effect referred to. I am not at present in a position to add anything to the statements made on behalf of the Government in connection with the matter when the Bill was before the House.

Would any person receiving outdoor relief during the coming winter be disqualified from gaining a pension in January, 1910?

Certainly they would.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that under the Departmental Instructions the report of the pension officer is subject to the approval of the supervisor, the pension committee are debarred from accepting and acting upon the pension officer's report in the absence of such approval; whether the supervisor is required or authorised, should he deem it necessary, to check the pension officer's proceedings and conclusions by independent inquiry; and whether, in the event of a difference of opinion between the pension officer and his supervisor, the committee are bound to adopt the opinion of the supervisor, or, if not, what course they are to pursue.

The Departmental Instructions referred to in the Question are not binding on committees. A committee is therefore free to entertain a report from any officer who has been duty appointed by the Treasury to be a pension officer to act in the committee's district. It is for the pension officers themselves to arrange that the correct official procedure is followed. The answer to the second Question is in the affirmative. The third Question would not arise, since any difference of opinion between the junior and senior officers would be resolved in the ordinary official course before the report is presented. The committee is not of course "bound to adopt" the opinion of any pension officer, but must in all cases exercise an independent judgment.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state under what provision of the law a registered trade union is exempted from income-tax, while an unregistered trade union is denied the same privilege.

The invested funds of duly registered trade unions, applied in payment of provident benefits, are exempted from income-tax under the provisions of the Trade Union (Provident Funds) Act, 1893.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, even if it is not thought necessary to call for reports from all local authorities as was done in 1895, during an inquiry by a Select Committee into distress owing to lack of employment, he will, in co-operation with the Local Government Board for Scotland, consider the advisability of laying before Parliament at an early date the reports of inspectors dealing with large provincial centres, noted at page 337 of the Labour Gazette. as being specially subject to distress, such as Bradford, Bristol, Sunderland, and Glasgow.

The Reports which I have received from the inspectors with regard to distress arising from want of employment are confidential documents intended only for the use of the Department, and I could not properly lay them on the Table. I may add that I am in frequent communication with the local authorities of the English towns named in the Question.

IS the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for India has consented to lay before Parliament a Report on the relief operations there, and cannot that example be followed in this country?

There is no comparison between the circumstances of this country and the special crcumstances of India. I may inform my hon. friend that, as far as London is concerned, we have weekly Returns of pauperism and county Returns monthly. Then we have the Labour Gazette Returns monthly, and half-yearly and annual Returns of pauperism, in addition to the annual Reports on the administration of the Unemployed Workmen Act.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if the inspectors of the Local Government Board are pressing for the prosecution of the parents of unvaccinated children who had not obtained exemptions before the passing of the 1907 Act; if he is aware that Dr. Farrar instructed Mr. W. W. Larkin, vaccinating officer for the Scarborough district, to prosecute poor people; and if he will instruct the in- spectors of the Local Government Board not to press vaccination officers to prosecute.

It is the statutory duty of a vaccination officer to enforce the Vaccination Acts, and where he fails to perform this duty, the inspectors would call his attention to the matter. I could not undertake to instruct the inspectors in the sense suggested in the Question; but I may say that in the particular case mentioned the inspector gave no instructions for the prosecution of poor people as such.

Have not Local Government Board inspectors been ordering vaccination officers at Halifax to prosecute poor people for non-vaccination?

Notice should be given of that Question.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works on what principle a room in the House is allotted to the Chairman of the Welsh Liberal Members and not to the Chairman of the Scottish Liberal Members.

Before the Question is answered, may I ask whether the room is not allotted on the ground that the Chairman of the Welsh Liberal Members is the Leader of a separate or independent Party, and whether this amusing pretence has not for long been the laughing stock of the Lobby?

I do not know on what, if any, "principle" my predecessors acted when they made the allotment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state how long this practice has been in operation, and can he now deprive the Welsh Chairman of his room?

I do not know how long the practice has been in operation.

May I ask on what principle the right hon. Gentleman continues this allotment?

On the general principle of continuity of policy.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will set aside a room in the House for the Chairman of the Scottish Liberal Members as he has done for the Chairman of the Liberal-Unionist and Welsh Liberal Members.

I regret that there is no room available for this purpose.

May I ask my right hon. friend whether he is unable to find room for my right hon. friend the Member for Clackmannan, on account of his nationality or his cubic contents?

If at any future time I am able to secure accommodation that is sufficiently spacious and dignified for the present, or future, holder of the office I shall be glad to do so, but at present I have not even a cupboard available.

May I ask my right hon. friend whether he has not been influenced in his preferential treatment of the Celtic fringe by his hereditary Parliamentary connection with Wales.

Perhaps I had better have family notice of any further Questions.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state when a decision may be expected on the memorial which has been before the Treasury for nearly twelve months concerning the better pay and prospects of assistant clerks.

A Circular will be issued to public departments on this subject in the course of a few days.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether in view of the fact that Section 3(1) (a) of the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908, expressly states that any relief which by the law is expressly declared not to be a disqualification for registration as a Parliamentary elector, or as a reason for depriving any person of any franchise right or privilege, shall not be considered as poor relief, he will state on what grounds the Board of Inland Revenue has issued instructions to pension officers that persons treated in union infirmaries or hospitals are disqualified from receiving the old-age pension, seeing that it has been held in the case of McCreery v. Hanrahan, No. 16, 1887, that relief given in a union hospital was medical or surgical assistance, and therefore not a disqualification.

I understand that no general instructions have been issued but that pension officers in their reports to pension committees have treated claimants in these cases as disqualified. The decision rests, of course, not with pension officers but with the committees, subject to appeal to the Local Government Board.

Have any instructions been issued to the effect that these applicants should be passed?

No general instructions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Registration (Ireland) Act specifically provides that Poor Law medical relief shall not disqualify for the Parliamentary franchise, and will he see that the law in Ireland in this respect is followed?

We can only act on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, which is in accordance with the Answer I have given to the Question.

Then I will ask the Attorney-General for Ireland if the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885, does not expressly lay it down that relief of this kind shall be no disqualification for the Parliamentary franchise.

I must ask for notice of that Question. I cannot answer it off-hand.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can say under what regulation or section of the Old-Age Pensions Act the Board of Inland Revenue has issued instructions to the pension officers to the effect that the wives of persons in receipt of poor relief are disqualified from receiving an old-age pension, inasmuch as these persons do not receive the poor relief, but are merely dependent on their husbands who receive the relief, and in the local union books their names are entered as dependants and not as recipients; and whether he is aware that although the Poor Relief Act, 1 & 2 Vict. c. 56 expressly states that relief to a wife is considered the same as relief to the husband, there is no provision stating that relief to a husband is to be considered as relief to a wife.

The disqualification arises under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act, His Majesty's Government being advised that for the purposes of that subsection anyone who benefits from that relief, whether the nominal recipient or not, receives such relief.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact, that when a man applies for relief of this nature his wife's name as well as his own is entered on the list, although she may not be dependent on the man? Is he also aware that the outdoor relief is very small, averaging about 2s. a week? Is it right in such a case that the wife should be debarred having an old-age pension?

The Answer I have given is of general application.

Seeing that the wife in many cases does not get the relief, on what ground is the pension officer instructed to withhold her claim to an old-age pension?

I have already answered that Question.

You only quoted the opinion of the Law Officers.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the replacement of second, division clerks in the Estate Duty Office whom it is desired to promote to the first division, but who may be transferred to other departments consequent on their inability to accept such promotion accompanied by reduction of salary, by inexperienced new entrants will result in a monetary loss to the State; and, if this be the case, on what grounds the Government is willing to incur such increased expenditure combined with loss of efficiency.

No, Sir. The cost to the Exchequer, in the circumstances contemplated in the Question, would be the same as if the new appointments in the Estate Duty Office were all filled in the ordinary course by appointments from outside at the minimum of the scale, without any offer of special promotion to the existing clerks of the second division. I have no reason to doubt that efficient candidates will be secured under the new scheme of examination.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland how soon he expects to be able to give any further information as to the action the Government propose to take in consequence of the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Gillespie v. Riddell.

I regret that I am not able to give a definite Answer to my hon. friend in this matter; but it is under the close consideration of the Departments concerned, and I am still receiving representations upon the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless the difficulty that has arisen in Scotland is dealt with before March there will be trouble in the way of renting farms next year?

Yes, and the Government are anxious to come to a decision as soon as possible.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state when the extension of time granted to the Scottish Churches Commission ends; and whether, having regard to the extensions already granted, and the dissatisfaction felt in Scotland with the prolonged delay, he will take steps to secure that no further extension shall be necessary.

The extension of the Commission expires on 1st July, 1909. As already stated, and as at present advised, I understand that no further extension will be necessary.

Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that there has been no purposeful or studied delay?

There is no ground for that suggestion whatever, so far as I know.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is in a position to state the result of the communication of the Local Government Board with the parish councils in the Lews; whether the financial situation there has in any way altered; and, if not, what steps have been taken for carrying on the local administration.

I understand that an action has been raised in the Sheriff Court to compel payment of rates alleged to be due. In order to meet immediate financial difficulties, and as a strictly temporary measure, the Treasury have consented to guarantee an advance by the bank to enable the parish councils to discharge their necessary obligations.

Will the Government deal with this matter when the temporary advance is exhausted?

Certainly.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether it is within his personal knowledge that the acreage stated in the agricultural statistics of Ireland for 1907 to be under woods and plantations is misleading if it implies an increase of trees in Ireland; whether he is aware that lands formerly wooded are still so classed, though few of the trees remain and the lands have grown into grass, that trees growing on fences and trees generally, have been destroyed to a greater extent than statistics show, without any proportionate planting, and that the destruction of trees is too great to be remedied by the provisions in the new Land Bill; and whether he proposes to introduce at an early date a separate non-contentious measure to encourage the planting of trees in Ireland.

The question of the area under timber in Ireland and the cutting down and restocking of plantations is fully discussed in the Report of the Forestry Committee and the statistics analysed and checked by the light of special surveys which the Forestry Committee caused to be made for the purpose. These investigations confirmed the substantial accuracy of the Department's statistics, and the hon. Member is referred to Part I. of the Report as the best answer to the points raised in the first part of his Question. The Report further makes it clear that the main legislative powers for a scheme of woodland protection and afforestation for Ireland already exist, and that what is required is the financial provision which would enable such a scheme to be undertaken as a reproductive State investment. Such comparatively minor legislative amendments as were recommended by the Forestry Committee are being embodied in the new Land Bill; and the Government have under consideration measures for dealing with the financial recommendations of the Committee on an early date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Norwegian company, driven from the Donegal coast by the action of the fishermen of Donegal, has established a whaling station on the Island of Inishkea, on the Mayo coast; whether the Congested Districts Board lent their steamer, the "Granuaile," to carry this company's plant from Donegal to Inishkea, and helped to obtain for it a site for its station; whether he is aware that another Norwegian company is now seeking to establish another whaling station within a few miles of the Cleggan fishery in Connemara: whether, in view of the fact that these Norwegian whalers have been excluded from establishing whaling stations in their own country because of the injury done to their fishing industries by whaling stations on their coast, he will take steps to suppress the Inishkea whaling station and prevent similar stations along the West Coast of Ireland; and whether he is aware of the fact that the fishermen in Inishkea and Cleggan have protested to the Congested Districts Board against these stations in vain.

A Scottish (not a Norwegian) company has established a whaling station on one of the Inishkea Islands. The Congested Districts Board did not lend their steamer for the purpose indicated. The Board, as purchasers of the Inishkea Islands, consented to an arrangement under which a Scottish whaling company, after agreement with the tenants, established a whaling station on the Islet of Rusheen, which is close to the South Island of Inishkea. The Department are aware that a Norwegian company is seeking a site for a whaling station on the coast of the county of Galway. Under the Whaling (Ireland) Act, 1908, which comes into operation on 1st January next, no whaling station can be worked in Ireland without a licence from the Department. The Act provides that before such licence is issued all persons interested shall have an opportunity of making objections to the grant thereof.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the annual Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland, signed by themselves, shows that some of them have not attended a meeting of their body for at least twelve months; and, having regard to the patronage and power which control of £1,000,000 worth of scattered property carries with it, and the unsatisfactory state of the Commissioners' accounts so far as disclosed, will he say how long a Commissioner may absent himself from meetings before his commission is withdrawn. I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the latest audited accounts of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland, and the Commissioners of Education, which the auditor declared to have been carefully prepared and vouched in a most satisfactory manner, contained statements of local payments which were in fact not made in that year, and that similar statements contained in previous audited accounts year after year have in fact never been made; and whether he will ascertain from the auditor how he came to declare correct accounts containing fictitious payments. I beg further to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain and state the gross value of the property now vested in the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland and the Education Commissioners respectively, the approximate value of property not vested in them but under their control, and the total amount dealt with by each of those bodies in the last financial year; what the Commissioners' reason is for withholding this information hitherto; and if they persist in withholding it, whether he will have their accounts examined by an independent accountant and the result presented to this House.

As regards the attendances and property of the Commissioners, I would refer the hon. Member to my Answers to his previous Questions. The Commissioners and the auditor inform me that there is no foundation for the allegation that the accounts contain statements of payments not actually made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain the nature of the Report a Government auditor in Ireland makes to the authority appointing him; in what manner, if at all, it brings under that authority's notice unusual, obscure, or dubious practices, and enables the appointing authority to form an opinion of the regularity of the accounting body and the efficiency of the auditor; and how it happens that alleged payments in fact never made, and unvouched, are constantly passed by those auditors as correct, and that while some local governing bodies have been for years getting their legal work done by contract, and some by a mixed system with the risk of overlapping and double payments, the Local Government Board declare they do not know that the legal work can be done in that way, and that they have no information as to the practice.

In reporting on the accounts of a local body, an auditor certifies as to payments being duly authorised and vouched, makes surcharges or disallowances in cases of irregularity or illegality, and calls attention to any practice likely to lead to irregularity. The auditors' reports are furnished to the local authorities in all cases. The Local Government Board are not aware that any irregular or unvouched payments are passed by auditors, and they have no knowledge of the declaration attributed to them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is within the duty of an auditor to detect and report to the Local Government Board illegitimate methods used to procure contracts from local administrative bodies; what action that Board take on such a Report; what action, if any, have they taken in the recent case in which a governor of Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum was the real contractor for supplying certain goods to that institution while the nominal contractor was a pauper in Mullingar Workhouse; and why the Board do not, in the interest of the ratepayers, permanently preclude from contracting a person who makes such practices his profession.

Local Government Board auditors report matters of the kind referred to in the first part of the Question when they come officially under their notice. The auditors' reports are communicated to the local authorities concerned, who are required to publish them for the information of the ratepayers. No evidence as to the case referred to in the Question has come under the notice of the Local Government Board, and that Board have no power to act as suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will, on behalf of the ratepayers of Ireland who are ultimately liable, ascertain from the Estates Commissioners the data, other than the liability of the ratepayers, from which they calculate when they sanction the advance of twenty-two years purchase of non-judicial rents to a vendor in cases in which the Land Commission prior to 1903 refused to sanction the advance of sixteen years purchase; and on what grounds the Commissioners and their valuers, in determining prices in cases not within the zones, have changed the basis of calculation from the value of the landlords' interest, which alone is for sale, to the possibility of recovering the money from any source.

In sanctioning advances applied for in purchase agreements entered into between a landlord and his tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903, the Estates Commissioners act in accordance with the provisions of the Statute as judicially interpreted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the expenditure by way of extra fees for the teaching of Irish in National Schools is not specifically disclosed in the Estimate for public education, he will arrange, in consultation with the Treasury, for the introduction in the Estimate for 1909–10 of a sub-head which will set forth this information.

I will communicate with my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consent to receive a deputation representative of the rank and file of the Royal Irish Constabulary before proceeding further with the Bill dealing with that force.

A member of the Royal Irish Constabulary has full liberty to make a representation through the proper official channel on any matter affecting his interests. I shall be glad to receive and consider any such representations, but I am not prepared to depart from the established practice by receiving a deputation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the sworn statement of District Inspector John M'Nally, at the Kilrush Courthouse, on 21st ultimo, that since May last several outrages had been committed on Mr. James Griffin and his friends and supporters; that on 13th June a stack of turf belonging to Patrick Langan, of Derrybrick, was burned, on 3rd August the windows of the house of Denis Ryan, Rossbeg, were smashed, and a fork and threatening notice thrown in one of them, on the 18th June hair was cut off the tail and mane of Michael M'Donnell's horse, the windows of Patrick Hogan's forge were broken on 12th August, the windows of Michael Culligan's' house at Crossbeg were broken twice, the windows of Michael Croke's house at Ballinageen were smashed on 30th September, a threatening notice was posted on the house of Laurence Quin, Benvoran, on 6th November; and whether, in any of these cases, any persons have been made amenable.

My attention has been called to the statement in question. No arrests have been made in connection with these particular offences, but six men have been arrested in connection with other offences against Mr. Griffin and his friends, and are now in prison, two awaiting trial, and four in default of bail.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in view of the fact that the people of Connemara are in a chronic state of poverty, he will take steps to grant a portion of the Unemployed Fund for approved works in that district.

The Unemployed Fund can only be granted to properly constituted committees, for the purpose of meeting exceptional distress caused among working-men by want of employment. The Local Government Board have so far received no information which would lead them to anticipate exceptional distress among the small farmers in Connemara, whose resources this year are said to be fully equal to the average. Representations have, however, been made as to the existence of distress among the working-men in the towns of Clifden and Galway, where distress committees are in operation, and these are at present under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the amount a tenant-purchaser has to pay on each £100 of his purchase-money who has taken decadal reductions under the Land Purchase Act of 1896 for the first ten years, second ten years, third ten years, fourth ten years, and remaining period; what is his percentage of reduction for each period; and what would his average payment be on each £100 during the whole period of seventy-two and a hall years.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a Question asked by the hon. Member for West Kerry on 26th November. As stated in that Answer, advances to purchasers under the Act of 1896 were made in guaranteed stock, and the rate of accumulation of the Sinking Fund varies, under Treasury Rules, with the actual price of the Stock. It follows that the decadal reductions are also variable, and that the amount of such reductions cannot be stated until the actual period of revision arrives.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he would state the amount of purchase money and average years purchase agreed to by tenants under the Act of 1903 whose judicial rents have been fixed since 14th August, 1896, and who have bought within the zone limit of ten to thirty per cent. without inspection; also the purchase money and average years purchase of the tenants who have bought outside the zone at over 30 per cent. reduction with inspection; and also whether he could give the purchase money and number of years purchase paid by first judicial tenants who have bought or agreed to buy within the zone limit of 20 to 40 per cent. without inspection; and the purchase money and average years purchase of first term tenants who have agreed to buy above 40 per cent. reduction with right, of inspection.

I have not had time, since the hon. Member gave me notice of this Question, to obtain the figures up to date, but I will give the figures up to 31st March last so far as they have been classified. As to second term tenants, in cases within the zones, the total purchase money amounted to £9,201,259, and the average number of years purchase was twenty-four and a half. In cases outside the zones showing a reduction of more than 30 per cent. the total purchase money amounted to £400,376, and the average number of years purchase to twenty and a half. As to first term tenants, in cases within the zones the total purchase money was £7,016,987, and the average number of years purchase twenty-two years. In cases outside the zones showing a reduction of more than 40 per cent. the total purchase money was £147,373, and the average number of years purchase sixteen and a half.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state at what distance the buoy recently placed off County Down coast, was moored from Strangford Bar; whether the Irish Lights Commissioners when laying it down, took into consideration the necessity of indicating danger, not only to mariners passing up and down the coast, but also to those navigating the bar itself; whether any of the Strangford or Portaferry pilots or others possessing local knowledge of that dangerous part of the coast were consulted as to the best position in all interests; and where is the buoy now.

I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that this buoy was placed about six miles off the entrance to Lough Strangford for the benefit of vessels passing up and down the coast and that the pilots of Strangford or Portaferry were not consulted. The Commissioners state that the buoy was placed in position on 15th November, but was so seriously injured apparently by collision with an unknown vessel that it had to be taken back to Kingstown for repairs. They expect to be able to replace it this week.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have the local pilots consulted as to where the buoy shall be placed in future? Is it not a fact by reason of its being placed six miles out at sea it was of no assistance to navigation up to Strangford?

I think the suggestion as to consulting pilots is one that should be taken into consideration, although I am not prepared to say that the Commissioners who deal with these matters have been wrong in the course they have pursued. I will see that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is brought to their notice.

Are pilots in any part of the United Kingdom ever consulted by the authorities on these matters? Would it not be well that they should be?

The Board of Trade are prepared to receive representations on the subject.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, recognising the general desire for some improvement in the method of arranging the order of private Members' business, he has seen and will adopt, with or without modification, the plan set forth in the proposed Motion standing on the Notices in the name of the hon. Member for the Leek Division of Staffordshire for securing priority next session for such private Members' Bills and Motions as have made progress and been largely supported this session.

The Government have no present intention to occupy the time of the House by considering proposals in regard to the rearrangement of business, but, whenever any alterations are considered, the hon. Gentleman's suggestions will not be overlooked. I need hardly remind my hon. friend that, by the co-operation of private Members, priority can generally be secured for Motions and Bills receiving the greatest amount of support.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister on what day he will give the House an opportunity of considering the Lords' Amendments to the Land Values (Scotland) Bill.

My hon. friend is no doubt aware that the Lords' Amendments to the Land Values (Scotland) Bill were such as to render it impossible for the Government to proceed with the measure.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will bring in a small Bill before the close of this session to enable the pensions committees set up for the administration of the Old-Age Pensions Act, 1908, to grant pensions to those persons who do not receive from the guardians either coin or kind; and whether he can exempt service as medicine is so exempt, or will he take such action as will meet such applicants.

I doubt whether a provision to the effect suggested would accomplish the hon. Member's object, which I understand to be to remove the disqualification in cases where the amount of the relief is recovered from relatives, with the result that the only net charge to the poor rate is the cost of administration. As the Government is pledged to deal with the whole question of disqualification on account of poor relief at the first opportunity, I am not prepared, as at present advised, to introduce legislation dealing separately with this particular aspect of the question.

Will the Prime Minister in any Bill which is brought in give special consideration to prevent those persons being debarred from obtaining pension who for many years have contributed to keep their relations and dependents off the rates?

I have no doubt that is a fact which will be taken into account.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that relief in workhouse hospitals has been unanimously held by Irish Judges to be no disqualification for the Parliamentary franchise? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to secure that no person receiving such relief shall be debarred having an old age pension?

I must have notice of that Question.

in asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, said he was exceedingly anxious to get through the various stages of the small measure he wished to introduce this session, so as to enable the distress committees and local authorities generally to deal more adequately than they could at present with the problem of unemployment. The Bill consisted of two clauses only. The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, allowed distress committees to spend a yearly sum equal to a halfpenny rate without the consent of the Local Government Board, and up to the amount of a penny rate with the consent of the Board, but the distress committees were limited in the objects upon which the money so raised could be spent. A distress committee, for example, could acquire land under the Act, but it must not pay wages out of the rate money for having that land worked, and the object of the first clause of this Bill was to remove that limitation. They were not proposing to increase the amount that could be raised under the Act; all they were seeking was to remove the restriction which prohibited wages being paid from the money so raised. The local authorities in all the big centres of population were finding great difficulty indeed in dealing with unemployment in their midst, and it was thought that, if the power which this Bill proposed to confer upon them was given, they would be able to deal more freely with the problem. He had in his hand the figures from various big centres of population as to what a halfpenny rate would give to these distress committees, and in the city of Liverpool he found that a halfpenny rate meant £9,000 a year; in Manchester, £8,500; and in the Metropolitan area no less than £90,000. They asked, then, not that the rate should be increased, but that the money that it was now legal to raise should be available to be spent in the payment of wages. The clause proposed to add to subsection (6) of the Act so that it would read as follows: "The expenses, including wages, incurred by the central body in providing and operating relief work for the unemployed, which has been sanctioned by the local Government board." The second clause was a question of machinery. At present, under the Act, where no distress committees had been set up, it was obligatory on the various councils to form what were called special committees, which were limited, to collecting information about the unemployed and to assisting labour exchanges and matters of that kind. What the second clause of the Bill proposed was that where there was no distress committee, and where a special committee had been set up, the Local Government Board should be empowered to authorise that special committee to perform all the duties of a distress committee, the object being to enable certain localities where unemployment was acute, but only temporary, to tide over the present winter without being under the necessity to set up the sometimes costly machinery of a distress committee. Might he say quite frankly that the special object they had in view in the second clause was to enable the localities which had no distress committees, but where there was acute distress, to participate in the Government grant. The grant could only be administered at present through distress committees. That shut out great tracts of country where the need was pressingly great, and the second clause of the Bill widened the scope of the area over which the Government grant could be distributed. These were the only provisions of the measure, and he respectfully begged the House, in view of the urgency of the question, not merely to give leave to introduce the Bill that day, but to allow it to go through its Second Reading unopposed, in the hope that thereupon the Government would take the measure up and carry it through its remaining stage. Those who doubted the need for a measure of this kind should visit the Embankment between twelve and one o'clock at night, or go to the city of Glasgow, where every night hundreds of men were lining the streets in the neighbourhood of police offices, waiting to occupy the vacant cells in which there were no prisoners. The situation was acute. Thousands were starving, and this little Bill, by conferring upon the local authorities more adequate powers than they now possessed, would at least go some little way towards tiding them over the present winter. He begged to move.

said he should not have risen if the hon. Member had not said he hoped the Second Reading of the Bill would be agreed to. So far as he could make out, from the description of the Bill, it was an extremely bad Bill and one to which he should offer his most unqualified opposition.