asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will state whether the Government in India has drawn the attention of the India Office to the danger caused by India House, and to the fact that leaders of sedition are posting to India large numbers of postcards and pamphlets?

The answer is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government are well aware of the character of these operations, and the Home Office is taking such measures as are available for frustrating them.

asked how many famines there were in India during the 25 years ending in 1887 and in 1907, respectively, with the official estimate of the loss of life involved during each period; and the names of the provinces which suffered most severely?

Omitting droughts of limited extent there were four great famines in the first period—the Orissa famine of 1865; the Northern India and Rajputana famine of 1868–70; the Behar famine of 1873; the Southern India famine of 1876–8. The Famine Commis- sion of 1880 estimated the mortality in British India in these four famines at about 8,000,000 in excess of the normal. Much of the excess mortality was due to epidemic diseases obscurely connected with seasons of drought and privation. In the second period there have been four great famines—the Upper India and Central Provinces famine of 1895, which extended to Madras and Bombay, and to Bengal and the Punjab; the Rajputana and Central India famine of 1899, which also affected Bombay and the Central Provinces; the Guzerat famine of 1899–1902; the United Provinces famine of 1907, which extended to parts of the Central Provinces and Punjab. The excess mortality in British India in 1895 has been estimated at 750,000, and in 1907 at 1,000,000. I am not aware that estimates have been made for the later famines. In the 1907 famine in the United Provinces the provincial death-rate was 36·47 per thousand, against a normal of 34·59, but there were only 11 deaths which after full inquiry could be attributed to want of food.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Note addressed by the Russian to the Turkish Government protesting against the advance of Turkish troops into Western Azerbeizan has been communicated to His Majesty's Government; has his attention been called to a statement made in this Note to the effect that this action by Turkey is opposed to the spirit of the Anglo-Russian Agreement whereby the British and Russian Governments undertake to preserve the integrity of Persia; and whether it is a fact that his Majesty's Government have, in concert with the Government of Russia, undertaken to preserve the integrity of Persia?

I have not seen the text of the Note referred to, but communications have passed between the Turkish Government and the British and Russian Representatives at Constantinople on the subject of the Turkish advance to Urumiah. If the hon. Member will refer to the Anglo-Russian Agreement he will see what are the obligations imposed on the two Powers by that instrument.

Was there any reason why the Turkish Government should not have taken similar measures to protect their own interests in the North of Persia to those taken by the Russian Government?

That is not a subject on which I am prepared to make any statement without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any further information regarding Persia?

As was stated yesterday, in reply to the hon. Member for the Montgomery District, the Shah, after taking refuge in the Russian Legation, abdicated, and his son, Sultan Ahmed Mirza, has been proclaimed Shah by the Nationalist Committee, under the regency of Azad-ul-Mulk, head of the Kajar tribe, pending the convocation of Parliament. The commanders of the Fedai and Bakhtiari, as temporary chiefs of the Persian Government, have accepted the services of the Persian Cossack Brigade under their Russian officers, on condition that the latter are completely under the orders of the Minister of War. This arrangement was ratified at a meeting between the commanders and Colonel Liakhoff. Tehran is quiet, and the Persian Cossacks are already fraternising with the Fedai. The Sipahdar has been appointed Minister of War, and the Sirdar Assad Minister of the Interior.

Is it part of the agreement that the services of the present Russian officers are to be retained?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give notice of supplementary questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the behaviour of the Nationalist forces, he will represent to the Government of Russia the undesirability of advancing Russian troops to Tehran?

In view of the declarations already made by the Russian Government as to the circumstances under which alone Russian troops would be sent to Tehran, and in view of the fact that no troops have been sent to Tehran during the recent troubles, in spite of the fact that at one time some apprehension, which happily proved to be unfounded, was expressed for the safety of Russian subjects, such representations would be most uncalled for.

Is it not the fact that the British Government are backing up the Russian Government to put down the revolutionary movement in Persia?

It is absolutely untrue that either the British or the Russian Governments are doing anything to put down any movement.

Is it not the case that in the present condition of Tehran and in the political situation generally the Nationalists have achieved all they could possibly have desired?

Yes; the Nationalists have dethroned the Shah, appointed his successor, and established a condition of peace and stability.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any communication to make to this House regarding the present position at Tehran; whether he has any official information to the effect that the Shah has taken refuge in the Russian Legation; what communications have passed between the British and Russian Legations and the Nationalists' leaders since the 16th instant; and, in view of the repeated assurances of Sipahdar and Sardar Asad, as to the safety of the property and lives of non-belligerent Europeans in Tehran, His Majesty's Government will recommend the withdrawal of the Russian military forces save those who may be required for police purposes?

As regards, the first and second points in the hon. Member's question, I beg to refer him to the answer just returned to the hon. Member for the Ripon Division. As regards the third point, the Nationalist leaders informed the two Legations that the Nationalist Committee thought it necessary to send a deputation to Mohammed Ali Shah to announce a change of sovereignty, and requested them, as the Shah was in the Russian Legation, to appoint an hour when this could be done. This message was communicated to the Shah, who requested the two representatives to reply that, having left Sultanatabad, he had already abdicated, and, therefore, refused to receive the deputation. Later on the Legations were officially notified of the deposition of Mohammed Ali and the accession of Sultan Ahmed Shah. As regards the last point, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply just returned to the hon. Member for Brentford. There are no Russian or other foreign troops in Tehran, except the usual Legation guards, which are always there.

Is it not the fact that the Russian Government have entered into regular relations with the new Persian Government?

Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman will give notice if the question I shall be able to say when the new Persian Government have been officially recognised by other Powers.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the number of appointments in Government employ held by European and Indians, respectively, in 1867 and 1907, under the following grades: Those receiving under 200 rupees a month; those receiving between 200 and 500 rupees a month; those receiving between 500 and 800 rupees a month; and those receiving over 800 rupees a month?

The Secretary of State is unable to give the figures for 1907, which could only be prepared with great labour, after extensive and minute inquiry; but the hon. Member will find a full comparison and discussion of the figures for the years 1867 and 1903 in a Resolution of the Government of India, dated 24th May, 1904, published in the Gazette of India of 4th June, 1904, which is in the Library of the House.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has yet received any official information with regard to the speech of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal last week, foreshadowing the introduction of repressive measures; and, if so, can he state what was the reason of his making the speech?

The Secretary of State does not think it part of his duty to exercise a censorship over the language used by a lieutenant-governor in warning his own province of the dangers of lawlessness and violence. The Secretary of State understands that Sir Edward Baker, in the speech to which the hon. Member refers, laid stress on the fact that though the Indian Press and public had denounced outrages, more was required in the shape of active assistance to Government by the public, by parents and guardians, by those in charge in education, and by the student community itself. If those classes failed to realise their responsibility and abdicated their authority in favour of a handful of young men with undisciplined emotions, he pointed out that, though a solution would undoubtedly come, it would be full of pain and difficulty as to distinguishing the innocent from the guilty; and he went on to warn his hearers of the chaos that must follow the success of continued outrages. This warning seems to be both timely and sensible.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether the speech was meant to foreshadow repressive measures, and, if so, what the measures are?

My hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Sir Henry Cotton) has a question relating to the subject down for Thursday next, and I prefer to postpone any statement till then.

Is it not the case that Sir Edward Baker has always been one of the foremost Indian reformers?

I believe that is the case.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has yet received any official information as to whether the cases of the nine British subjects who were deported from Bengal seven months ago without charge or trial have been reconsidered by the Government of India; and whether any determination has been come to as to the length of their exile and imprisonment?

The officers having custody of the persons detained have reported, in accordance with the terms of the Regulation, and their reports are under the consideration of the Government of India.

May I ask when we shall know the result of the consideration which is being given to the report?

I am not able to state that.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any official information has yet been received at the India Office that an action for libel was recently brought in the High Court of Calcutta, by Mr. Lajpat Rai, for libel, in charging him with sedition; and, if so, whether he can state what was the result of the action?

The answer is in the negative. The newspapers received by this mail contain a full report of the proceedings, but not of the judgment.

May I ask my hon. Friend if he is not aware what it was?

I do not think that is the point raised in the question.

Can you not get information by cable on a question of such importance?

I have informed the House that the Secretary of State has already cabled for information.

May I ask whether no information has been received by the India Office of this action having been brought, and of the result?

The detailed report has not yet arrived. As soon as it arrives I will be happy to inform my hon. Friend.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the verdict given in this case was published in every newspaper in this country? Why has not the India Office been informed?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the commission of 1 per cent, sanctioned by the Memorandum of February, 1904, on the cost of rails, girders, cement, rolling stock, and all machinery, materials, and stores obtained through Crown Agents, is still paid to them through the fund out of which their salaries come; whether they still, as then, enjoy patronage in the placing of orders for all those things; whether all correspondence between Colonial Governments and consulting engineers in reference to works or proposed works in Colonies and Protectorates still passes through their hands; whether any check is imposed upon the power which these circumstances give them of excluding contract by public tender, whereby they would lose those advantages, and getting works done departmentally, whereby all those advantages accrue to themselves; and whether, apart from Crown Agents and other persons interested, the Colonial Office has got any independent approval of the departmental as compared with the system of contract by competitive tender?

The commission in question is not paid to the Crown Agents personally, but is paid into the fund out of which the expenses of the office, including the Crown Agents' salaries, are defrayed. As the Grown Agents can only act under instructions from the Colonial Governments, they cannot be said to enjoy actual patronage in regard to orders. Their general practice is to call for tenders in respect of each order from firms on their books, following in this matter the usual practice of the public Departments in this country. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the evidence taken by the Committee of which I was chairman, and particularly questions 1466, 1935–8, 2030–5, 2300, 2863–88, 4682. All correspondence between Colonial Governments and consulting engineers passes through the hands of the Crown Agents. As stated just above, the Crown Agents can only act under instructions from Colonial Governments, and though they may be invited to give advice in a given case it rests with the Colonial Government, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, to determine whether in any particular case a work is to be executed departmentally or under a contract. The question whether a work should be carried out departmentally or by contract is determined in each case after full consideration of the circumstances, and there is no stereotyped preference for either system.

I wish to ask if the hon. Gentleman knows of any elements or conditions favourable to the creation and maintenance of monopoly which the Crown agents as a body do not possess?

I do not quite understand the question of the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Johore hold an estimate by Mr. Slessor, civil engineer, of the cost of the Johore Railway amounting to £608,000, and an offer from a responsible firm to construct it for that sum; that the Crown Agents availed of their power to prevent the acceptance of that offer, and to have its construction entrusted to themselves; that under them it has cost £1,400,000; that it was not subjected to any independent inspection before being opened for traffic; that, owing to defective construction and insufficient waterways, bridges and embankments have been washed away and traffic interrupted; that the cost of restoration, though due to defective construction, is charged to maintenance in order to be paid out of traffic revenue; whether that method of concealing real cost of construction is usual in Colonies and Protectorates; whether any levy is made upon the revenues of the Johore territory for payment of interest or repayment of the principal sum spent upon this undertaking; and when he expects to be able to make available a full financial statement of the construction and working of this railway?

I understand that Mr. Slessor estimated in 1891 that a light line with cheap rolling stock and buildings, light rails, and severe gradients could be constructed for £608,000, but I am not aware that any offer was made to construct a line for that sum. In any case there can be no comparison between such a line and the line which has now been constructed with heavy rails, easy gradients, and first-class rolling stock. The line is a little over 120 miles long, and it was always recognised that, if it was to be up to the standard of the Federated Malay States lines with which it is connected, it would cost about £10,000 a mile. I am aware that the Sultan at one time wished this line to be constructed by a firm of contractors, but with the approval of his Advisory Board he abandoned this idea, and agreed to the construction being undertaken by the Railway Department of the Federated Malay States, the cost being advanced by the Federated Malay States on very easy terms. The Crown Agents were not concerned in the matter at all, and I have already pointed out in answer to previous questions, that they do not construct railways. I do not know the total cost of the line, but the Estimate given in the Convention between the Sultan and the Federated Malay States Government was £10,000 a mile, or, roughly, £1,200,000. Under the Convention the Government of Johore was entitled to satisfy itself, before taking over any section of the railway, that it had been constructed in accordance with the Convention. It may be assumed that this has been clone. I have no informa- tion as to any defects in the construction of the line having been discovered, and, as it appears that the first public train was run on the first day of this month, I do not understand how traffic can have been interrupted. The Convention specifies what part of the expenses of the railway is to be regarded as capital cost. The cost of the railway, with interest at 3 per cent. on the capital cost, will be repaid to the Federated Malay States by Johore. I do not anticipate that full details as to construction and cost will be available for some time.

asked the Under Secretary for the Colonies if he will say who was the consulting engineer on whoso advice the changes of the Kowloon Railway were adopted which are alleged to account in part for the increased cost of construction; was it through the Crown Agents that advice was obtained; was the estimated cost of the changes tested by inviting public tenders; whether he is aware that the purposes of the line are commercial; and whether any competent person has estimated that the line can when working ever repay the principal or any interest on the money spent upon its construction?

The railway is being constructed throughout in accordance with the advice of the consulting engineers, Sir John Wolfe Barry and Partners. It is the custom for correspondence between the Colonial Office and the consulting engineers to pass through the Crown Agents. As the line was being constructed on the departmental system, it was obviously out of the question to invite tenders in respect of part of it; the line is being made in the interests of the trade of Hong Kong, and it is confidently expected that either directly or indirectly through the increase of trade with the interior of China, the Colony will be amply repaid for the money expended on construction.

asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he will state the gross amount of the percentage on cost of supplies received by the Crown Agents' Department, by authority of the Memorandum of February, 1904, in each financial year since the date of that Memorandum as shown by the audited accounts; whether there is any statutory authority for payment by way of a percentage on expenditure; and by what means does the Colonial Office try to prevent that mode of payment operating as an incentive to exclude the system of contract by competitive tender and increase the expenditure in order to increase the percentage?

The gross amount of the percentage on cost of supplies received by the Crown Agents' Department in the year ending 31st March, 1905, and succeeding years, as taken from the audited accounts, is as follows:—

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the Russian Embassy in London having their own agents, he will say if they are to be permitted to carry on their operations in this country; and if he is aware that a number of Russian agents and quasi police are already in Cowes and its vicinity; and, if so, whether he intends taking any steps to protect British subjects from their operations?

I have no knowledge of the presence in this country of the agents to whom the hon. Member refers; but if they exist they have the same right to visit this country as any other foreign subjects. The protection of sovereigns when sojourning abroad is often carried out in part by officers of their own country. Our countrymen are not in any danger from the operations of such agents, and I do not consider that any steps require to be taken in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House on what date he proposes to introduce the Bill dealing with shop hours?

had given notice of a question in the same terms.

I will answer both together. I regret that I am not yet in a position to name an exact date. Certain questions arising out of the application of the Bill to Scotland are still under consideration; but there, will be no avoidable delay. I will inform the right hon. Baronet and the hon. Member when the Bill is ready for introduction.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the circular issued in April, 1905, advising prison and police authorities to exhibit in cells, waiting rooms, and police courts the main provisions of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, has been generally acted upon; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirableness of issuing a further circular upon the subject?

The notice in question is exhibited in all prisons in the cells of untried prisoners. I have no reason to think that the police court authorities generally have failed to act on the circular to which the hon. Member refers, but if he has information as to any police court where the notice is not exhibited, and will let me know, I shall be glad to communicate with the authorities of the court.

asked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that under Clauses 9 and 10 of the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886, a cottar under the Act who is removed from his house to suit the convenience of the landlord is entitled to compensation, and that the demolition of a cottar's house before the Crofters' Commission have had an opportunity of inspecting it renders their duty of determining the compensation due to the cottar more difficult, will he ascertain whether the Crofters' Commission approve of such action; and will he state when the Commission expect to visit Annat, Torridon, Ross-shire, for the purpose of making the award due to John Maclean, 77 years of age, a cottar under the Act, whose house, built by his father 90 years ago, was demolished by the landlord, Earl Lovelace, at the time of his eviction?

No application from John Maclean is before the Crofters' Commission, whose functions in the matter are restricted to determining the question of compensation if and when it comes before them judicially.

asked the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Government have stated that their only policy for dealing with the Highland land question is set forth in the Small Landholders {Scotland) Bill, will he state how it is proposed to provide for the landless cottars in the island of Lewis and other districts, the greater number of whom would be debarred from securing a holding under the Government Bill, inasmuch as they have not the means wherewith to equip, stock, and cultivate a holding?

The problem of dealing with the landless cottars, as my hon. Friend is aware, is not a new problem, and is of great difficulty and complexity, and I cannot on behalf of the Government undertake to formulate a policy in reply to a question in the House.

In view of the reply, I shall ask the Prime Minister if he can give us some information on the subject.

Will the Government consider the wisdom of a compromise on Lord Lovat's Bill, so that Scotland may get some advantage from small holdings?

I am afraid that that is also a question which must be addressed to the Prime Minister.

asked the Postmaster-General if his attention had been called to the statement of the acting Consul-General at Tientsin contained in Consular Report, No. 4,275, Annual Series, that letters addressed viâ Siberia reach Tientsin in a little more than half the time taken by letters posted in the United Kingdom without specific direction as to route; and, if this is correct, whether he will assist British trade by forwarding by the quickest route all letters not specifically addressed?

I am aware that the time of transit to Tientsin by way of Siberia is about half as long a 3 by other routes. The question of making greater use of the Siberian route for letters is engaging my attention.

asked whether there is any immediate prospect of the telephone service being extended to Carlow?

Negotiations are in progress for an extension of the telephone system to Carlow under a local guarantee.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Department would favour proposals to improve the standing and personnel of engineers serving in coasting steamers trading within the United Kingdom limits by allowing the whole or part of such service to count as qualification for certificates in the same way as if in steamers trading in foreign ports oversea?

I think the hon. Member's question is possibly based on some misapprehension. Service in the Home trade (which includes the coasting trade) is already recognised as qualifying service for a Board of Trade certificate, being accepted as equivalent to two-thirds of the same period of time served in the foreign trade. If the hon. Member wishes to suggest that it should have the same value, I can only say that, in view of the difference of conditions under which the service is performed, the Board of Trade are not prepared to alter the present rule.

Is it not the case that such service in coasting steamers only counts if the engines are above 99 nominal horse-power, and would the Department favour the removal of such a restriction if it really exists?

No. I think that the distinction is drawn between the coasting trade and the foreign trade, that the coasting trade only counts two-thirds I of the foreign trade.

Supposing that the limit does occur, would the right hon. Gentleman try to remove that limit?

I will look into the special point, but the rule has been adopted for a great many years, and it is very undesirable to change the ratio.

asked what restrictions upon the use of hop substitutes have been enacted in Germany; and whether any similar restrictive measures have been adopted in any British Colony?

We are not in a position at present to supply the information for which my hon. Friend asks, but inquiry is being made on the subject.

asked, in the case of 319 acres of land in South Berks offered by the county council to applicants for small holdings and declined by them, in what parishes the land was situate; what rent was asked per acre; and on what grounds the applicants declined to accept the land?

The information for which my hon. Friend asks is as follows:—

asked what action has been taken by the Board of Agriculture with a view to carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Hop Industry to the effect that information should be supplied to English growers as to improved methods of cultivating and curing hops, and as to the state of the industry and the markets in foreign countries?

We have asked the Foreign Office and Colonial Office to supply us with certain information on this subject, and arrangements have been made to publish articles in our Journal dealing with the cultivation and diseases of hops.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a regulation of the allotments committee of the Tonbridge Council prohibiting gardening on Sundays other than the cutting of vegetables; whether this regulation has received the sanction of the Local Government Board; and, if not, whether he proposes to make any representation to the council upon the matter?

I understand that a majority of the Tonbridge Urban District Council recently voted in favour of a rule prohibiting Sunday gardening other than the cutting of vegetables on the allotments provided by the council, but the rule has not as yet been submitted to us, and it cannot be brought into operation without the approval of the Board. It has not been the practice to approve any rule of the kind.

asked if it will be necessary to move the equestrian statue of King Charles I. when the new thoroughfare is opened up between Charing Cross and the Mall.

This is a matter for future consideration after I am in possession of the London County Council proposals as to developments on the Trafalgar Square side of the new building.

asked what amount has been spent upon new buildings, together with their furnishing and equipment, at the Victoria and Albert Museum during the past three financial years?

The total cost of erection of the Victoria and Albert Museum—the funds for which were provided by the Public Buildings Expenses Acts—amounted up to 31st March last to £512,228 9s. 10d., of which the sum of £194,488 3s. 10d. represents the payments made during the past three financial years. The expenditure defrayed during the same period on account of furniture and equipment has been £2,533 19s. 8d. There are, however, considerable sums yet due to the various contractors, especially in connection with furnishing. Provision for this latter service has been made in the Vote for Art and Science Buildings.

asked if the Estates Commissioners have communicated, or, if not, will they communicate, with the owners of the townland of Bally-garrine, parish of Killoe, county Longford, in order to acquire the land for the congested district people of Cam Clonhugh Mountain, and evicted tenants in the district, as these lands are only let on the eleven months' system?

The Estates Commissioners are unable to identify the lands referred to from the particulars given in the question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the action of Mr. Wynne, removable magistrate, at Castleisland, county Kerry, petty sessions, in refusing to allow Mr. Florence Sullivan, J.P., and Mr. Martin Nolan, J.P., to adjudicate in a case arising out of the recent eviction of Mr. Walsh; and whether the Irish Government gave Mr. Wynne any instructions to adopt this course?

I am informed that the facts of the case are as follows: On 22nd June last a number of men were brought before Mr. Wynne, R.M., and a local magistrate, charged with assault and resistance to the police and sheriff's bailiffs at the eviction in question. While the case was proceeding, Mr. Nolan, J.P., came in, and the resident magistrate pointed out to him that as he had not been present when the evidence began, he could not adjudicate. At the adjourned hearing on 29th June, the resident magistrate took the same course with regard to Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Wynne had no instruc- tions from the Government on the subject, and was only doing his duty in insisting on the well-known principle of law, that only magistrates who have been present, and have heard the whole case are entitled to adjudicate.

Did the resident magistrate prevent Mr. Nolan from acting before any evidence was taken? I was present myself, and I know about it.

I have got the report of the resident magistrate, and I have read out to the House the statement he has made that the only reason for interfering with this magistrate was that he was not present when the case was opened.

As this matter is of consequence to a lot of people in the county Kerry, will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to obtain information from some persons other than those who are charged—resident magistrate and the police officer?

I know no better way of finding out what takes place in a court of justice than by asking the two magistrates present, the resident magistrate and the other magistrate.

Did the right hon. Gentleman ask the other magistrate at all? I believe he did not.

No. I am quite ready to ask the other magistrate.

I should be glad if you would do so.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what military authority authorised the statement that the services of the Territorial forces would not be required until that force had been mobilised and carefully trained for six months?

No military authority has authorised this statement, nor has it, so far as I am aware, been made by any responsible person.

Docs the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Under-Secretary of State for War (Lord Lucas) that the Territorials are not able to repel invasion by foreign troops except after six months' training?

That is a wholly different statement.

asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state when the Indian Budget will be introduced?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the widespread interest felt in the present condition of affairs in India and the limited opportunities afforded to the House of discussing the situation there, he would arrange that the Debate on the Indian Budget be taken on some days in the present month?

On Friday last I informed my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras West that I could not make any definite announcement, but that I hoped that the Indian Budget might be taken during the first week in August.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make a more definite statement now?

No.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recent statement of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal regarding the unrest in his province; and whether His Majesty's Government will now, in accordance with the promise of the late Prime Minister, reconsider the whole question of the partition of Bengal, with a view to allaying the unrest?

I am not aware that the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal traced any connection whatever between the unrest in his province and the redistribution of its Government. The late Prime Minister said on 30th July, 1906:—

"My right lion. Friend, the Secretary of State for India, has twice stated that His Majesty's Government regard the redistribution of Government in Bengal as a settled question. If any substantial grounds for reviewing this settlement, are laid before him on good authority, my right hon. Friend will give them his careful consideration."

Since that date His Majesty's Government have frequently stated that they regard the redistribution of Government in Bengal as a settled question, the last occasion having been as recent as 4th May. No substantial grounds for reviewing it have been laid before them, and the policy of His Majesty's Government, adopted deliber- ately and after full consideration, remains, and is likely to remain, unchanged.

May I ask whether there is not substantial ground for the fact of the unrest continuing in Bengal after the grave statement made the other day by the Lieutenant Governor-General, and whether, in the estimation of Indian reformers, the partition of Bengal is not considered one of the chief causes of unrest?

That is an argumentative question.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the announcement by the Royal Commissioners on the Land Transfer Acts that, throughout their inquiry, very little evidence has been advanced with reference to the desirability of an extension of the present system, either by private persons interested in land or by representative public bodies; and whether, under these circumstances, the further extension of the system of compulsory land registry, as indicated in the Finance Bill, can be strictly limited?

My attention has been called to the announcement referred to in the question. I understand that it was issued with the object of eliciting the views of representative public bodies and private individuals as to the desirability of an extension of the existing system of land registration, and until the response to this circular is known and the Commission has issued its Report it would be obviously irregular and premature to draw any deductions as to the weight and tendency of the evidence presented to the Commission.

Is the Prime Minister in a position to give any information from any quarter of a desire to have compulsory land registration?

I do not know personally. I do not think that such information would ordinarily come to me.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many commissions have been given to the Army Pay Department since 1906; and whether any steps can be taken to hasten promotion in that corps?

The hon. and gallant Member's question is not clear. No appointments have been made to the Army Pay Department since the formation of the Army Accounts Department in April, 1005, and it is not considered necessary to take any steps to hasten promotion in the former Department.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the terms of the letter or circular of instructions or advice which his Department has issued to His Majesty's mines inspectors in connection with the coming into operation of The Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act, 1908, c. 57; and whether he will have a copy of such letter or circular placed upon the Table of the House of Commons?

It is the rule to treat administrative instructions issued by the Home Secretary to the inspectors as confidential, and I do not think it would be desirable to make an exception to this practice. In the present case the instructions consist merely of directions given to the inspectors with regard to their duties under the Act. A circular has been issued by the inspectors, under my authority, to colliery owners drawing their attention to the action they have to take under the Act. I shall be happy to show the hon. Member a copy of this circular and to lay it on the Table of the House if he desires that that should be done.

asked the Prime Minister whether, and, if so, when, it is the Government's intention to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the expediency of giving jurisdiction to a limited extent in divorce and matrimonial cases to certain county courts in order that the poorer classes may no longer be deprived of legal remedies now only open to persons of means?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Lord Chancellor has announced that there would be an inquiry into the matter to which he refers. The form of such inquiry is now under consideration, and, though I am not in a position to make a definite announcement, I think it not improbable that the terms of reference may include the whole question I of the working of the Divorce Laws. I should hope that the body which conducts the inquiry might be empowered to make an interim Report as to the giving of jurisdiction in these cases to county courts.

I wish to bring under notice a very gross and outrageous breach of the privileges of this House, and to submit, after briefly explaining the case, the following Resolution: "That it having been represented to this House that the Duke of Norfolk did infringe the liberties and privileges of this House by concerning himself in the election of a Member to represent the county of Derby, High Peak, in the Commons, the Committee of Privileges do inquire into the said alleged breach of privilege." The ground on which I propose to make that Motion is as follows. On Saturday last one of the candidates in this division of the county of Derby, from a platform, in the middle of the contest read the following letter—Mr. Profumo, before addressing the meeting, read a letter from the Duke of Norfolk to the following effect:—

"My dear Profumo,

"May I wish yon every success in your present contest. On general grounds, I most earnestly hope you will be returned, hut I am all the more anxious for this result when I remember that you have always cheerfully pledged yourself to support the interests of our Catholic children in our schools. The question is not of such pressing interest at this moment us it has been at other times, but the struggle is not ended, and at any times and with little notice we may find ourselves in need of every champion in whom all can place our trust."

There are many precedents for bringing breaches of privilege of this character before the House of Commons, but I think of the instances that come to my memory that this is one of the most outrageous and deliberate violations of our Resolution in this regard that I can ever recall, because in this instance the Duke of Norfolk, in the very heat of the contest, in the middle of the contest, wrote a letter to one candidate apparently with the inten- tion, at all events with the result, to have that read as a campaign document. In all the other cases that I can recall—and I am not going to trouble the House with a long list of precedents—the interference was of a much less open and deliberate and aggressive character. The last case, and I only mention the last precedent, was in the case of Lord Atkinson. The case was brought before the House on 19th February, 1906, of the present Parliament, and was the only case brought forward in the present Parliament. I moved on that occasion that Lord Atkinson was guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House because he voted in the election for St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin. Now what happened? Lord Atkinson had heard some rumours that this Motion was about to be made, and he acted very properly and wrote to Mr. Speaker a letter of apology and explanation, which was read from the Chair on the occasion of the Debate, when I withdrew the Motion. I will read one passage from Lord Atkinson's letter:—

"At the time I voted I did not think that any question could be raised as to my right to exercise the franchise, since my Patent had not been delivered to me nor had I received any summons to the House of Lords."

That, at all events, was a plausible excuse, and it showed a desire on the part of Lord Atkinson not openly and outrageously to defy the Resolution of the House of Commons. In the present instance no such excuse can possibly be offered. The Duke of Norfolk surely cannot have any doubt as to whether he is a peer of Parliament, and he has been too long a Member of the other House to have any doubt as to the character of his action. Therefore, I maintain in writing this letter he must have written it with the fullest knowledge that he was defying and trampling under foot the Resolution of this House. I am one of those who have supported Mr. James Lowther, and seconded his Motion over and over again, to put an end to this preposterous position of this House in passing this Resolution, but I do most earnestly submit to hon. Members opposite, and to all Members of this House, that this House ought not to allow itself to be flouted, and their procedure to be turned into an absolute farce. If you like remove this Resolution. I shall vote for its removal from our proceedings. You pass the Resolution in these terms every Session:—

"That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Irleand, at such elections in Great Britain respectively, where such peer shall appear as a candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any lord-lieutenant or governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament."

Every Session we pass that Resolution that it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of this House, and then when the Noble Duke comes forward in the most flagrant and deliberate fashion, defies that Resolution, takes an active part, sending a letter as a campaign document to be read out by one of the candidates. I say that that is turning this House into ridicule. Without taking up any more time, because the issue is too clear to require lengthy discussion, I earnestly appeal to hon. Members, no matter what the Front Benches may say, to do one thing or the other. The Front Benches always say the same on this matter. They always deprecate action, and say that we cannot do anything. If we cannot do anything, why do we pass the Resolution every Session? I ask hon. Members opposite, who are in an overwhelming majority, to mark their sense of their own dignity and the dignity of the House by proceeding against this high and mighty Duke, or else drop this Resolution for ever. I beg to move.

formally seconded the Resolution.

The Resolution moved by the hon. Member naturally raises once more, though in an indirect way, the question of how far the Sessional Order which we pass at the beginning of each Session should be regarded as a piece of waste-paper. I may claim to have a perfectly open mind on the matter, as in the course of my Parliamentary experience I have voted both for and against maintaining the Sessional Order. It is only by a very slow process of reasoning, and after a good deal of hesitation, that I have finally come to the conclusion, for reasons which were very well stated by the Leader of the Opposition—I think on the last occasion when the matter was dis- cussed, in 1905—that on the whole it is better that this House should annually renew the determination that the electors of this country should be free to exercise the franchise without any interference from any Member of the House of Peers. If that is the case, it seems to me if a clear instance is produced—and on the facts stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), which we have no reason to doubt, there has been such interference—of a deliberate infraction of this Sessional Order, the House will be stultifying itself if it takes no notice of it, or if it adopts the course taken on the occasion to which I have referred, at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman who was then the Leader of the House, of simply carrying the "previous question," and thereby giving the go-by to the whole thing. Without attempting to prejudge the merits of the partner case, still less forecasting what action, if any, this House should take on the Report of the Committee if it be shown that a breach of privilege has been committed, I. think on the facts stated a case has been made for sending this matter to the Committee of Privileges to be investigated. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, if the matter goes to a Division, I shall vote in favour of the Resolution.

If the Leader of the House and the majority of the House think it worth while to go through the formality of sending this matter to the Committee of Privileges, I do not think that anybody need greatly concern himself one way or the other. The matter seems to me to be exceedingly trivial, and I am really astonished at the tone of tragedy in which the hon. Member for Past Mayo (Mr. Dillon) laid it before the House. I have often had to speak on the subject of the privileges of the House of Commons, and I have always taken the line that no doubt the procedure is antiquated, and that doubtless from time to time there are breaches of the Sessional Order, but that if you formally abolish the Sessional Order you will practically give an invitation to every Member of the other House to take an active part in elections; and I see no advantage from the House of Commons point of view—it might possibly be an advantage from the party point of view—in extending a formal invitation to Peers to concern themselves in the actual contest for every vacant seat. That, I think, is a perfectly sound line to take; but it does not follow that you should set to work some great constitutional machinery whenever some Noble Lord makes a speech or writes a letter which in our opinion provides a primâ facie case for imagining that the Sessional Order has been broken. Everybody knows that in spirit the political life of this country is one, and you cannot possibly keep out any member of the community, male or female, peer or commoner, from taking some active part in the political life of the country. So clearly is that felt, that this Rule is interpreted—I do not know whether it has been formally laid down—as meaning that, when the Writ has been issued, a Peer, who may without offence make a speech every day for a month beforehand in favour of either of the recognised candidates, must thereafter hold his peace until the result of the election is declared. That is evidently a most arbitrary and technical distinction, although it may serve some general useful purpose. My hon. Friend (Mr. Pike Pease) reminds me that at the election of a relative of his for Darlington the late Duke of Devonshire spoke on the night before the nomination, and I am not aware that that was con tended to be a breach of privilege. Every body will admit that the Duke of Devon shire's going down the night before the nomination was a much more substantial interference with an election than a letter to a candidate expressing a desire that he may get in, which that candidate, as the letter was not marked "Private," was presumably at liberty to read in his constituency. When it comes to so fine a point as that, that a man of the political position of the late Duke of Devonshire may, without violating the Sessional Order, speak on the day before the nomination—

He did violate it.

I think not. Dad the House take any action?

Why did it not?

The House took no action.

In that particular case, the Writ was issued the day the speech was delivered, but it had not been received at Darlington.

That really confirms the point I am endeavouring to lay before the House. My view was, and it appears to be right, that the Duke of Devonshire did not violate the technical letter of the Resolution. Everybody will admit that he made a far more important and substantial contribution to the result of that election by making a speech in the constituency on the day before the nomination, after the Writ had been issued, but before it had been received, than if a mere letter had been written of the character described by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I remember another case, the reference to which I have here in the Journals of the House. On March 19th, 1894, a Motion was made:—

"That this House resolves that the Earl of Rosebery, a Peer of Parliament, First Lord of the Treasury, a member of the Council, Lord Lieutenant of the county of Midlothian, has, by a speech on the 17th March, in Edinburgh, infringed the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom, by concerning himself in the election of a Member to serve for the Burgh of Leith for the Commons in Parliament."

That was moved by the late Lord Randolph Churchill. An Amendment was proposed to leave out all the words after "That," in order to add the words, "the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day." That Amendment was moved by the late Sir William Harcourt.

Lord Rosebery's speech was not made in the constituency, but in Edinburgh. It is not very far off, but a substantial difference exists.

If anything had been required to turn the whole thing into ridicule, to make the proceedings utterly absurd, ab initio, it is the distinction which the Prime Minister has drawn between Leith and Edinburgh. Everybody knows that Leith and Edinburgh are continuous, much as Manchester and Salford are. According to the statement of the late Sir William Harcourt, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, it would be a breach of privilege to make a speech in Manchester if there was an election going on in Manchester, but to make a speech in Salford, which is just over the street, would not be a breach of privilege. And so important did the Radical Government in 1894 think that, that instead of pursuing the course now suggested or accepted by the Prime Minister, they moved to proceed to the Orders of the day.

I just ask the House to compare the two cases. You have the Prime Minister of the day and the Lord Lieutenant of the County in which the thing took place making a speech—

It had nothing to do with the election.

That was not the point the right hon. Gentleman made just now.

What happened was this, speaking from recollection: Lord Rosebery made a political speech at Edinburgh, and there was a bye-election going on in Leith. The speech in Edinburgh had nothing whatever to do with the candidature. If my memory is correct, the meeting was arranged weeks, if not months, before. It was an ordinary political meeting. In this case it is a letter written to a candidate.

I wonder whether any body, including the Prime Minister, thinks he has improved his case by that interruption! Observe what the distinction between the two cases is. Which is the greater interference with a pending election: That you should write a letter saying you hope the candidate will get in, or that the Prime Minister of the day should go to the adjoining constituency in his own county and make a speech in favour of the Government, of which he is a member, and its policy, and which the candidate in the neighbouring constituency is endeavouring to represent? Why everyone knows that if you leave the form and try to get at the substance of this matter, that the interference of Lord Rosebery—I am not criticising it—

Lord Rosebery lives in that constituency.

Not in Leith.

He was merely present at a political meeting in his own constituency at the time this election was going on.

I am not quite sure that I apprehend the hon. Gentleman yet! He seems to think that Lord Rosebery was not interfering in the election of a friend who was also, I think, at the time, his secretary.

He had been appointed a Lord of the Treasury.

A Member of his own Government. The difference apparently is that Lord Rosebery lived in the constituency. I should have thought that if anything could aggravate the offence that would, because Lord Rosebery not merely spoke as Prime Minister, not merely as a colleague of the candidate, as a former chief of the candidate, but as a personal friend of the candidate. He also spoke as Lord Lieutenant of the county, and with all the authority of a neighbour, and a great personage in the district naturally possesses.

He did not speak about the election.

It is perfectly absurd—if we are looking at realities, not at forms—it is perfectly absurd to either condemn the action of Lord Rosebery in that case or that of the Duke of Devonshire in the other case which I quoted. After all, nobody so loves these antiquated and rusty weapons as a Radical. They have a perfect passion for these semi-obsolete forms. If they really want to satisfy that passion I do not sec why they should not do so, so long as they do not ask too many hon. Gentlemen who have to attend all-night sittings to take part in these important deliberations of the Committee. For my own part, I confess I think the House will stultify itself by the proposed action. Those who are concerned in proving can easily prove that. Whatever the Committee of Privileges find, they will be perfectly helpless.

Then abolish the Rule.

Then this is not a Motion against the Duke of Norfolk. To bring a Motion against the Duke of Norfolk with a view to abolishing the Rule seems to me to be a most roundabout, cumbrous and ludicrous method to arrive at an end which you can simply attain if you only take the proper steps to attain it.

Under these circumstances I shall not give the slightest adhesion to the policy accepted by the Prime Minister. I think it is altogether absurd, and quite inconsistent with the practice of this House during the last 20 or 30 years. I do not care to go back to too musty an antiquity for my precedents, or to follow the perverted Toryism of hon. Gentlemen opposite or those, below the Gangway. They might well occupy themselves in preserving within the Constitution the living working elements in that Constitution, instead of furbishing up these bows and arrows of an immemorial antiquity.

I move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and add the words "this House do proceed to the Order of the day." In doing so I respectfully submit, if the House desires to seek a quarrel with the House of Lords, something more substantial than a letter to "My Dear Profumo" should be the basis of that contest. I desire to suggest to the House that perhaps, in the absence of the Noble Duke whose letter is under consideration, we may not be doing him justice in proceeding with this Resolution. All we know from the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) is that the Noble Duke has written to his "Dear Profumo." There is no primâ facie evidence that the Noble Duke ever intended the letter to be read. For all we know he may have wished it not to be read. The writing of the letter clearly could not be a breach of privilege. It is the publication of the letter which constitutes a breach of privilege. If the publication of that letter is a breach of the privileges of this House, the crime was committed partly by the Duke and partly by his "Dear Profumo." Therefore, the hon. Member opposite must couple, I suggest, "Dear Profumo" with the Duke, as aiding and abetting in the commission of a great offence. I say, in all seriousness, that the opportunity for a quarrel with the other House may come before long on more important matters, and I suggest to the House that, in the circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence that the letter was ever intended to be used, and that the letter was, in express terms, limited to a question which—the hon. Member will admit—is very dear to the heart of the Noble Duke, and was of a special character that almost justifies the Duke in expressing his personal view to the candidate, this House may pass the matter over and without prejudice may proceed to the Order of the day.

Does anyone second the Amendment?

I second the Amendment.

I hope the House will adopt the original Motion proposed by my hon. Friend. I am rather surprised at the attitude taken up by the Leader of the Opposition. A late friend of his, and of many of us, Mr. James Lowther, annually proposed that this Rule against the interference of Peers in elections should not be re-enacted. I had the honour several times of supporting Mr. Lowther both by speech and vote, and on every single occasion on which I protested against this Rule I found the Leader of the Opposition in the Lobby opposed to Mr. Lowther and myself, and in favour of the maintenance of this Rule. The right hon. Gentleman described this Rule, which he then so jealously guarded, as antiquated. Either the Rule ought not to be passed or it ought to be observed. In reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), I cannot take quite the same view of the interference of the Duke of Norfolk as he does. The hon. Member said the Duke's interference was on ac count of a cause very dear to him. The cause, I assume, to which the hon. Member alluded, and which is the subject mentioned in the letter, was the cause of the Catholic schools. Let me inform the hon. Member and the House that the Noble Duke had a far less serious and less sacred and a more personal cause. The Duke of Norfolk happens to be a large land holder in this particular place, and recently I find, from a speech delivered during the election by the Liberal candidate, that the Duke of Norfolk had got lately £136 per acre for land which a few years ago was only worth £25 an acre; that he got altogether £43,000—

Really, I fail to see what this has got to do with the subject of the Debate. The hon. Member must con fine himself either to the Motion or to the Amendment. The character of the Duke of Norfolk as a land-owner does not come into the matter—

Of course I do not in the least mean not to obey your ruling immediately; but might I be permitted to say that the point I was endeavouring to make, perhaps wrongly, was that the in terference of the Duke in this particular election was connected with his personal interest—

That question docs not arise upon the Motion. The Question is whether, being a peer, he concerned him self with the election in question, not whether, being a land-owner in the division, he concerned himself with the election—

I do not wish to persevere with that argument in face of your ruling. I wished to answer the observations of the hon. Member opposite that the interference of the Noble Duke was entirely due to his profound religious conviction, and to suggest it was due to strong personal interest.