asked whether Canada makes a claim upon all land intervening between the American border and the North Pole; and if that claim is made in any treaty or constitutional article or document?

The Secretary of State understands that the Canadian Government have not made a formal declaration of the exact limits of their possessions northwards, but it is believed that they consider themselves entitled to claim all the land referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Undersecretary for the Colonies how many Chinese have been repatriated since 30th June last, and how many still remain in the Transvaal?

According to the Chamber of Mines' figures, 5,361 still remained in the country on 31st August, and there had been no repatriations since 30th June.

asked the Undersecretary of the Colonies if he will say whether His Majesty's Government have sanctioned the recruiting of natives for the Transvaal mines from Central Africa; and will he say what has been the mortality per 1,000 during the past four years among natives from Central Africa working in the mines compared to Chinese labourers?

The following are the available figures of mortality from disease for Chinese and British Central Africa labourers on the Rand per 1,000 per annum:—Chinese, 1905, approximately, 12; 1906, approximately, 11; 1907, approximately, 9; 1908, approximately, 7.—British Central African: 1904–5, 118.3; 1905–6, 116.3; 1906–7, 52.8. In spite of the striking reduction in the death rate of these British Central African natives from 166 to 52 per 1,000 in the last year mentioned, the Secretary of State did not feel justified in continuing to permit recruiting under official sanction. But, as I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomery Burghs, the only practical result of the prohibition has been that the natives, attracted by the high wages, have still continued to go to the Rand without leave or supervision, and at great risk to themselves. As a consequence, His Majesty's Government have been forced to the conclusion that the best course in the interests of the natives is to bring this emigration under careful official supervision, and to limit the number to the figure which commends itself to the Governor, who is carefully watching the matter, and is much concerned at the high mortality which has prevailed.

Will natives be allowed to be imported from Central Africa, not Nyassaland?

Not so far as we know; but it is very difficult to stop the immigration of natives who are in search of high wages.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the annual loss and the total loss to date sustained by the Chinese Government on the bonds, maintenance, and expenses of working under a British staff the railway constructed by the Peking syndicate, for which the Chinese Government have been forced to accept responsibility, seeing that the Chinese contention that this railway can never pay has been proved by experience to be correct; and, in view of the hardship of raising taxes from the Chinese people for those purposes from which no return is expected, whether His Majesty's Government intend to have the bonds and agreements in this matter set aside for mala fides ; and, if not, whether the assistance of this Government will still be given to the syndicate in enforcing its terms against China?

This railway, which was only made for the transport of the syndicate's coal from their mines, was taken over by the Chinese Government in 1905. I am, of course, not in a position to furnish the figures desired. The imputations in the question, which appear to be offensive, are without foundation.

Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to state how much of the working expenses of this line are paid annually by the Chinese in addition to the £35,000 interest on the bonds?

Certainly not. The Chinese Government made an arrangement with a syndicate to which His Majesty's Government was not a partner.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the total amount of loss sustained by the Chinese Government on the Shanghai-Nanking Railway since its opening for traffic; whether this has been paid out of taxes imposed upon the Chinese people; whether the control of the administration and working is still retained in British hands; and if he will state the grounds upon which His Majesty's Government assist in imposing this burden upon China?

I am unable to state the amount of loss, if any, sustained by the Chinese Government on this railway, since its opening for traffic in March, 1908. The system of control established by the Loan Agreement in the form of a Board of Commissioners (Chinese and British) was suspended shortly afterwards by mutual consent, and its powers were delegated to its Chinese chairman. He, as managing director, was henceforth responsible for the working of the railway. The suggestion contained in the last sentence of the question has no justification.

Is it not a fact that the Chinese managing director is in a minority of one against four on the Board?

If the hon. Member wishes an answer, will he kindly put down a question?

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to explain the existence of what are called "profit certificates" issuing out of this project, on which a substantial dividend is paid, while the railway is being worked at a huge loss?

I can only give the hon. Member the same answer as I gave to his last supplementary question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the water supply at Rosyth is now in a satisfactory condition?

The arrangements for the supply of water at Rosyth for the purpose of the contractors are now satisfactory.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reservoir is completed?

I cannot say; I will inquire.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can furnish any information as to the recent accident to H.M. Destroyer "Gipsy," and the nature of the damage, and the length of time it will take to repair it?

The "Gipsy" grounded in a fog near Corsewall Point at 5.30 p.m. on the 10th of this month. Two holes were made in the bottom, and the bottom plating was indented between frames. Both propellers were damaged and one propeller shaft was bent. The vessel has been placed in dock at Belfast, and temporary repairs are being carried out, which will be completed on the 17th of this month, so as to allow the vessel to resume her ordinary duties. Permanent repairs will be carried out when the vessel comes in hand in the ordinary course, probably in December.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any further reduc- tions are contemplated with regard to coastguards and coastguard stations in Scotland; and, if so, will he specify them?

No further reductions are at present contemplated with regard to coastguard men or coastguard stations in Scotland.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the number of coast-guardsmen per length of the coast line is or is not smaller in Scotland than in England?

That is a question that I will require to have notice of.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that concessions for the making of railways in China have been obtained by financial pressure, bribery, and other improper methods, and British diplomatic pressure afterwards successfully invoked to enforce the terms of such concessions; and whether, in order to revive Chinese confidence in British enterprise, he proposes in future to make an independent investigation and favourable report a condition precedent to assisting in the enforcement of the terms of any project for a railway in China?

No, Sir; I am not aware that British concessions for railways in China have ever been obtained by the methods indicated by the hon. Member. Nor has diplomatic pressure been applied in respect of such concessions, except in cases where the Chinese authorities have manifestly failed to comply with the terms to which they had voluntarily agreed.

asked whether His Majesty's Government have any report from an independent source that the railway from Canton to the Kowloon territory can ever repay the principal or pay interest on the outlay in its construction and its working expenses; whether he is aware of the contention of the Chinese Government that this railway, forced upon them by speculative adventurers without any authentic Chinese approval, can never meet those liabilities, and that they can be paid only by taxes imposed upon the Chinese people; and whether independent evidence in support of this view is available to His Majesty's Government?

We have received no such report. At present, the construction has been little more than begun, and time only can prove what the financial results will be. I have not heard before of the suggestion made by the hon. Member that the Chinese Government contends that the railway can never meet its liabilities. I have no reason to suppose that it represents the views of that Government. The agreement for the construction of the railway was signed and ratified by Imperial Edict at Peking in the spring of 1907.

asked whether, in the interest of China and of legitimate foreign enterprise in that country, His Majesty's Government will require the Peking Syndicate and the persons controlling and profiting by the Shanghai-Nanking and the Canton-Kowloon Railways to make restitution to China out of the proceeds of their respective projects; and, if not, whether the support of His Majesty's Government is to continue available for forcing foreign loans upon China for unremunerative purposes?

The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. The Shanghai-Nanking and Canton-Kowloon lines are both Chinese Government railways, though constructed by means of loans raised in this country, and any profit or loss arising out of their working would accrue to or be defrayed by China, I would add that His Majesty's Government have never forced foreign loans upon China for unremunerative purposes, nor is there any intention of doing so.

Is there any reason to suppose that British Concessionnaires in China receive more assistance from their Government than other Concessionnaires receive from their Governments?

Certainly not.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that the amount of serious crime in Egypt in 1908 was not 2 per cent in excess of the crime in 1908, and that the total of crimes and minor offences in 1908 was actually less than in 1907; if he is aware that the Judicial Adviser of the Egyptian Government, in his last Report, said that real crime was exaggerated by the statistics, that his own impression was that the proportion of unreported crime had not been at any time so small, and that there were very few crimes of brigandage and highway robbery by armed bands such as filled the criminal calendars some 20 years ago; and will he say if the Ordinance of 4th July, under which persons can be condemned to banishment and detention without being convicted of any offence, is founded upon these statistics and this Report of the Judicial Adviser?

As stated in the reply to the hon. Member's question of the 7th inst., the statistics of crime in Egypt for the last three years will be found in Sir Eldon Gorst's last annual Report. I have since received further information from His Majesty's Acting Agent and Consul-General at Cairo giving the number of crimes committed during the first seven months of each of the years 1907, 1908, and 1909. The total of crimes during these periods increased from 1,821 in 1907 to 2,010 in 1908, and to 2,353 in 1909; while the number of homicides and attempted homicides, which it is hoped the new law will be especially efficacious in checking, increased from 598 in 1907 to 721 in 1908, and to 923 in the present year. The hon. Member has correctly quoted certain statements from the Report of the Judicial Adviser to the Egyptian Government, but he has omitted the important statement that "the real increase in crime has undoubtedly been considerable." The new law is not founded on any special report, and, as far as statistics are concerned, it must be remembered that it is mainly aimed at offences of the most serious class. On the difficulty of obtaining evidence in such cases, the hon. Member will find much information in the last Report of the Judicial Adviser, from which he has quoted.

Is it true that the Judicial Adviser of the Egyptian Government said that the real crime was exaggerated by the statistics?

I think that remark must be qualified by the remark I quoted from the same authority, that "the real increase in crime has undoubtedly been considerable."

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has given orders for ceasing to supply copies of the Public Trustee Act and the explanation of its working; if so, whether he will give the date of such order and the reasons for it; and whether the demand for such copies and information had steadily increased during the past 18 months and the benefits of the Act have become more appreciated?

Under arrangement with the Public Trustee, notices accompanied by a certain number of pamphlets relative to the Public Trustee Act were issued last year to various post offices. It was stated on the notices that additional copies of the pamphlet could be obtained from the Public Trustee. No orders have been given to put a stop to this arrangement. The Public Trustee has asked for certain additional facilities, and I am considering whether these can be granted without undue inconvenience to the Post Office service.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there are 11 mail-drivers in Belfast employed as follows: Two who work 93 hours each for 21s. 6d., four who work 86, 84½, 84, and 79¾ hours for 21s. 6d., four others who work 86½, 76½, 61½, and 57 hours each for 20s., and one man who works 49 hours for 12s.; whether he is aware that the uniform of these men consists of coat, vest, and cap only, whereas the ordinary postmen receive two full suits, including overcoat, waterproof cape, and boots, per year; whether he is aware that the recent inquiry held in Belfast respecting this matter consisted of calling in the contractor's foreman and accepting his statement, without in any way approaching the persons employed; and whether, in view of the statement that the hours worked by mail-cart drivers in Belfast were 60 per week for 21s. 6d., with uniform, he will take the necessary steps to enforce the hours and wages as aforesaid, with the addition to the uniform of trousers, boots, overcoat, and waterproof cape?

I have made further inquiry into the conditions of employment of the Belfast mail-cart drivers. I am informed that the average duration of the duties of the 11 full-time drivers is about 65 hours a week. I find that the duty of one of the drivers—73 hours—is excessive, and I am calling upon the contractor to reduce it at once. As regards the payment, the wages, I am assured, after the first six months, are 21s. 6d., together with the ordinary uniform, valued at 1s. a week. I have, however, requested the Board of Trade to ascertain the current wages and hours of duty of van-drivers at Belfast; and, on receipt of this information, I shall be able to determine whether any further alteration in the conditions of employment of the mail-cart drivers is necessary.

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration that portion of the question with regard to the uniform and the answer given in this House some months ago, and may I ask the right hon. Gentleman of what the uniform consists?

The uniform as a rule consists of a coat, hat, and sometimes trousers; but the value of the uniform is a point I want to consider when I get the information from the Board of Trade. I shall then be able to see whether the contractor has made a proper estimate.

What are the average wages paid to men in London by contractors?

The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered the advisability of doing this work without the intervention of contractors?

That is a question that hardly arises. It is a much bigger question than the one on the Paper.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the fact that the penny post with the United States of America was agreed to without waiting for the adoption of a universal penny post, and that the penny post has been adopted with Egypt as well as at the treaty ports in China, he will consider the advisability of making the same arrangement with Constantinople?

I have nothing to add to my answer to my hon. Friend of the 7th inst.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be wise, in connection with penny post, to take one step at a time?

That undoubtedly ought to be done, but the difficulty about taking one step at a time is that one step neces- sarily leads to others. As I pointed out to the House the other day, while I hope it may be possible to do this some day, at the same time, if it is granted to one European nation it could not be refused to others, and the cost of that would be £350,000 a year. In the present state of the finances of the country that is an amount I could hardly ask the Treasury for this year.

The right hon. Gentleman has already taken this step with regard to the United States and also with regard to Egypt.

It would hardly be an argument that would weigh with the Treasury if I were to say: "I have already spent £150,000; therefore, give me another £350,000." They would probably say: "We gave you enough."

asked the Lord Advocate whether the post of chairman of the Prisons Commission has now been filled; if so, by whom; and will he say what are the qualifications of the new chairman which led to his appointment?

The post has been filled by the appointment of the Master of Polwarth, who is well known throughout Scotland for his activities in social and philanthropic work, and who, in addition to his general knowledge of public affairs, has, during the last 12 years, acquired a large experience of kindred administrative duties in the unpaid office of chairman of the Lunacy Board for Scotland.

Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the particular claim of the gentleman to this post in the eyes of the Secretary for Scotland is that he had been three times a Conservative candidate?

I should like to ask the hon. Member whether it would not have been better for the Government to have appointed a non-politician to an office of this sort?

They have not appointed a politician at all; they have appointed a gentleman well qualified for the post.

Is it not true that this gentleman fought two or three elections, and does not that make him a politician?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now give the name of the Commissioner who will investigate the recent disturbances in Liverpool, and state the terms of reference under which the inquiry is to be conducted?

I am in communication in this matter with the City Council of Liverpool, and until I hear from them that they are prepared to make the necessary arrangements for the inquiry I cannot take any steps towards appointing the Commissioner.

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my question?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he say what is the definition of a completely enclosed motor in the Home Office Rules relating to electricity in mines; and whether a flame-proof motor not totally enclosed is covered by the definition completely enclosed?

I am advised that the enclosure required by special Rule 37 is total enclosure, and this, I understand, is the view generally taken in the industry. The case of a "flame-proof motor not totally enclosed" would not, therefore, be a compliance with the rule; but the point has been noted for reference to the Committee on the Rules which I am about to appoint.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Member of the Committee which drew up these rules stated that "completely enclosed" meant nothing to the mind of the Commissioners more than "totally enclosed"?

In view of the loss of life which has occurred recently in mines which is attributed to electricity, I wish to know if the Government are prepared to undertake some experiments with regard to electricity in mines?

As I have already stated, I am about to appoint a Committee, and it is extremely probable that Committee will extend its inquiries to this question.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the second Report of the Mines Royal Commission, issued last week, recommending an immediate increase of inspectors, he will say how many additional inspectors he proposes appointing; how many of these will be men who have had a practical knowledge of working in the coal face; and whether he has applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the necessary funds to enable him to make these appointments, and, if so, with what result?

The Commission found that the time has arrived for increasing the number of inspectors. The Report and Memoranda contain more than one proposal with regard to the creation of new classes of inspectors, and a unanimous recommendation for the re-division of the country into districts. The Report was only issued last week, and the recommendations made and arguments used are under consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a paper on school gardens by Mr. J. Haslam, one of the junior inspectors of the Board of Education; and whether, in view of the growing importance of this subject, he will lay Mr. Haslam's paper upon the Table of the House?

The paper referred to is a Report on Gardening Classes in Cambridgeshire Schools. I do not think it is of sufficient general interest to justify the expense of publication.

asked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the notice issued by the Department of Agriculture of Ireland warning the Irish importers to avoid English-grown potatoes; if the Board of Agriculture have yet any information regarding the spread of black scab in potatoes; and if the Board are taking any steps to prevent this disease spreading other than leaflets?

We have not seen the notice to which the hon. Member refers, but we will communicate with the Department of Agriculture for Ireland on the subject. Inquiries are being made as to the extent of the spread of black scab, but until the crop has been harvested we shall not be in a position to give definite information on this point. In addition to our publication of leaflets we are endeavouring through our inspectors, officers of local authorities and members of the staff of agricultural colleges, to advise potato-growers as to the nature of the disease and the precautions to be taken to prevent its spread.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman call the attention of the hon. Member for South Somerset to the fact that I sent him this notice myself?

Certainly.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received for posts under the Labour Exchanges Bill?

Nearly 3,000.

How are the appointments going to be made?

About 200 of them will be made during the present financial year.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the present composition of the Aden Port Trust and Aden Settlement Committee respectively; and what steps are taken to ensure that the commercial interests of that port are adequately represented on these Boards?

The Aden Port Trust at present consists of an official as chairman with two ex-official members and six nominated members of whom three are also members of the committee of the Chamber of Commerce. The executive committee of the Settlement consists of a chairman, who must under the rules be an official, and from four to six appointed members, of whom one-half must be non-officials. I have no reason to believe that commercial interests are neglected in either case in the appointment of the non-official members. The circumstances of Aden are exceptional, and the Government must reserve the control of the affairs of the port.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether an application for reinstatement was received by the Estates Commissioners from Michael Merrins, Kildoon, county Kildare; whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired untenanted land at Mullmoy and Bally-shannon, near the place where Michael Merrins lives; whether 30 acres of the best portion of Mullmoy Farm was allotted to Shirley, the present tenant of Pat Toole's farm at Ballyquorn; can he say on what grounds Merrins's claim was passed over and this tenant given land by the Estates Commissioners, contrary to the intention of Parliament when passing recent land legislation; who was the inspector who divided and allotted those lands; and whether the claims of Michael Merrins will be taken into consideration?

Merrin's application was not received by the Estates Commissioners within the time prescribed by the Evicted Tenants Act, and the Commissioners are therefore unable to consider it in connection with the allotment of land acquired under that Act. The lands in question were so acquired, and the allotment referred to by the hon. Member was made by the Commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion to an evicted tenant coming within the provisions of the Act, and not by any inspector. Merrin's application will be inquired into when the estate on which his former holding is situate is being dealt with by the Commissioners under the Irish Land Act, 1903.

Are we to understand that it is the settled policy in Ireland of the inspectors, confirmed by the Estates Commissioners, that professional emergency men and land grabbers for the last 35 years are to be rewarded under this legislation?

I am not aware of anything more than I have already stated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Shirley was an emergency man and a land grabber?

I was not aware of that fact.

Well, I am.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he can now state the price of the farm of 119 acres of the untenanted lands of Kildrum, on the Kingston estate, allotted to Thomas Robinson in the scheme of division prepared by Mr. Sydney Smith, and how many applicants for parcels of land were refused allotments; and whether the inspector, when, submitting his scheme for the approval of the Estates Commissioners, made them acquainted with the fact that Thomas Robinson had offered £3,000 for a farm and was a man of ample means?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that the price of the farm allotted to Thomas Robinson is £2,350. The Commissioners did not consider it desirable to sub-divide the farm. They received 36 applications in writing for allotments, eight of which were granted. The answer to the concluding portion of the question is in the affirmative.

On what ground was this farm given to Thomas Robinson?

As far as I understand the matter, it was a large farm, and was only worked as a large farm. There were large buildings attached to it, and the Commissioners say that if they divided up the farm into a number of farms it would have incurred a great deal of expense, because roads would have to be made and other expenditure incurred.

As there are many evicted tenants waiting for accommodation, I wish to know on what grounds Thomas Robinson has been given this farm, he being a man of large means?

I cannot say anything more than I have already said. These matters are in the hands of the Commissioners, and the Government cannot interfere with them. The Commissioners must be left to use their own discretion with, regard to the allotting of farms.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he will give the date of the eviction of the parent of Thomas Robinson, land steward to Lady Kingston, who has been allotted 119 acres of the Kildrum farm on the Kingston estate; if he will state the name of the evicting landlord and the county in which the holding was situated; whether Thomas Robinson made an application for reinstatement to the Commissioners as the representative of the evicted tenant; and whether the application was refused on the ground that it did not come within the provisions of the Act of Parliament, the eviction having taken place before 1st May, 1879, or for what other reason?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that Robinson's mother was evicted from a holding on the Bruen estate, county Wexford, in the year 1879 and within the period mentioned in Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903. His application for reinstatement was not refused.

Did this man make any application to be reinstated.

I presume he did. In fact, he must have done so, because my answer states his application was not refused.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the year 1879. Could he not mention the date, because the Act only applies to those evicted since 1st May, 1879?

The hon. Member is wrong. The date is 14th August, 1878, or 25 years before the passing of the Land Act of 1903. The Land Act was passed on 14th August and it goes back to the year 1878.

Is it not a fact that Thomas Robinson is a land agent, and, if that is so, on what ground is public money being used to provide him with a large farm which ought to be occupied by evicted tenants?

I know nothing about this gentleman except that the estates Commissioners have placed him in possession of this farm, and they have given their reasons for so doing. I have given those reasons to the House, and that is all the information I have on the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement made by the inspector that Thomas Robinson is the son of an evicted tenant is a mere subterfuge?

The hon. Member appears to know more about the matter than I do. I have already stated in my reply to the hon. Member's question that "Robinson's mother was evicted from a holding on the Bruen estate, county Wexford, in the year 1879." That is all I know.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inspector, Mr. Sidney Smith, is a prominent member of the Orange Association in Ireland, and that all these people are also members of that association?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what was the total amount of the purchase money and the number of years' purchase required by Mr. Pierce Gun Mahony from Mr. Richard J. Walsh, of Cordal, county Kerry, in the first instance; and what was the purchase money and the number of years' purchase that Mr. Howard, the Estates Commissioners' inspector, reported would be a fair price?

I have nothing to add to my reply to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member on the list instant.

Does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to give an answer as to what amount of purchase money the laud-owner wanted?

I have already given that information. My answer of 1st September mentioned the exact amount. I gave the number of years' purchase.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can ascertain the name of the inspector of the Estates Commissioners who reported on the Gun Mahony estate at Cordal, county Kerry, in the first instance; and whether, having regard to the untruthful statements made by him against Mr. Richard J. Walsh and other tenants, any action has been taken in the matter?

The Estates Commissioners inform me that this estate was only visited by one inspector. The official who preceded him was a surveyor who was sent in accordance with the settled procedure to check the boundaries of the lands. The Commissioners are not aware of any statements having been made of the kind referred to in the question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the name of the official of the Estates Commissioners who visited the land in the first instance?

No, Sir; I do not think it is desirable to give the names of the officals the Estates Commissioners send down as delegates. If their reports are adopted, the Estates Commissioners, and not the inspectors, are responsible.

Am I right in understanding that this official is a surveyor, and that the Estates Commissioners decline to give the name of the person who surveyed the landowner's estate for the purpose of sale?

It is very much better not to mention the names of subordinates. The Estates Commissioners are responsible. Everything done is done by them; and, if they send down their servants, I do not think it fair that the name of a particular servant should be mentioned in this House.

Do you object to giving the name of the skilled professional surveyor who surveyed the landowner's estate for the purpose of sale?

If you give the name of one surveyor or one official, you will have to give the names of all.

Having regard to the fact that this surveyor made statements about the tenants which were untrue, according to the sworn evidence of the district inspector of police and according to the Estate Commissioners' second inspector, does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to make any inquiry, or is this surveyor to continue in the service of the Estates Commissioners?

I do not know his name, and I do not propose to inquire. Whatever he did has been adopted by the Estates Commissioners, and it is their responsibility.

May I ask whether there is any—

The right hon. Gentleman has given the same answer three times. If the hon. Member wants to ask anything further, I think he had better put it down.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Catholic Clerical Managers' Association and other similar bodies, having expressed their readiness to carry out the proposals made as to the heating and cleansing of schools, are expected to prepare any definite plans for doing so for consideration by the Treasury; if so, why have they not been asked to do so by the Irish Government; and whether the Irish Government has any intention of carrying out the proposals as to heating and cleansing, so that the matter may be arranged before next winter?

It is for the managers of all denominations to consider whether they can devise a practical solution of this question. My right hon. Friend has already stated that he is prepared to give full consideration to any such solution on which they may be agreed, but, as he pointed out in his reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on the 3rd inst., it must not be assumed that the Treasury are as yet in any way committed to the basis of negotiations. It is obviously out of the question to think of legislation on the subject during the present Session.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether it is intended to reinstate John M'Girney, who was evicted from his farm in Corraweelis, county Cavan, on the estate of the late Andrew Gilligan?

The Estates Commissioners have not reveived any application from John McGirney for reinstatement in a farm at the place mentioned on the estate of the late Andrew Gilligan.

asked when it is intended to proceed with the further stages of the London Elections Bill?

I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to when this Bill will be taken.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the approximate date of the publication of the Report of the Commissioners on the laws relating to the poor in Scotland?

I am informed that no definite date can be given for the publication of the Report referred to by my hon. Friend, but that it will not be before October.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the date on which an application for a loan was received from the Cavan Urban Council under the Housing of the Working Classes Act; when was the same acknowledged; and will he say why this case was not included in those set out in a recent statement?

An application for a loan of £3,500 was received by the Local Government Board from the Cavan Urban District Council on the 22nd February, and was acknowledged on the 3rd March last. This case should have appeared in the statement referred to as one of the applications received by the Board.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, owing to the recent dull weather, the lack of lamps for signalling by day is being found prejudicial to the carrying out of the military operations now in progress; and, if so, whether he will take steps to make sufficient provision at the earliest possible date?

A suitable pattern of lamp which could be used in lieu of a helio in dull weather has not yet been decided on, but the matter is under consideration, and lamps have been ordered for trial. They have not, however, been obtained in time for trial on these manœuvres.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether any officer of the General Staff was attached to the Fleet during naval manœuvres; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of doing so in the future?

No officer of the General Staff was attached to the Fleet during this year's naval manœuvres. Officers have been attached in former years, and doubtless opportunities will arise for attaching such officers again. The desirability of taking the action suggested will be considered on any occasion when there should appear to be any advantage to either service from such a course.

asked if the War Office has issued instructions for a number of boy scouts to take part in the Army manœuvres; and, if so, how many toys will take part and of what age will they be?

Permission was, in fact, given to some boy scouts to be employed in the forthcoming manœuvres. There is some doubt whether this should have been done, as these boy scouts are not subject to military law, and it has been thought best to cancel the permission. But this must not be taken to imply that the War Office does not greatly appreciate the value of the boy scout training.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware how long the promoters of this movement have encouraged the military training of these boy scouts?

I think there is a great deal of nonsense talked in connection with the boy scouts. It is one of the most valuable movements we have going on just now for the general development and the training of boys.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the actual number of horses now allowed to be cast per annum per squadron and per battery respectively?

In the cavalry 27 per regiment of Household Cavalry and 51 per regiment of the line are allowed to be cast, i.e., 10 per cent. of the establishment. In the Artillery the same percentage is allowed—in the Horse Artillery 13 per battery of higher establishment, and 9 of lower establishment, and in the Field Artillery 9 per battery of higher establishment and 6 of lower establishment. In each case the numbers allowed to be cast are diminished by the number of deaths occurring during the financial year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this very low standard of casting horses may be retained in the batteries for thirty years?

I should like to have notice of that question.

asked how many horses in the Household Cavalry, the cavalry of the line, the Royal Horse Artillery, and the Royal Field Artillery, respectively, are 14 years of age and upwards?

The figures are as follows: Household Cavalry, 147; cavalry of the line, 591; Royal Horse Artillery, 238; Royal Field Artillery, 1,755.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider horses of 14 years are fit for active service?

I myself have not had much experience of these things, but I have known excellent horses of the age of 14.

Is there any Regulation in the War Office as to the age of horses which must not be sent out of the country in case of war?

I rather think not, but if the hon. Gentleman will put a question down I will inquire.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the collapse of a disused warehouse situate between Pepper-street, Golden-place, and Orange-street, Southwark Bridge-road, resulting in serious injury to adjacent small tenements; whether the warehouse in question was the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and whether his attention has been called to the dilapidated condition of other property in the same locality belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners?

I am informed that the warehouse in question belonged to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and that the site formed part of a larger area, which is to let for rebuilding. There are some old cottages on this area, but, pending the rebuilding, it is deemed advisable to retain them in order to avoid disturbance to the tenants. I have not received any complaint as to the condition of other property in the same locality belonging to the Commissioners, and I am informed that no such complaint has been made to them.

Will the Prime Minister give the House some indication of the business set down for next week?

On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday Committee on the Finance Bill will be taken, and, if necessary, on Friday. If the Committee stage is passed before the end of the week, the Government will proceed with other Bills standing on the Paper.

When is it proposed to take the Resolution in Ways and Means dealing with Minerals and the Estate Duties?

On one of the first four days. The exact day we will arrange.

Will it be before the Motor Resolution?

I do not know whether any Resolution is necessary dealing with motor cars.

Will the Resolution relating to minerals be taken first?

I cannot say.

I wish to put a point of Order arising on the Resolution passed by this House yesterday, which was as follows:— That when the Development and Road Improvement Funds Bill is under consideration, Standing Committee C have leave to sit while the House is sitting and after Four of the Clock. Under Standing Order 47 it is provided that a Committee shall not sit while the House is sitting, except in pursuance of a Resolution of the Committee, moved by the Member in charge of the Bill before the Committee. That, I submit, is a specific condition imposed by the Standing Order of the House—that any Standing Committee which desires to sit after the commencement of the sitting of the House must pass such a Resolution in addition to getting an Order of the house if it desires to sit beyond 4.0 p.m. I wish to ask whether there is anything in the Resolution arrived at yesterday which takes away from the Standing Order the words "except in pursuance of a Resolution moved by the Member in charge of the Bill before the Committee." I wish to know whether it is competent for a Committee to sit after the sitting of the House, unless a Resolution is passed by it for that purpose, moved by the Member in charge of the Bill under the Standing Order?

I think the Resolution passed by the House yesterday overrides the Standing Order so far as the Development Bill is concerned. The Standing Order holds good up to such time as the House otherwise orders. In respect of this particular Bill the House has made other arrangements with regard to the sittings of the Committee, and, therefore, what the House decided yesterday seems to override the provisions of Standing Order 47 in regard to that Bill.

moved, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clauses 5, 10, 12, 15, 16, and 52, standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North."

On that Motion, may I ask a question on a point of Order? I wish to ascertain how we stand in regard to this matter. I am aware that, under the Order under which we are acting, no Debate can take place on any Motion which is moved from the Treasury Bench. We have, under the Motion, two days allotted for the Report stage. I think eight days were allotted for the Committee stage. I submit, as a point of Order, that, if this Motion is carried, we shall pass into Committee. That will give possibly another day for the Committee stage, and deprive us of part of that time for Report, which is set down by order of the Government and by the Motion of the House as the amount of time we ought to have for its consideration. I beg to ask you whether, as we are unable to debate this Motion, the carrying of it will not destroy in itself the Order under which we are acting, and by which we are to have two full days for the Report stage?

The answer to that is that if the House goes into Committee again on this Bill, and sits in Committee during the greater part of the day, the order that two days be allotted to the Report stage would be, although not technically, in reality frustrated, and two days would not be given to the Report stage. But the procedure is permissible, and is, indeed, provided for, because, in the Reso- lution allocating the time, special arrangement is made that "no Motion to recommit the Bill shall be received unless moved by the Government," and, therefore, clearly the Resolution contemplates that a Motion for recommittal may be made. It is not a question for me what the effect may be. It is a question of equity, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see how much time is occupied in Committee. If a very long time is occupied there may be a good case for asking the Government to give another day for the Report stage. That can be done by again putting the Bill down, but not as the First Order.

May I ask your ruling on this. The Bill having been called on, and you being in the Chair we have now entered on one of the allotted days for the Report stage. I beg to ask, if once we enter on an allotted day for the Report stage, and then go into Committee, even, though nothing may have been done on the allotted day beyond calling the title of the Bill, would it not be impossible, after having been in Committee, to resume the Report stage? And will not the result be in effect that we shall only have one day for that stage?

I do not think that is so. As I said just now, it is always open to the Government to put down the Irish Land Bill as the Second Order—the first effective Order—but the Second Order on the Paper, and that will not make it an allotted day. It is only when it stands first on the Orders of the Day that it is an allotted day. Therefore, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the recommittal stage lasts till 11 o'clock to-night, and, therefore, practically occupies the whole day (which although set down for Report will not actually be taken up by the Report stage), hon. Members interested in the matter will have a very good equitable case to put to the Government to ask them for another day.

May I ask, is it competent for me to move an Amendment? The Standing Order provides that the Motion shall be put without Debate, but nothing is said about Amendments.

The Standing Order says I must "forthwith" put the Question. If I put the Question "forthwith" I shall be unable to see the hon. Member, and to call upon him to move any Amendment.

Question put, "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clauses 5, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 52, standing in the

name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North."

The House divided: Ayes, 153; "Noes, 47.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr. CALDWELL (Deputy-Chairman) in the chair.]

(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

moved to leave out paragraph ( c ), and to insert, "( c ) the land judge in the course of proceedings in which the estate or land is eventually sold to the Land Commission under Section seven, or to the Congested Districts Board under Section seventy-seven of the Act of 1903, has caused the Commission or Board to be furnished with particulars and documents respecting the estate or land in pursuance of either of these Sections; or."

Notwithstanding the Division which has just taken place, the fact is that every one of this series of Amendments has been put upon the Paper by me, and the re-committal has been necessary, because they involve a charge upon the Treasury; and this I did, as I thought, in deference to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, wherever they sit, and one of these Amendments is put upon the Paper to meet the express wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin (Mr. Walter Long). I, therefore, proceed at once, hoping that very little time will be occupied over these Amendments, to explain the purpose of the first of them. The object of this Amendment is to secure that the bonus and purchase money will be payable on the old rates—an agreeable process, I should have thought—on the sales by the land judge to the Estates Commissioners under Section 7, or to the Congested Districts Board under Section 77, of the Act of 1903, where proceedings have reached a certain stage before the 24th of November.

The Amendment is the effect of many requests that have reached me to give the benefits of the old rate to the earlier stages of the proceedings. The successive stages on the sales by the land judge under the two sections I have quoted are as follows: The first process is for the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board to request the land judge to furnish them with particulars of the estate; the second is that the land judge furnishes particulars; the third, that the Commissioners or the Board have to inspect the estate, and after obtaining undertakings to purchase from the tenants, make an offer to the land judge; and the fourth, the land judge, if he accepts the offer, declares the Commissioners or the Board to be the purchasers, and the transaction comes to an end. The original paragraph provided that when the proceedings had reached the third stage, that is the making of the offer by the Commissioners or Board, before 24th November last, the old rates were to apply. It was pointed out to me that a long period necessarily had to elapse after the date when the land judge furnished the particulars before the Commissioners or Board would be in a position to make an offer. As this delay was not occasioned by the fault of either party, but simply by the enormous amount of business to be dealt with by these bodies, it seemed to be reasonable to adopt the principle that people should not be placed at a disadvantage simply because the machinery is so clogged that delay occurs in carrying it out. Therefore, I have taken the second stage of the proceedings; namely, the furnishing of the particulars by the land judge, and I have provided that where this has been done in the case of any estate before November 24th last the old rates are to obtain, provided the matter proceeds to an actual conclusion. I have made an estimate of this matter, and the purchase money of the estates which will obtain the benefit of the alteration I am now making is, in the case of sales to the Estates Commissioners, £315,371, and in the case of sales to the Congested Districts Board £120,000, making a total of £435,371, on which the bonus, calculated at 12 per cent., is £52,244.

As far as my recollection goes, this matter was never debated when we were in Committee. I do not think the Amendment was put on the Paper before yesterday, and I protest against the tone of the Chief Secretary. When he gets us back into Committee, and a new matter is put down by the Government, the right hon. Gentleman says these Clauses are carrying out suggestions made to him by Members from all parts of Ireland. I do not dispute that, but when the Committee remembers that we have never had a chance of debating them originally, it is not unreasonable for any section of the House to ask how far the Government proposal does carry out these suggestions, and certainly as far as any new Amendments have been put down by the Chief Secretary, we shall consider ourselves just as free to examine them as if they had been originally in the Bill. I protest against the complaint of the Chief Secretary that there is anything unreasonable in our conduct in asking for an explanation, and also taking advantage of opportunity for discussion.

It was the Division that I commented upon.

If I had known that I should have drawn attention to the fact that the Chief Secretary was debating matter which was not before the Committee and was clearly out of Order.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed be there inserted."

moved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "caused" ["has caused the Commission or Board "] to insert the words "or directed."

This may be an extension of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, but I think it is a very small extension. I thank him for putting the Amendment on the Paper. The reason I am interested in the matter is that I had on the Paper in Committee an Amendment on similar lines to that of the Chief Secretary. I must admit that the proposal of the Chief Secretary goes quite as far as the Amendment I had originally on the Paper, and I am, in a sense, seeking to amend my own Amendment, but I thought on consideration that there was some danger that if you insisted that the direction of the land judge had been carried out in every particular, a very small slip on the part of the solicitor having carriage might exclude both tenants and landlord from the great benefit which the Amendment confers upon them. The right hon. Gentleman, from a technical point of view, has described accurately the proceedings which the Act of Parliament contemplated, but, in fact, the procedure has been somewhat different. The Act of Parliament proposes that the Estates Commissioners should, in the first instance, issue a request, but in fact, so far as I am acquainted with the procedure, the origination of these proceedings took place in the Land Judge's Court. The receiver of the estate brought the matter before the court, got Judge Ross's authority to negotiate with the tenants, practically made the bargain with the tenants, and then brought the matter before Judge Ross. It was only when the matter had reached the stage that a bargain was come to that Judge Ross directed that the section should be put into operation, and that the solicitor having carriage should proceed to get a request issued by the Estates Commissioners. So that practically in every case with which I am acquainted the bargain was practically made at the point of the requisition.

4.0 P.M.

The Chief Secretary has spoken as if the work was actually done by the judge. Of course, that is not so. Even with the greatest care, slips sometimes take place, and I am personally aware of some cases in which so long a period as a year has elapsed between the time when the judge gave the direction and the time when the direction was carried out by the solicitor having carriage. In that case it would be a very hard case if the tenants and landlords lost the benefit which the section conferred upon them, merely because there was some delay in carrying out directions which the judge had actually given, and that is the importance of what I have said as regards the procedure which has actually been adopted, because in all these cases the bargain is made before either Judge Ross or the Commissioners intervene. In the case I have put, though there has been a complete bargain made between the receiver and the tenants, and though Judge Ross has actually sanctioned it, and though the Estates Commissioners have issued the request, if there is still delay on the part of the solicitor having carriage, he will be completely carrying out the instructions given by the judge to comply with the request of the Land Commission, or if there was some slip in supplying all the information required, that particular estate might lose the great benefit which the Chief Secretary has so handsomely agreed to confer in cases of that kind. The only difference between the two cases is this. The Chief Secretary limits the benefits of his Amendment to the case where the request has only to be issued, whereas I propose that the Amendment should have operation if a judge has directed the Commission or Board to be furnished with particulars and documents. I make that proposal having regard to the practice, which, I do not think, the Attorney-General for Ireland would question, that in all these cases, before Judge Ross does anything, before he directs a request to issue, the bargain is actually made. For years, in some of the cases that have come under my notice, the tenants have been paying interest to the receiver in lieu of rent. I ask the Chief Secretary to consider that case. It will only be a slight extension of his own Amendment, and it will actually cover some cases I know of.

I am quite at the end of my tether in this matter. The case which I actually put to the Treasury was the case presented to me. Certainly, it covers the great majority of the cases, and I think it would be an unwise departure to recognise this period of the direction given by the judge. Section 7 of the Act of 1903 makes no such reference. Sub-section (1) says: "The land judge may, at the request of the Land Commission, cause the Commission to be furnished with such particulars and documents as they may require respecting the estate…"

The date in the proceedings which I have taken as the one which will enable persons in get the benefit of the provisions as to the percentage is 24th November, 1908. Bad cases make bad law, and the hon. and learned Member has himself admitted that this is not a question for the land judge. It is a question of delay on the part of the solicitors in working out the Order, and I think it should be left in the way I put it, because the Act of 1903 indicates a distinct stage in the proceedings when the Commissioners may be furnished with particulars and documents. I think to go beyond that would be to go beyond what I can reasonably accept in the matter.

I think if this matter was further investigated, the Chief Secretary would see his way to accept this Amendment. It is a singularly reasonable one. It is to protect the innocent vendor who goes into one of the King's courts for the sale of his property. It is to protect him against a slip in connection with a transaction for which the Revenue exact heavy fees in the shape of Stamp Duties. I agree that the stage which the Chief Secretary's Amendment proposes to take is the right one, because the land judge never directs that these proceedings should be taken unless he has had an exhaustive hearing of all the particulars in regard to the estate. He has received the report of the receiver, and reports as to how far the tenants are willing to buy. He then makes a judicial declaration that it is desirable that the Estates Commissioners should be consulted to see if they are willing to become purchasers. That is what makes the stage important. If that is so, would it not be hard that the vendor should lose the benefit which the Chief Secretary proposes to give in other cases if by some slip in mere machinery the information which the land judge directed to be conveyed to the Estates Commissioners does not reach them? There have been cases where, owing to the voluminous character of their correspondence, the Estates Commissioners have said, "We have not been able to trace this correspondence." Possibly there may be slips in carrying out the machinery of the land judge's court, and if such a slip were to happen the innocent vendor would suffer. I think the Chief Secretary should see that the vendor is protected against miscarriage in the working out of what is really a judicial decision of the land judge that an estate should be sold to the Estates Commissioners. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) put the blame for this on the solicitor who is responsible for the carriage of the information. In some cases the land judge directs his own carriage. The solicitor is appointed by the land judge, and is therefore the legal trustee for that purpose. He is the particular officer of the court entrusted with that work, and if he makes fault it is really the act of the court, and the court will punish him. In that case I say it is very hard that the innocent vendor should suffer. The Attorney-General for Ireland raised a point of Order, and said that this would impose an additional burden on the Treasury. The Chief Secretary rather took the same line, but he gave us no approximation in money of the amount which would be involved by adopting the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cork. That Amendment is only intended to cover cases of slips. There cannot be so many of them as will make a great difference to the Treasury. It would be a very poor commentary on the way in which business is conducted if it would break the Treasury's back to include these cases. I do not think it would involve more than £2,000. I am not aware of any cases where there have been slips which are pending at the present moment.

We want to get some definite period of time indicated when the land judge is willing to apply to the Estates Commissioners. That is what is done in all judicial proceedings. There should be a definite date indicated when the order of the judge shall take effect. Why should the matter be left to depend on the neglect of a messenger to convey an order, or of a solicitor to carry out a direction, or of somebody who is overworked to find time to do the work the judge has appointed to be done? I do not think the insertion of the words proposed in the Amendment would do any harm.

I think we ought not to waste time on a matter like this. The Government have considered the matter, and made a concession. In the case of the Roe Estate, the vendor went to the House of Lords within the last twelve months, thereby delaying matters for, I should say, over 18 months. The solicitors, having carriage, are occupied in these contests between vendors, and they are not considering the interests of tenants at all. In that case the Wexford tenants were fined an additional year's rent by reason of the delay caused by the contest between the vendors. Is it not rather hard that parties should suffer by the non-acceptance of the words "or directed." At the same time the Government have made a substantial concession, and I do not think we would be warranted in occupying time over the matter. I do think, however, that the Government might consider whether the additional words should be accepted.

In discussing this measure we have so often referred matters to future stages that we hardly ever reach those stages. I think it would be better if this matter could be discussed in the House now. What is the position the Chief Secretary has taken up? It is that in order to introduce the Amendment which stands in his name he has had to approach the Treasury again, and point out to them that some further additional expense may be required if the Amendment is passed into law. He, therefore, feels himself precluded from accepting any Amendment which might have the consequence of leading to greater expenditure of money than the Treasury intended to sanction in giving effect to the Amendment standing in his name. It is almost impossible to believe that the right hon. Gentleman in stating his case to the Treasury put it in such detail as to show that the acceptance of the words "or directed" would make much difference. The intention of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is identical with the intention of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cork City. I cannot for the life of me believe that whoever was approached at the Treasury said that "You may have so much, but if from some carelessness the direction has not been given, we will not go any further." I do not believe that any discussion of that kind ever took place at the Treasury, and I feel confident that if the Chief Secretary accepted the Amendment he would not be required to try to get more money.

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to an imaginary conversation between myself and the Treasury. That was founded, I suppose, on experience of his own when he held the office of Chief Secretary. The Act of 1903 involves a considerable extra burden under Section 7, Sub-section (1). It provides that the land judge may at the request of the Land Commission cause the Commission to be furnished, and I pointed out that that was a very fair period rather than the period I had put into the Bill. I do not know how many cases would be covered by the insertion of these words, but the matter was placed before me in a very particular and specific manner by those interested in it, and on the information which they gave me I proceeded to obtain the Amendment. Of course, had I adopted the Motion just made I need not have recommitted the Bill at all. But as it is, we have the present concession in the form in which I obtained it from the Treasury, and I really cannot go back to them again asking them to make another change. In the absence of the Treasury representatives I may say I had a delicate task to get the concession at all, but I took my basis on the language of Section 7, Subjection (1). I pointed out that it was after all only when the land judge had made up his own mind that this was a fit and proper

case for purchase he caused the conditions to be furnished, and proceeded to reopen the whole transaction. I do not think that the addition to the Treasury caused by the present proposal would be large, but there would be an addition; and, having come to a bargain with them, the reopening of the transaction and the addition, even of what my hon. Friend (Mr. Moore) describes as a few thousands, would touch on a matter of principle with the Treasury, and I cannot ask them to alter the bargain, made. I am always- willing to apply the principle Between the mast head and the ground He mercy sought and mercy found. But, anxious as I am to arrive at a satisfactory termination of this controversy, I cannot do what is asked.

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Birrell) for the concession he has made, and I only put down this Amendment because I thought that when the full facts were before the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury, they would not hesitate to make this small extension. I had in mind a particular case in which the solicitors having carriage furnished to the Estates Commissioners a plain copy of the document when they should have furnished an attested copy. The error was not discovered by the Estates Commissioners for six months afterwards, but the six months unfortunately formed the crucial date, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not like it to happen that an insignificant slip of that kind should produce the very serious and severe consequences which would follow from it if there was no Amendment. But the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to make a concession, and, therefore, I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Leave withheld.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 183.

Amendment proposed to insert after paragraph (6):—

"( c ) The land judge in the course of proceedings in which the estate or land is eventually sold to the Land Commission under Section seven, or to the Congested Districts Board under Section seventy-seven of the Act of 1903, has caused the Commission or Board to be furnished with particulars and documents respecting the estate or land in pursuance of either of these sections; or."

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed:"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I do not know whether this is the stage at which to take anything that would be in order under Clause 5?

The Bill has been recommitted on certain Amendments.

May I state my point of order: that we are now, in respect of Clause 5, in the Committee stage, that one process in the Committee stage is that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and that upon that Motion in the Committee stage it is possible to make remarks which are in order on that Clause. I further submit, as part of my point of order, that there is nothing in the particular Resolution which deprives the Committee of that right inherent to the Committee, because on the Report stage, to give an example, the question that the Clause stand part gives the opportunity, unless, indeed, the hour has been reached which is stated in the table. But as things are I think this is a legitimate and, perhaps, the only opportunity of discussing these matters.

The right hon. Gentleman may proceed. It was recommitted in respect of the Amendment, and the Amendment having been put in might have affected the Clause.

I think I understand the relation of Clause 5 to the Amendments, but I wish to clear up two points, and I ask the Chief Secretary whether I am right in holding that Clause as now amended deals with the new bonus, and that future agreements in respect of bonus under this Clause from 24th November, namely, in respect of the interest paid by the tenant and the right of the landlord to refuse stock and take cash will date, not from 24th November last, but, under the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman will carry, after 15th September of this year. Have I made that point clear? In this Clause as amended it is laid down that the scale of bonus in the Schedule shall attach to all agreements entered upon after 24th November last, and will he define what "being entered upon" means? But in respect of all the other elements obtained, namely, the payment of 3½ per cent. interest and 3¼ per cent. by the tenant, and in respect of the landlord's right to refuse stock and pay cash, then the future agreement will date from 15th September, so that this Clause settles the bonus in respect to future agreements from 24th November last—

The right hon. Gentleman is now, as far as I am aware, debating the whole Clause, and I wish to ask whether we are to understand that we are at liberty to take the Clause at large without any reference to the Amendments made?

The question before the Committee is that the Clause as amended stand part. The Clause as a whole may therefore be discussed on the question that the Clause as amended stand part.

The right hon. Gentleman was not debating the relation of the Clause to the Amendments. He was debating the general scope of the Clause—a very wide scope—by far the greater proportion of which has no relation whatever.

I do not think it would be possible to limit the discussion in that way.