asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if sanction has been given to the erection of a colonial church at Lagos; if half the cost of the erection of the church was to be paid from the revenues of the Colony; if the church would be available for services other than those of the Anglican communion, and if Europeans and Natives will have an equal right to sittings in the church?

asked whether a chaplain had been appointed, or was about to be appointed, at Lagos; if so, whether he was of the status of a Colonial chaplain, and, if not, what were the conditions of the appointment; whether official sanction had been given for the erection of a church at Lagos, and from what source the funds would be provided; whether natives would have the same rights as Europeans as to the use of the church; whether religious services other than Anglican would be permitted; and whether Sir Walter Egerton stated on 8th September, 1909, that a majority of the Europeans in Lagos were not adherents of the Church of England?

asked whether a Colonial chaplain has been appointed, or is to be appointed, for Lagos; if so, on what conditions; and whether the House would be allowed an opportunity to discuss the affairs of this Colony and the action of its Governor, in view of the fact that public criticism had been directed against them?

I will reply to these questions together. The Governor represented that there was a strong feeling among the European community at Lagos, the majority of whom were members of the Church of England, for the appointment of a chaplain, as they had otherwise to depend on the ministrations of a missionary whose permanent presence in the town could not be anticipated. The Secretary of State, in view of this representation, and of the fact that the proposal was supported by the Legislative Council, did not feel that he was in a position to veto the appointment. The proposal to contribute from colonial funds to the cost of erecting a church was dealt with in the same manner, the Governor having urged that the circumstances of Southern Nigeria were exceptional, owing to the fact that the unhealthiness of the climate allowed very few of the residents to remain long in the country, so that they could not fairly be expected to contribute largely, as might be expected in healthier colonies. It is proposed that the Government contribution should (with certain limitations) be equivalent to the amount raised by subscription, and £1,500 has been estimated as the sum payable in the current year from the funds of the colony. As regards the questions of detail, raised by my hon. Friends, the Secretary of State has not sufficient information at present to enable him to reply with certainty. He will, without delay, cause enquiry to be made of the Governor, and will communicate the results of the inquiry as soon as they are received; but I would take this opportunity of observing that the Secretary of State has no intention of departing from the policy of his predecessors in such matters, which has been to authorise no exceptional treatment to any particular Christian denomination. If, therefore, representations should be received from members of other denominations at Lagos of the same nature and with equal support, he will undertake to consider them in a spirit of complete impartiality.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that this matter will not be finally settled until he has replies to the inquiries which are now being made?

I can undertake that there will be no fresh steps making any exception to the principle I have laid down without the sanction of the House, but I may state for the information of the House that we propose in this matter to treat every denomination as in the past with impartiality.

Will the proposed grant appear on the Votes?

It is not a grant from funds in this country, but a grant from the funds of this colony. Of course, it can be raised on the Colonial Estimates.

Are we to understand that the people of Lagos—the Mahomedans, heathens, and others—will be taxed in order to provide this building for Christian worship?

So long as the natives of that country pay taxes they will contribute their share to the place of worship, but they attend places of worship also. It has been the long established practice in various Colonies to give grants from the funds of the Colonies for places of Christian worship, and there is here no departure from the usual custom. The only departure would be if we favoured one denomination at the expense of another.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this step has aroused considerable indignation in Lagos, and whether prosecutions are now taking place of natives for protesting against the waste of their money?

No, I am not aware of that, but if any such step has been taken, I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend will bring it to my notice.

asked if the Under-Secretary could give any estimate or particulars of the extent of land in the Crown Colonies which is considered to be suitable for the growth of cotton, so far as the soil and climate were concerned?

The latest readily available document containing information as to districts in which it may be possible to grow cotton is Professor Dunstan's Report to the Board of Trade of 1904 (Cd. 2020). It would take a considerable time to make even an approximate estimate of the area of suitable land in Crown Colonies, etc., which may ultimately be made available, but the recent report on British Cotton Cultivation (Cd. 3997) of 1908, shows that cotton of good quality can be grown in a large number of British possessions.

Will it be possible to lay the papers relating to this matter before the House together instead of separately?

I shall be very glad to lay papers on the subject if there is any general wish that it shall be done. I may say that the Colonial Office have taken the deepest interest in this matter for many years past, and we have conferences monthly about it.

asked if the compounds at the mines in the Transvaal which had been vacated by the Chinese were now occupied by Kaffirs or other black labourers; if these Kaffirs were confined in the compounds under conditions at least as stringent as those lately in force for the Chinese; and if their pay was as low and their food as good and plentiful as that which was given to the Chinese?

I have no doubt that the compounds are being utilised by natives, but the Transvaal is now under responsible Government, and arrangements for housing labourers are under the supervision of the local authorities and not of the Secretary of State. With regard to the second paragraph of the question the reply is in the negative, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he will refer to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for West Ham, on Tuesday last.

Are the Kaffirs confined in compounds and not allowed out without permits, and then only occasionally?

The hon. Gentleman has asked me questions again and again as to what is the distinction between Kaffirs and Chinese. I have endeavoured not to raise questions which have any connection with immediate politics, with the sole desire of avoiding political controversy. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know what is the distinction, I may say that these Kaffirs live under the ordinary law, but the Chinese live under legislation of so restrictive a character that it was protested against by the Chinese Minister as likely to make Chinese labourers mere chattels or implements of industry, was described by the Lord Chancellor in another place as semi-slavery,and was protested against by the legislatures of self-governing Colonies. It is a system of restrictive legislation which I am glad to say will shortly be wiped out from the Statute Book.

May I ask whether the statements widely circulated on the subject of these Chinese Regulations by hon. Gentlemen opposite were described by the then Under-Secretary for the Colonies as terminological inexactitudes?

I know nothing of that, Sir; I only know that much the best answer to any questions of this kind, either here or in the country, is to read the Chinese Labour Ordinance. It is quite sufficient an illustration that legislation of the kind is a disgrace to the Statute Book.

Is it not the case that the Kaffirs in. the mines are under exactly the same restrictions as the Chinese, except as regards repatriation?

No. The whole circumstances were absolutely and com- pletely different, so much so that their status was described in the Transvaal itself, by an impartial legal authority, as I said in the reply to which I referred, as being in the position practically of outlaws.

rose to put a further question—

The hon. Member can deal with this at a later stage—on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies if he had official information showing that there had been a marked increase in crime in the Transvaal since the repatriation of the Chinese commenced; would he state what number of Kaffirs were now undergoing imprisonment, and what percentage this bore to the total number, and if this was an increase on the percentage in previous years; and, if so, could he give any explanation of the cause of the increase?

No, Sir. I have no official information later than 1908, and whatever the figures may be I have no reason to think that the presence of the Chinese was necessary to keep order and diminish crime.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any particulars of an up-to-date kind of imprisonment in the Transvaal, and does it not show an immense increase?

Since I have drafted the reply I have seen a newspaper which states that there is an official return issued on 18th February, showing that the right hon. Gentleman is misinformed, and that there is a diminution in crime, which is not surprising seeing that the death rate of Chinese from murder, homicide, and suicide works out almost exactly as ten times greater than that of the Kaffirs.

Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to a newspaper report?

Yes. Since I drafted the reply I have seen the "Cape Times,' which purported to give the official return of the number of persons imprisoned in the Transvaal. I will be glad to furnish a copy. I am not quoting it as being official information. We have not received if officially. The newspaper arrived by the last mail.

asked what steps had been taken to give effect to the resolution which was unanimously adopted by the Colonial Conference of 1907 in regard to naturalisation laws within the Empire; what were the results of the inquiry called for; and whether any date had been fixed for the subsidiary conference contemplated in that resolution?

An Inter-departmental Committee was appointed to assist His Majesty's Government in considering what amendments might properly be made in the draft Naturalisation Bill laid before the Colonial Conference of 1907, with a view to meeting the criticisms made on the Bill. The Committee reported in July, 1908, and their report was forwarded to the Governments represented at the Conference, with a suggestion that it should be considered and representatives appointed to discuss the question in conference with the members of the Inter-departmental Committee on behalf of His Majesty's Government with a view to a final settlement. Replies have not yet been received from all the Governments concerned, and the matter is still forming the subject of correspondence. Till the correspondence is complete a date cannot be fixed for the subsidiary Conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would grant a Return showing the countries in which the referendum was resorted to, and the methods adopted in each case to obtain and register the will of the people?

We will ask for reports on the subject.

asked whether, under the Declaration of London, all food-stuffs, except nuts, coming by sea to Great Britain during war in neutral ships would be subject to capture by an enemy's vessels; and whether similar food-stuffs, conveyed in neutral vessels and destined for the use of an enemy, would be immune from capture by British warships, provided that the cargoes they conveyed were consigned in the first instance to neutral ports?

The answer to the first question is in the negative. Foodstuffs are only conditional contraband, and conditional contraband is not liable to capture unless it is shown to be destined for the use of the armed forces, or of a Government Department, of the enemy State. With regard to the second question, conditional contraband is not liable to capture on board a vessel bound for a neutral port, but the immunity does not depend on the place to which the cargoes are consigned, but on the destination of the ship.

May I ask whether the answers just given are founded upon the assumption that the Declaration of London will come into force, and is he aware that such a Declaration can have no force against the subjects of the King unless and until ratified by Parliament?

That is certainly so, but the question is whether in the Declaration certain things are provided.

Is it a fact that foodstuffs are conditional contraband without notice?

I think I dealt with that in the answer which bears on the distinction.

Are we to understand that this matter is to be laid before Parliament to be ratified?

Yes, the promise has been given that before ratification opportunity will be given for discussion in this House.

Is it the fact that with the exception of nuts three-fourths of the foodstuffs to this country in time, of war would be liable to capture, while the foodstuffs to Continental ports would not be?

I have answered that question in my main answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had any official information showing that horse meat in Germany was dearer than good meat in this country?

According to Returns furnished to the Board of Trade the average retail price in this country of foreign frozen meat of good quality such as is largely eaten by the poorer classes, ranges from 4d. to 6d. per lb. The retail price of horseflesh in Germany varies greatly in different localities and according to cut, but the Report of the investigation conducted by the Board of Trade in 1905, shows that prices ranging from 4½d. to 6½d. per lb. or even higher were frequently paid.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has established that horse meat in Germany is dearer at any rate than beef in King's Lynn?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Kemitz, which is the town where horseflesh is more consumed than in any other part of Germany, the Burgomeister and the public authorities entirely repudiate the right hon. Gentleman's figures?

No; the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. He did not repudiate the figures with regard to slaughtered horseflesh in the municipal slaughter-house for consumption as food.

But he repudiated the prices.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer could he now state the result of his inquiry for advice to the Law Officers as to whether persons who had paid Income Tax during the last few months in the mistaken belief that the Government would carry through the Budget, and so legalise the tax before 31st March, would have their payments refunded, should they so wish, on making application to the Inland Revenue officers; and, in the event of Income Tax not being refunded, would interest be paid thereon at the rate of 2½ per cent, for the period such tax had been deposited pending the decision of Parliament as to the imposition of a tax on income?

I have not yet received the Law Officers' opinion upon the point.

In view of the fact that I have asked this question week after week for some weeks, can the right hon. Gentleman say if he is likely to receive this reply before the ecclesiastical Easter, or not?

My learned Friend is not here, but I shall ask the question later on. I can assure the hon. Member that I am just as anxious as he is to get their opinion about this matter; it is very important for administrative purposes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the matter has been under consideration?

The hon. Gentleman opposite may remember when the question was put—about a week ago, I think.

asked whether any means exist for recovering Income Tax from the estates of persons who have died or emigrated since 6th April, 1909, and who have not paid the tax?

I am not aware that the circumstances of the present financial year will ultimately affect the question of recovering tax in cases of the character referred to.

asked whether demand notes for Income Tax under Schedule D on profits directly assessed by the Special Commissioners have yet been issued; and, if not, whether he can state the reason for the delay?

Prior to 2nd December, 1909, the usual "Notice of Assessments" for Income Tax under Schedule D, on profits directly assessed by the Special Commissioners, were issued in the ordinary course. Those notices contain instructions as to the mode of payment. Since that date, in view of the rejection of the Finance Bill by the House of Lords, no such notices, nor any applications in the nature of "demand notes," have been issued.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in certain cases no such intimation has been made to the taxpayer as his answer indicates, and that in these cases the taxpayer does not even know whether his return for assessment has been accepted or not?

That is not the question put. The question put is: "Whether demand notes for Income Tax under Schedule D, on profits directly assessed by the Special Commissioners, have yet been issued?" I told him they were issued prior to 2nd December, which was the date of the rejection of the Finance Bill. Since that date they have not been issued.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland demand notes were issued as late as 20th December?

By the Special Commissioners?

I did not say by the Special Commissioners.

That is the point. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have seen the question. The local Commissioners are not under the control of the Inland Revenue; they act on their own initiative. But the hon. Gentleman's question has reference to the Special Commissioners, who are under the control of the Inland Revenue, and I say that no demand notes have been issued by them since the rejection of the Finance Bill.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that where the Treasury exercises control no demand for Income Tax has been made since the rejection of the Finance Bill?

That is my information.

I shall have to refer to the matter in Debate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Income Tax is deducted from money paid to officers in the Army and in the Navy, and also in the case of Civil servants?

I have already answered that question several times in House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think he need only answer such questions as are convenient? What distinction does he draw between the case of an officer or public servant, and a case in which a demand is made?

As to answering only questions which are convenient to me, I answered the first question of the Noble Lord a week ago. As to the second part, that is entirely a matter for argument. I do not agree with the Noble Lord. I have already given my view to the House, but I understand there is to be a discussion on the subject, and I can assure the Noble Lord the Government will not shirk giving an answer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that in the City of London demand notes had been sent out in the usual course for the payment of Income Tax on the basis of the late Finance Bill; whether the collectors had paid to the Income Tax Commissioners for the City the sums so collected; what was the amount so collected up to 10th March last, or to any earlier date to which the figures were available; whether such sums in due course had been paid to the credit of the Treasury at the Bank of England; if not, would he state why such sums had not been paid over; and whether any communications had passed between the Treasury and the Income Tax Commissioners upon the subject?

Yes, Sir, I understand that, in the exercise of their discretion, the commissioners of taxes for the City of London have authorised the issue of demand notes by their collectors. From 1st January to 25th February the amount of Income Tax so collected and paid over to the Exchequer was £1,790,461. Since the latter date no further payment on account of Income Tax has been made by the City Commissioners, who are acting upon their own responsibility in the matter. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

asked whether the joint stock banks in the City of London had sent to the Treasury their usual quarterly returns of the amounts they held for payment to the Government in respect of Income Tax; what was the amount of money so collected and held by the said banks; had any request been made by the Treasury officials for the payment of such sums to them; and had any, and what, communications taken place between the Treasury and the banks upon the subject?

The usual quarterly returns have been sent to the Board of Inland Revenue. The sums still in the hands of these banks, according to returns made up to the 5th instant, amount to £833,000. No requests for payment have been made by the Inland Revenue since the 30th November last, nor has any correspondence passed between the banks and that Department.

Has the right hon. Gentleman communicated to the banks his statement of 4th March that he would gladly welcome the receipt of every penny sent in?

I do not know, without reference to the correspondence, whether there has been any communication on the point by writing, but, at any rate, the statement is public information.

Is it a fact that the Treasury has given an indemnity at a date later than 30th November in regard to the deduction of Income Tax in the manner adopted in former years?

I do not know what sort of indemnity the hon. Member means.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the City, within the last few days, the collectors of Income Tax have called on and informed several of the banks that they would receive the Income Tax if the banks volunteered to pay it.

That confirms my previous answers. The collectors are acting on their own responsibility. They are not under the direction of the Inland Revenue. They are under the local commissioners.

Have there been any communications between the Treasury and the banks in relation to the liability of the latter in connection with the collection of the Income Tax?

May I say, in reply to the Noble Lord—

The hon. Member must wait until he gets to the other side of the House before he answers questions.

asked whether the Inland Revenue authorities had made refunds to individuals on account of Income Tax deducted from the dividends of those individuals, although the tax itself had not been handed over to the Exchequer.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposed to repay hospitals and other approved charities amounts which they has paid as Income Tax, or must those institutions suffer the loss under the present financial arrangements of the Government?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what course he proposed to adopt in the case of those individuals who, by reason of their incomes not exceeding a certain amount, were entitled to claim return of Income Tax in April, such having already been deducted from dividends on the full scale by banks, etc.?

asked what would be the position in regard to rebate on Income Tax of persons having incomes of less than £400 derivable from dividends which fell due between the 6th April, 1909, and the 5th April, 1910, and from which Income Tax had been deducted by banks but not received by His Majesty's Exchequer; whether, in respect of the year 6th April, 1909, to 5th April, 1910, such persons would be entitled to claim rebate on the 5th April, 1910; whether claims to rebate in such circumstances would be paid; and whether the rebate would be paid as in the past within a few days of the receipt of the claim?

In putting my question, may I express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have had to come back from a holiday which I am sure he needed?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtsey in postponing his question until to-day. The Board of Inland Revenue have, in a few cases, made refund on account of Income Tax deducted from the dividends of individuals entitled to claim such refund, although the tax itself has not been paid into the Exchequer. I may add that I have authorised the Board to follow the normal practice in regard to repayment of Income Tax in all cases where claims can be substantiated.

asked whether Income Tax is being deducted from all due payment of salaries to the members of the Civil Service and other services of the State?

I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 10th inst. to the hon. Member for Worcester. I may add that I have received no complaints on the subject from Civil servants.

asked whether in many instances firms who proposed to withdraw spirits from bond since December last at the legal duty of 11s. per gallon were called upon to provide security in the form of bonds to the Commis- sioners of Customs and Excise sufficient to cover the amount of the extra duty of 3s. 9d. per gallon estimated to be due at the end of three months, namely, at or about the time at which the Government had undertaken to reintroduce the Budget in the House of Commons?

The security which is required by law to be given for all bonded warehouses has been increased in a few cases where spirits have been delivered upon payment of the duty of 11s. per gallon, and the additional duty of 3s. 9d. under the Budget Resolution has not been deposited. The increase has only been asked for where the quantity of spirits so delivered and the amount of the duty which will ultimately become payable in respect of them has been so considerable that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have felt that the security already given was insufficient, but in no case has the increase been estimated by reference to the amount which may be due at the end of three months or at any particular date.

Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to call a payment of that kind, made under such circumstances, a voluntary contribution?

They need not make it unless they like.

With reference to the statement that increased security has been required only where the previous security was insufficient, does the insufficiency refer to the legal duty or to the duty which the Government hope some day to induce this House to legalise?

I think it has reference rather to the nature and the quantity of the transactions between the person who pays the duty and the Inland Revenue.

Must it not have reference to whether the duty is calculated at the rate of 11s. or at the rate of 14s. 9d.?

As I understand from the Inland Eevenue—but I should like to confirm this—it refers rather to the 11s. rate than to the 14s. 9d. rate, because it is undoubtedly a purely voluntary contribution on their part of the traders. That has been the attitude of His Majesty's Government, and I must say that in the vast majority of cases it has been done without any difficulty at all.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman perfectly aware that these bonding arrangements are more or less permanent in their character, and that the extra security, although not stated so in terms, is distinctly in consequence of the additional 3s. 9d. duty?

I do not think so. Where the trade treat the 14s. 9d. as a duty which it is prepared to pay—and that is the position at the present moment —in the transactions between the Inland Revenue and the trade the amount is probably computed on the 14s. 9d. basis. But it is purely by voluntary arrangement—an arrangement which the traders have accepted.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be introduced for the purpose of giving legal effect to those Resolutions dealing with the financial year 1909–10 which the Government have stated will be moved after Easter; whether it will be introduced before the Spring Recess; and whether there will be two Financial Bills, one having reference to the financial year 1909–10 and the other to that of 1910–11.

I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the answer which will be given to similar questions by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

asked how much of the estimated loss of revenue of the present financial year, placed at £28,500,000, and stated to be due to the rejection of the Finance Bill, would have been saved if a temporary Bill had been passed before the dissolution, authorising the collection of Income Tax at the rates specified in the tax, and at the rates specified in the Finance Act of 1908, at the rates specified in the Finance Bill of 1909, including the Super-tax, and at the rate specified in the Finance Bill of 1909, without the Super-tax, respectively; and what, would have been the estimated saving of loss at each of the above-mentioned rates if a Resolution authorising the imposition and collection of Income Tax had been adopted immediately after the conclusion of the Debate on the Address?

I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 14th instant to similar questions by the hon. Members for the Woodstock Division and for Falmouth.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total estimated yield from additional taxation in 1910–11 and in future years imposed upon Ireland by the Finance Bill, 1909, and what was the estimated yield from each tax?

It would be contrary to precedent for me at this period of the year to anticipate my financial statement by giving estimates of revenue for 1910–11 and subsequent years, and I cannot, therefore, see my way to add to the information which I have already given in regard to the incidence on Ireland of the additional taxation imposed by the Budget of last year.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make such changes in the Budget in reference to its application to Ireland as will have a favourable effect?

In the first place, that does not at all arise out of the question. The hon. Gentleman again asks me to anticipate my statement—a course which no Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever been asked to do before.

asked what are the taxes, and what is the yield from each tax, comprised in the Treasury estimate of £438,000 as the total Irish contribution in 1909–10 to the revenue as a result of the additional taxation imposed upon Ireland by the Finance Bill, 1909?

The figure of £438,000 quoted in the question represents, as I explained in the reply I gave to the questions asked me on this subject on the 9th instant, not the Irish contribution to the revenue to be collected in 1909–10, but the Irish contribution to the revenue proper to the year of which, however, a portion (approximately £173,000), will not be received until after 31st March owing to the delay in passing the Finance Bill. The details of the calculation are the same as those given in the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to a question addressed to him by the hon. Member for North Galway on 27th October last with the omission of the items for spirits (£80,000) and stamps (£17,000). The reasons for these variations are that it is now apparent that the yield of the increased rates of Spirit Duties will be less than the yield of the duties upon the former basis, while the higher rates of Stamp Duties only beome operative as from the day on which the Finance Bill receives the Royal Assent.

How much does the right hon. Gentleman hope to realise by the Stamp Duties in relation to Ireland?

I have told the hon. Gentleman that we will not realise a penny this year from the Stamp Duties because they are not in operation.

Will they ever be in operation?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could state the approximate amount which local authorities may expect to receive in the financial year 1910–11 as their moiety of the duties on land values under the proposals of the Finance Bill, 1909; if he could state whether His Majesty's Government had arrived at any decision as to the basis on which the allocation of this amount between the various local authorities should be made; and, if so, what amount was likely to be received by the London County Council during the year 1910–11?

further asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could state approximately the amount by which the revenues of local authorities for the financial year 1909–10, arising from the Surtax of 6d. per gallon on spirits under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, would be diminished as compared with the year 1908–9, and how much of such loss of revenue would fall upon the London County Council; and whether, seeing that the whole or greater part of such loss of revenue was the result of the increased rate of duty proposed for the purposes of the Imperial Exchequer by the Finance Bill of 1909, and would have to be made good out of the local rates. His Majesty's Government would consider as to applying to such revenue a similar provision to that contained in Clause 88 of the Finance Bill, 1909, by which local authorities were protected from loss of revenue from the duties on liquor licences caused by an increase in the rate of duty for imperial purposes?

I do not think it is desirable to anticipate my financial statement by giving the information asked for in either of these questions. As regards the latter part of question 31, I do not in any way accept the hon. Member's contention that any loss of revenue under this head to local authorities would necessarily be the result of the increased rate of duty on spirits, but I shall be glad to give the matter my sympathetic consideration when I come to deal with the financial arrangements of the coming year. At the same time, it would be premature for me to commit myself in advance to any particular solution of the difficulty such as that suggested by the hon. Member.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when, approximately, he will make his financial statement?

The Noble Lord really ought to know that that is a question which should be addressed to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House.

asked the Prime Minister whether it was the intention of the Government that the Finance Bill should be passed through all its stages in this House before the Spring Recess; and whether the intention of the Government to obtain the consent of this House to the Finance Bill was contingent on anything that may happen elsewhere?

asked the Prime Minister if he will state when His Majesty's Government intend to introduce the Finance Bill for 1910–11; and whether, in view of the fact that it is not their intention to introduce the Finance Bill of 1909–10 until after the expiration of the financial year 1909–10, His Majesty's Government contemplate introducing one Finance Bill for the two years?

asked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce more than one Finance Bill during the present Session?

asked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Finance Bill before the Spring Recess or at any time during the present Session; and, if so, whether that Bill will contain any, and, if so, which, of the provisions of the Finance Bill, 1909?

As I have already stated more than once, it is the hope and intention of the Government to pass the Budget of 1909–10, which, of course, must be embodied in a Bill, through this House before the Spring Recess, and that intention is not contingent on what may happen elsewhere. The method of procedure which we shall propose for securing that purpose "will be indicated in due time. There will not, according to our present intention, be a single Finance Bill for the two years. In reply to the last part of the question of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford I cannot at this stage make any detailed statement such as is asked.

May I ask if this is one of the tactical and strategical steps the right hon. Gentleman alluded to on Saturday?

asked if it was proposed to devote a reasonable portion of the Development Grant to the encouragement of the growth of sugar beet in the United Kingdom, and the manufacture of sugar, according to the most scientific methods in use on the Continent?

The promotion of the growth of sugar beet in this country would certainly be a purpose for which grants might suitably be made out of the Development Fund, but the matter is one primarily for the consideration of the Development Commission when it is constituted.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would ascertain from the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin metropolitan police whether the sum of £25,000, provided in the Vote on Account for that service for the first six weeks of the coming financial year would be sufficient to discharge all payments falling due and payable in that period from the Vote?

further asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will ascertain from the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary whether the sum of £260,000, provided in the Vote on Account for that service for the first six weeks of the coming financial year, will suffice to discharge all payments falling due and payable in that period from the Vote; (2) whether he is aware of the fact that the sum provided in the Vote on Account for Public Education (Ireland) for the first six weeks of 1910–11, namely, £370,000, was short by the sum of £200,000 of the moneys which would fall due and be payable within that period; and what steps he proposed to take to make good this deficiency and to avoid default in payments which would have been already earned and become legally due, in the period mentioned, to several thousands of national school teachers and others who were paid from the Vote for Public Education?

In view of the fact that the charges on each of the Votes referred to are specially heavy during the early weeks of the financial year, considerably more than the normal proportion of the total Vote has been provided on account in each case. The provision under Dublin Metropolitan Police represents abðut thirteen and a half weeks' average expenditure, that under Royal Irish Constabulary about ten, and that under Public Education (Ireland) about twelve. I am in communication with the Irish Government with reference to the amount provided under Public Education. In regard to the other two services, I have no reason to suppose that the amounts provided will not suffice to meet all charges coming in course of payment between 1st April next and the date on which a further Vote on Account will become available in ordinary course.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seriously considered the position the school teachers will be in if they cannot get their salaries paid?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Irish school teachers need be under no apprehension on that subject. If there is any difficulty at all, they may depend upon it that the Government will see that their salaries are discharged.

Does the policy of the Government not involve some risk of delay?

No, not in the slightest degree. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and I think it is only right that the teachers should know—that there need be no anxiety upon the point.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the authorities of the new universities and colleges in Ireland were consulted before making provision for the sum of £25,000 in the Vote on Account for the first six weeks of the next financial year for that service; whether he is aware that expenditure has been incurred in the current year on buildings in connection with the Queen's University, Belfast; whether such expenditure was taken into account in estimating this provision; and what is the explanation of the delay in payment to the Belfast University and the other constituent colleges of the new university in Dublin of the full moiety of the grants already voted for these institutions under Section 7 (2) of the Universities Act, 1908, in respect of the current half-year ending the 31st instant?

The information furnished by the authorities of the universities and colleges in connection with the preparation of the Estimates for 1910–11 was sufficient to enable the amount required on account to be estimated without further reference to them. The answers to the second and third questions are in the affirmative. The balance of the grants referred to in the last part of the question was voted in the Supplementary Estimate agreed to by the House on Report on the 2nd instant. This Vote is, however, not available until the necessary Ways and Means have been provided by the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill now before Parliament.

asked what is the total amount deducted by the directors of the Bank of England, but not paid over to the Exchequer, in respect of dividends which became due between 6th April, 1909, and the present time upon Government securities, including Colonial and Provincial Government securities?

The total amount deducted by the Bank of England on Government securities, including Colonial and Municipal Securities, in the period mentioned amounts to about £358,000.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say the amount deducted by other banks standing to the credit of joint stock companies?

I am under the impression that I have answered that question to-day. My recollection is that the sum is £800,000.

Is that in all the banks?

Yes; I think I answered that to-day.

That is only the joint stock banks in London?

In London.

asked what were the imports of gold into this country between 1st January and 17th March in 1909 and 1910, respectively; and what were the exports during the same periods?

The information required is only available for the periods from 1st January to 17th March, 1909, and from 1st January to 16th March, 1910. The particulars are as follows:—

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for the great difference?

I do not think if the Noble Lord asked half a dozen experts that they would agree upon the particular reason which was the predominant one in the effect.

May I ask whether it is not a fact that on a number of years, ten or twelve years, we always import and keep about £5,000,000 bullion per year more than we export?

asked the Chancellor of the Excheqner whether, having regard to the very unusual increase in the bank rate during the month of March and the consequent burden upon trade, he would reconsider his refusal to expedite the collection of Income Tax?

The Government see no reason to alter their decision on this matter.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would inquire into the case of Honor Cullen, Cartron townland, parish of Ardcarne and Boyle No. 1, whose pension had been stopped by the pension officer without any evidence as to her age, and whose name is not found in the Census of 1841 or 1851, but who was able to produce the testimony of respectable persons sufficient to satisfy the pension committee that her age was over seventy years; whether pension officers were to be allowed to cancel pensions granted after careful examination by the pension committee; and whether he would cause the return of Honor Cullen's pension book, taken away in the month of May last, and the restoration of the pension money due to her since it was stopped in May?

The facts in this case are as follows: After the grant of a pension to Honoria Cullen by the pension committee a question based upon the Census Returns was raised by the officer on the ground that she had not attained the age of seventy years, so as to be entitled to a pension. Upon this question the pension committee decided that she was entitled to a pension, but upon appeal by the officer, the decision of the committee was reversed by the Local Government Board for Ireland, who decided that she was not entitled to receive a pension. The payment of the pension was accordingly stopped, and I have no power to restore it.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Local Government Board (Scotland) dismissed the appeal of the pension officer in respect of the claim of Margaret Harcus, and declared that the claimant was entitled to a pension of 5s. a week from 1st June, 1909, he can state for what reason the pension has been withheld, and if the arrears due will now be paid?

The pension order book in this case was delivered on the 18th ultimo, and all arrears due will be paid. The delay in delivering the book was due to the remoteness and inaccessibility of the island of Papa Westray, on which the pensioner resides. The hon. Member is so well acquainted with these islands and the difficulties of reaching them in rough weather that he will readily understand that delays at times are unavoidable.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention had been directed to the refusal to grant pensions to Mr. and Mrs. Miller, aged respectively eighty-four and eighty-two years of age, and who were proved to have lived on the island of Eday, Orkney, for over seventy years; and if, in view of the fact that, during the temporary absence abroad of the applicants, they always retained their home on the island, he would give the most favourable consideration possible to all the circumstances?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 31st March last, and I would add that the Local Government Board on consideration of the facts were unable to hold that the applicants retained a home in this country during their absence in Canada.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he would grant a Return of the contributions to the Deferred Annuity Fund under the Elementary School Teachers Superannuation Act, 1898, by persons who had not claimed the annuity up to the 31st March, 1909?

I do not think that the results of such a Return would be worth the labour and expense involved in making it. I am informed that up to 31st March, 1909, in seventeen cases no application for the award of an annuity under the Elementary School Teachers Superannuation Act, 1898, had been made by teachers who, if alive, had reached the age of sixty-five and had so become entitled to apply by that date. The contributions made by these teachers amounted to £34 5s. in all.

asked whether any steps were taken to enforce the Fair Wages Resolution of this House in respect of Government contractors where such contractors are foreigners and where the work is executed abroad?

The question is not one which concerns the Treasury directly, and I think the hon. Member should inquire of the Departments making the contracts to which he refers.

asked whether it was proposed to assign the £10 increment to each of the six abstractors in the Statistical Office of his Majesty's Customs who completed five years on their present maximum in September last?

As I informed my hon. Friend on 20th May last these special increments are allowed in a limited number of cases only, as a reward of special merit, and are not given automatically to the senior or time qualified men. Only the cases, therefore, of such of these six men are deserving will be considered in connection with the grant of these special increments.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the general desire of Members of all sections in the House that the Small Holdings Acts should be so amended as to secure the payment of fair compensation to farmers whose land was taken for small holdings, the Government would include among their non-controversial legislation promised for this Session a Bill with this object, or would give facilities to any of the private Member's Bills of this character already presented to the House?

The Government are anxious to see this grievance removed, and if they could be satisfied that the matter would be treated as non-controversial they would be prepared to propose legislation.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the various expedients to which the Government have felt it their duty to resort, at the public cost, in order to relieve the distress caused by unemployment, he will recommend that such granite as is required for use by public Departments shall in future be supplied from quarries in the United Kingdom?

This matter is not within the competence of the Treasury, and no general rule applicable to all Departments could be laid down.

asked the Prime Minister on what date he proposed to place upon the Paper the Resolutions relating to the House of Lords?

also asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to place upon the Paper the text of the Resolutions to be submitted to the House with reference to the functions of another place, the duration of Parliament, and kindred matters?

I hope to be able to-morrow to place the Resolutions upon the Paper.

When is the right hon. Gentleman going to make the statement he proposes as to the special procedure on the Finance Bill?

When the time comes. Sir.

Will it be before the Ecclesiastical Easter, or after the Ecclesiastical Easter?

I think after.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state when the financial statement of 1910–11 will be made?

No, Sir; it would be quite premature.

asked whether it is still the intention of the Government to make no encroachments upon the time of private Members after the Ecclesiastical Easter Recess?

I cannot make any definite promise, but we shall be anxious to respect the time of private Members, so far as the exigencies of public business allow.

asked the Prime Minister if he can give the names of the present members of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and inform the House by whom the appointments are made to that Committee; whether all the appointments are made by the same authority and under the same conditions as to the retention of and retirement from membership of the Committee; can he state whether any, and, if so, what, allowances or salary is received by each member of the Committee for services thereon; and whether such allowances or salary is the same in the case of each member?

The Committee of Imperial Defence is composed of the Prime Minister and such Members as he may nominate from time to time to assist him. The names of those who, for the time being, are regularly summoned by the Prime Minister to meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence are as follows:—

Are the appointments made under the same conditions as to retention and retirement of membership?

They are all made at the discretion of the Prime Minister.

asked whether, in view of the fact that the United States of America have threatened to penalise Canadian imports, and that there is danger of a tariff war between the United States and Canada, he proposes to make any effort to assist Canada?

The Dominion Government are fully aware that the good offices of His Majesty's Government and of the British Ambassador at Washington are at their service in this matter.

Are we to understand that the Free Trade system prevents us doing anything definite to help Canada?

The hon. Member is to understand nothing of the kind.

May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is not to help the Canadian Government in the matter?

I think the House will realise that in the matter of this difficulty and delicacy it will be impossible and improper for me to take any further steps.

In what manner could the right hon. Gentleman intervene?

I have said the British Ambassador at Washington is at the disposal of the Canadian Government, and negotiations are at this moment going on, and it will be obviously very undesirable to make a general statement when negotiations are going on of a very important character.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state in what manner this country could possibly intervene?

asked the Prime Minister whether any treaty or naval or military convention of which this House is yet uninformed exists between this country and France, by which the French Navy is to maintain absolutely free and secured against all danger the English commerce which passes down the Mediterranean to use the Suez Canal, and by which there is assured to the French and English flags in case of conflict the absolute mastery of the Mediterranean; and, if so, can he now make any statement regarding it, and especially will he say if it accounts in any degree for the unprecedented increase in the Naval Estimates of the year?

No treaty or convention of the nature specified by my hon. Friend exists between this country and France.

asked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the case of Letitia M'Ginnes, who was convicted at the Glasgow police court in February last year without the opportunity of an adjournment so as to get assistance in defence, and the conviction of whom was subsequently quashed on a bill of suspension being presented; to the Court of Session; and whether he will take into consideration the case for substantial reparation, as was done in the case of Adolf Beck?

My attention has been called to this case. The conviction was quashed by the High Court of Justiciary on purely technical grounds; and I can see no justification in the circumstances for an award of compensation. Such a course would be entirely without precedent.

asked whether the success of the experiment of appointing a Public Trustee for England will cause him to introduce legislation instituting a similar office for Scotland?

No evidence whatever of a desire for the appointment of such an official in Scotland has reached the Secretary for Scotland or myself. In these circumstances legislation in the direction suggested in my hon. Friend's question is not contemplated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this position of public trustee is likely to prove a lucrative one, and is it not only right that the Scotch should have a look in?

asked the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to the fact that in the case of nine of the eighteen Provisional Orders deposited at the Scottish Office last December the parties promoting and opposing those Orders lodged representations and attended before the Lord Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons to request that, in the exercise of their powers under the Act, they would report that these nine Provisional Orders ought to proceed as Private Bills and not as Scottish Orders, and that five of these nine were so ordered to proceed; and whether, in view of the persistent efforts made by promoters and opponents of Scottish Provisional Orders to have them proceeded with as Private Bills, he will reconsider his decision as to the need for early legislation to remedy the alleged defects in the Act which lead to this course of action?

In the case of eight of the eighteen Provisional Orders referred to application was made by promoters or by opponents to the Lord Chairman and the Chairman of Ways and Means that the Order should proceed as a private Bill, but the Secretary for Scotland cannot agree with the inference the hon. Member seeks to draw from these facts. Applications that Orders should proceed, as Bills can only be based on the grounds set forth in Section 2 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and in no case was any application based on alleged defects in the Act, nor could the Chairman have considered an application based on such grounds. The answer to the last part of the question is, therefore, in the negative.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that no less than eight promoters and twenty-five opponents attended on that particular occasion, showing that upon both sides there was a desire for a change and may I ask whether any stronger facts than these could be brought to waken up the Scotch Office from its sleep?

I am aware that both promoters and opponents appeared before the Lord Chairman, and that they both appeared for the purpose of supporting the ground set out in Section 2, which the Act carefully provides will be sufficient to justify a Procedure Order being taken as a Bill.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that town clerks are advising their councils that it would be better to proceed by Private Bill than by Provisional Order?

I am not aware of it.

Is it cheaper?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that men who have served as apprentices in Devonport Dockyard and become established are placed at a disadvantage in respect to their pensions compared with men who have entered as yard boys and become established; and whether, seeing that the apprentices have to pass a competitive examination and yard boys do not, he will take the necessary steps to remove this disadvantage, the disadvantage being that the former class of workman is only allowed to count his hired time for pension at the earliest from the age of twenty, while the latter class of workman has the privilege of counting his time for pension from the age of sixteen, thereby gaining two extra years?

The question is governed by the Superannuation Act of 1887, and I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is responsible for the administration of that Act.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would inform the House when it is expected that the "Lion" will be ready for launching; and what date, if any, has been fixed for laying down new ship No. 2 at Devonport Dockyard?

The reply to the first part of the question is, August, 1910, and to the second part, January, 1911.

What will be done to the ship in the meantime?

The same as has very often been done before—it will remain empty.

What will become of the men?

When the hon. Member has represented Devonport a little bit longer he will know.