asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the informer Le Caron received public money in reward for his letters to Sir Robert Anderson; if so, whether he can state under what circumstances Sir Robert Anderson was allowed to keep at his private residence these documents for which the State had paid; whether they or any other Home Office papers are still in Sir Robert Anderson's possession; and, if so, whether he will be called upon to surrender them?

It is well known that Le Caron was a paid agent from whom information of much importance as to the operations of secret societies was obtained by Sir Robert Anderson. None of the communications which passed between them ever came, so far as I am aware, into the actual possession of the Home Office. I do not know if any documents exist, and, in any case, they would probably not possess much intrinsic value at the present time. I will, however, make further inquiry and take such action as may seem necessary.

Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the published declarations of Anderson —[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Robert Anderson"]—that he holds in his possession the documents which came from Le Caron; that he also holds either Scotland Yard or Home Office documents written by Mazzini; and whether he considers it in the interests of public policy that an individual should hold these documents and be at liberty to sell them or make use of them for journalistic purposes?

I can only repeat the last sentence of my answer: "I will, however, make further inquiry and take such action as may seem necessary."

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken, or will take, any steps to find out whether Sir Robert Anderson really wrote any of the important articles in "The Times" newspaper?

I think that might possibly be a profitable line of inquiry.

asked what is the total amount of pension now drawn annually by Sir Robert Anderson; whether there is more than one pension; whether he was paid from the Secret Service Fund by salary, or, if not, on what other basis; and whether his pension is calculated inclusive of the years during which he, was receiving Secret Service money, but was not holding any official position?

Sir Robert Anderson draws one pension only, at the rate of £900 a year, but this pension is apportioned between Local and Imperial Funds, m accordance with Section 14 of the Police Act, 1890, £500 being paid from the Police Pension Fund and £400 from the Superannuation Vote. I cannot say anything as to the payments Sir Robert Anderson received from Secret Service, but I believe that, in accordance with an arrangement made with the Treasury in 1880, his service for pension purposes was reckoned from December, 1867, the date when he was first employed on Secret Service work by the Home Office.

Does that mean that he has been paid a pension based upon years during which he did not hold any official position?

That inference may be legitimately drawn from the words I have used.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he should reconsider an arrangement under which a pension has been paid based upon years during which, according to his own declarations, Sir Robert Anderson did not hold any official position?

The arrangement is one made in 1880 with regard to the calculation of Sir Robert Anderson's pension, and I certainly do not think such an arrangement could be reviewed at all. As to the conditions under which pensions are held and enjoyed, that is another matter; but the original arrangement on which the pension was made is obviously a matter altogether settled.

Is it not a fact that the Home Office within the past few weeks have come into possession of what lawyers call new facts, facts not present to their knowledge at the time this pension was arranged; and, in view of these disclosures, will he not reconsider the matter now?

Question 51 makes further reference to this subject; and I will refer my hon. Friend to my answer to that question.

asked whether Mr. Monro, ex-Commissioner of Police, admits the accuracy of Sir Robert Anderson's charge that he sanctioned the latter's conduct in acting as an agent for "The Times" newspaper; whether Mr. Monro was in receipt of a pension, and, if so, how much; and whether he admitted having failed to report to the Home Office that he had given permission to his subordinate to write the articles for "The Times."

I have communicated with Mr. Monro, who resides in Scotland, and whose state of health prevents his attendance in London. I have not yet had his reply, and can only say at present that he certainly does not admit the accuracy of the statements made by or attributed to Sir Robert Anderson. He is not in receipt of any Home Office or Police pension.

In view of the fact that Sir Robert Anderson's statements, on which great reliance was placed by the Unionist party at the time of the Parnell Commission, is now challenged by his own superior official, does he not think there is a necessity for further investigation?

I say I have not yet received Mr. Monro's reply.

asked the Secretary for the Home Department if he could state the date of Sir Robert Anderson's transfer from the Home Office to Scotland Yard; and by whom the transfer was recommended, and on what grounds?

Sir Robert Anderson was transferred to the office of Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard on 25th August, 1888. I believe I am right in saying that the promotion was recommended by Mr. Monro, who at that time held a high opinion of Sir Robert Anderson's qualifications for the appointment.

asked whether a pension or allowance under Section 32 of the Metropolitan Police Act becomes forfeited, or may be withdrawn, if the pensioner has made use of his employment in the service in a manner which the authorities consider to be discreditable or improper; and whether this Section will be considered by the Government in the case of Sir Robert Anderson?

By Section 8 of the Police Act, 1890, if the holder of a police pension carries on any business, occupation, or employment in which he makes use of the fact of his former employment in a manner which the Police Authority considers discreditable or improper, the pension is liable to forfeiture. I will consider the relation in which this Section or Section 5 of the Police Act, 1906, may stand to Sir Robert Anderson's case.

If the right hon. Gentleman does not regard the action of Sir Robert Anderson as coming under this definition, what possible action would he so regard?

Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that the Prime Minister himself condemned Sir Robert Anderson's conduct as highly improper, and that the late Sir William Harcourt said that if it had taken place under any other Government it was not at Scotland Yard Sir Robert would have found himself?

Before giving an adverse decision to Sir Robert, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the great and signal service he rendered in forestalling and defeating a dynamite conspiracy engineered in America by Mr. Patrick Ford?

I do not think I will add anything to the statement I have made in answer to the question on the Paper. The matter is one which it will fall to my lot to consider, and obviously it is not a matter on which I ought to commit myself.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that several present Members of this House were subjected to charges before the Parnell Commission, which, if proved against them, would involve not only their reputation but their lives, he will reconsider his decision to refuse an inquiry into the Home Office irregularities which at that time unjustly exposed them to this great peril?

The irregularities were on the part of Sir Robert Anderson, not on the part of the Home Office, which has suffered from them nearly as much as did the Irish Members. Sir Robert Anderson's communication to "The Times" and to one of the witnesses called by the Parnell Commission related, I believe, mainly to secret societies in America, and it would be exaggerating their importance to say that the safety of any present Members of the House of Commons was involved in them.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Leader of the House, the late Mr. W. H. Smith, admitted having held secret conferences with the late Mr. Walter, of "The Times" newspaper, at the time of the setting up of the Parnell Commission; whether he is aware that the Law Officers of the Crown acted as legal advisers to "The Times"; that the then Chief Secretary allowed the detective staff in Dublin to be placed at the service of "The Times"; and that the then Home Secretary, now Lord Llandaff, denies all cognisance of the activities of the Scotland Yard officials; and whether, under these circumstances, he will reconsider his decision not to hold an inquiry into the connection of the Government with "The Times" newspaper in the Parnell Commission?

The first paragraph of the question deals with a matter of history, as to which I have no special information. As regards the second paragraph, the Attorney-General of the day acted as counsel to "The Times" in the Parnell Commission. So far as I know, the then Solicitor-General had no connection with the case. I have no knowledge as to the allegation contained in the third paragraph, I believe Lord Llandaff. the then Home Secretary, denies all cognisance of the matter referred to in paragraph four. In reply to the concluding paragraph, I have, as at present advised, nothing to add to what I said on Monday last.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that the Lord Chief Justice, in a letter to Sir Charles Russell, declared these charges to be the result of a foul conspiracy, and whether he will insist upon an inquiry to find out who were the foul conspirators?

asked the Lord Advocate whether, inasmuch as the great majority of sheep lets take place at the Whitsuntide term, he would, owing to the prolongation of the Stewart v. Williamson case, introduce at an early date his promised measure upon the subject, in order that this year's contracts might not lose the advantage of any future amelioration of the law?

There has been no prolongation of the case referred to. As I said in answer to a question put recently by the hon. Member for Argyllshire, the case is on the list of House of Lords Appeals and will be heard in due course. It is obvious that until a decision has been given in the appeal legislation would be premature.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether any detailed instructions as to required alterations have been or will be sent to managers of schools included in Schedules V. (a) and V. (b); and, if so, how long the managers will be allowed to consider whether they can undertake them?

I understand the question to refer to the schedules appended to the printed letter of 1st March, addressed by the Board of Education to the Lancashire Local Education Authority. I think the hon. Member will find a complete answer to the question in paragraphs 3 and 7 of that letter.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he can give any estimate of the cost to be met by managers of non-provided schools in Lancashire in order to comply with directions as to structural alterations contained in circular letter 10/4334 A, dated 1st March, 1910; and whether a few copies of the circular and schedules attached thereto can be placed in the Vote Office for the use of Members?

I think if the hon. Member will study the letter he will find that it does not give any directions as to structural alterations. The letter is intended rather to give to the local education authority and the managers a comprehensive survey of the needs of their schools. Until the matter has been fully discussed it is not possible to estimate the cost of the alterations required to bring the school premises up to a satisfactory standard. I shall be glad to furnish copies of the letter and schedules for the use of Members.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman attempting by administrative means what four successive Education Bills have failed to do?

No, Sir. The hon. Member is absolutely wrong in making that statement. My sole consideration has been to see that the accommodation in these schools is brought up to a proper standard of fitness for the children.

Has a similar circular been issued to other counties?

asked for notice of this last question.

asked whether circulars similar to those recently forwarded to the county education authority of Lancashire have been issued in other counties; and, if so, in which?

A similar communication has been addressed to the local education authority of the administrative county of Huntingdon, and it is proposed to follow the same course at an early date in the case of several other counties. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that the action of the Board involves no new departure in the way of policy. The Board have for many years been endeavouring to obtain the improvement of school build- ings up to a reasonable standard of healthiness, convenience, and suitability, with varying degrees of success in different areas. The great majority of cases included in the first four schedules attached to the letter are long standing cases in which complaints have frequently been made. The only novelty in this letter is the procedure suggested. I may, perhaps, call special attention to paragraph 6 of the Board's letter, in which the reasons for dealing comprehensively with the schools of an area are explained. The Board have reason to hope that this procedure will be found to be businesslike and economical as well as convenient to all parties. It has in fact been intimated to me, on behalf of the authority of a large county, that the adoption of such a procedure for their area would be very convenient and useful to them. The Board's Annual Report, which will shortly be issued, deals with the matter at some length.

Will these Minutes be placed in the Vote Office for the use of hon. Members?

I have no objection to that.

Is it within the memory of the right hon. Gentleman that the Catholic population in Lancashire, represented by the Catholic Bishop of Liverpool and by the Catholic Bishop of Salford, have made representations to him on this subject?

I have had representations made to me from a Catholic association of Liverpool. Whether the prelates mentioned by the hon. Member were responsible for them I cannot say.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea as to when he will issue the circular and schedules for the West Riding Local Education Authority?

No, Sir, I cannot say; but individual cases have been brought to the notice of the West Riding authorities.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement on behalf of the Government on 30th September of last year in this House that an objection existed in regard to the use of the terms "Colony" or "Colonial" as applied to Australia, and that the practice was well settled of making use of the correct expressions, "Commonwealth" or "States," and in view, moreover, of the opinion expressed by public bodies in Australia that the terms "Colony" and "Colonial" are inapplicable and objectionable, he will take care to avoid the use of such terms in any communications, written or verbal, on the part of the Government and discourage their employment in the House of Commons?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The word "Colony" is not used in official communications referring to the Australian Commonwealth or States.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in to-day's Notice Paper Australia is referred to under the general title of "Colonial."

It is impossible to alter the whole phraseology. My Noble Friend in another place is Secretary for the Colonies and I am Under-Secretary for the Colonies. Any hostility to that description may be due to myself and not to the word "Colony," which may be objected to by some persons in Australia. No doubt the word "Dominions" is more accurate. But "Colonies" is a good old-fashioned word, regarded with much affection by persons in other portions of the Empire, notably in Cape Colony, where the word "Colony" is regarded with real genuine satisfaction.

But why persist in making use of a term which is admittedly inaccurate and is offensive when applied to many people in Australia?

I have endeavoured to explain that we do not use the word "Colony" with regard to the Australian Commonwealth or States, because the words "Dominion" or "Commonwealth" would be more accurate; but in referring to the whole Dominions of the Crown the word "Colonial" must be used. No substitute for it has yet been found.

asked the Prime Minister when the next Vote on Account will be taken?

asked when the House will rise for the Spring Recess, and when it will meet again?

I hope to make a statement dealing with the points raised in these questions to-morrow.

For what length of time will the Vote on Account be taken?

My statement will deal with that question.

asked what will be the first Parliamentary act of the Government after the Spring Recess?

I cannot yet say.

asked when notice of the guillotine Resolutions for the Budget 1909–10 will be given?

I hope it will be tabled to-morrow night.

I desire to make an appeal to the Prime Minister arising out of his answer to a question and another answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day. I understand that the Prime Minister said that the guillotine Resolutions on the Budget would only be put upon the Table or handed in to-morrow night. They are obviously matters of very great importance, which Members ought to have an opportunity of considering, and I would appeal to him to put them on the Paper to-night, so that we may have a little more time, and not see them only for the first time on Friday morning, when we have to discuss them on Monday.

I am not without hope that we may be able to put them on the Table to-night, but I will do my best.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the disqualification of paupers from receiving old age pensions has been generally condemned as unjust by Members of this House, he will undertake to introduce a measure for abolishing the disqualification at an earlier date than 1st January, 1911?

In reply to a similar question addressed to me on 28th February, I said that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped to introduce legislation dealing with this question. I cannot add anything to that statement.

asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to put the office of Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland on a constitutional basis, and, in accordance with the pledge of the Government, to appoint to that office some Member of the Government, so that there may be in this House a Minister responsible for the Department of Agriculture in Ireland?

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to a similar question on 10th March. I have nothing to add to his statement.

Is there one rule of administration for a Unionist Vice-President who was dismissed because he had no seat, and another rule for a Radical Vice-President who is allowed to continue although he was thrown out from his seat?

Is it not the fact that when the present Government, in 1907, endeavoured to put this office on a constitutional basis, it was denounced by the whole Unionist party?

asked the President of the Board of Education whether instructions similar to those in circular letter 10/4334 A are going to be issued to borough education authorities in Lancashire?

As I have already stated, the Board will pursue exactly the same policy as hitherto, namely, to obtain the improvement of unsatisfactory school premises as quickly and completely as they can. The novelty of this letter lies in the procedure suggested. This is to some extent experimental, but the present intention of the Board is to adopt the procedure in the case of those local education authorities, both in Lancashire and elsewhere, where it appears necessary. No distinction has been or will be made between county and other authorities in this matter. It is obvious, however, that a considerable amount of labour is involved in the collection and tabulation of the material, and that it will take time to cover the whole country. There are happily many areas in which it would not be necessary or suit- able to apply this procedure, because the number of unsatisfactory school premises is relatively small, the authorities either having adopted an adequately high standard of their own accord, or having met the Board's requirement with reasonable promptitude.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the non-collection of the Land Tax in the financial year 1909–10 is a breach of the law; and what steps does he propose to take in the interests of the public revenue with regard to the parties responsible for its collection who have failed to carry out their statutory duties?

I am unable to accept the hon. Member's interpretation of the postponement of the collection of Land Tax for the financial year 1909–10 to the extent of £550,000 out of a total of £700,000 in all

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject?

No; I think it would be quite unnecessary. I hope the whole position will be regularised early next week, and it is hardly worth while to take that opinion.

Would it not be of importance to know whether the action of the Government has been conducive to a breach of the law during the last few months?

I invite the hon. Gentleman to take any opinion he likes upon that subject.

May I ask how the right hon. Gentleman thinks it will be regularised next week?

I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to make his views clear on the matter, and I shall make mine clear next week. I do not think it is desirable to discuss it.

Does he mean by the passing of the Resolution? What else is there?

I think the right hon. Gentleman will see it is not necessary to discuss it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the desire of the Exchequer that; all possible steps should be taken to facilitate the voluntary collection of the Income Tax for the financial year 1909–10, he will say whether the circular to local commissioners, suggesting to them that the sending out of demand notes should not be proceeded with, was issued by his instructions?

If, as I presume, the hon. Member refers to the circular issued to the clerks to local Commissioners on 4th December last, the answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the result of the case of Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold v. Fowler decided by Mr. Justice Bray in the King's Bench Division, whereby the expense of maintaining an association for the purpose of increasing and earning profits was decided to be an expense properly incurred and chargeable as such before ascertaining the amount of profit assessable under Schedule D, and to the fact that the Board of Inland Revenue have hitherto insisted that such expenses should be included among profits assessable to Income Tax, and that in many cases Income Tax has actually been paid an assessments calculated on this basis, whether he will issue instructions to have the tax on all sums so assessed returned to the taxpayer upon application either through the surveyor or the Board of Inland Revenue.

Where the taxpayer has taken the requisite steps as provided by law the tax would be refunded; but in cases where steps were not so taken no refund can be made. Effect will be given to the judgment of the court as regards future assessments.

Will the refundment be made in cases where the tax has been paid for more than three years previously, and where subsequent steps have been taken for refundment?

I should like notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Smith v. The Lion Brewery deciding that the compensation levy under the Compensation Act, 1904, is properly chargeable as a working expense before assessing the profits of brewers under Schedule D, and to the fact that, the Income Tax Commissioners and the Inland Revenue Commissioners, through the action of their surveyors, and particularly through the action of their members sitting as Special Income Tax Commissioners, have hitherto insisted upon assessing such compensation levy as if it were profit, whether he will now issue instructions that the tax on the amount of compensation levy so assessed will be returned to all parties by whom it has been paid?

The case referred to is under appeal to the House of Lords.

asked under what power or authority Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the pound is being deducted from salaries and dividends since the 6th day of April, seeing that under the Income Tax Resolution for the Budget of 1909–10 the Income Tax was only purported to be fixed at that rate for the year beginning 6th April, 1909, and the authority expired on the 6th instant?

I may remind the hon. Member that the practice of deducting Income Tax during the interval between the 5th April and the date of the Resolution of this House imposing the tax for the year is observed in every year when the Resolution is taken later than the 5th April, and there is no reason for any departure from it for the current year.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what sum was paid into the Exchequer on and between 1st April, 1909, and 31st March, 1910, in respect of duty on spirits, and what sum was paid in respect of such duty during the corresponding period of 1908–9; whether the amount of duty on spirits during the financial year of 1909–10 is in excess of, or less than, the sum estimated in the Budget of 1909; and what the amount of such excess or deficit is?

As regards these two questions, I regret that, as I have explained before, I cannot give particulars of this nature in anticipation of the statement which I propose to make next week.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many intermediate students took. Irish and how many took German at the annual examination, 1909?

I am informed that the number of students who took German in the examinations of 1909 was 2,077; the number who took Irish was 6,076.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, will he explain how it is that 50 per cent, more money was awarded in exhibitions to intermediate students who took the subjects of Division II. of the modern literary course than to students who took the subjects of Division I. in the examinations of 1909?