asked the Prime Minister whether, as stated in its prospectus, the Congo Rubber Plantations, Limited, has the full approval of His Majesty's Government; if so, whether he can state what the nature of the implied guarantee is; whether the authority of the Government has been given for the statement; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any steps to warn possible investors against being misled by the unauthorised use of the name of His Majesty's Government upon the said prospectus?

His Majesty's Government have no knowledge whatever of the company in question. With regard to the last part of the question, I observe that the prospectus, although its terms are somewhat ambiguous, does not state that the company has the full approval of His Majesty's Government, but that the opening of the Congo to trade has their full approval.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, as representing the Secretary of State for India, whether he can make any statement with regard to the situation in Tibet?

In view of the present disturbed condition of Tibet the Government of India have thought it necessary to collect at the frontier a sufficient force to enable the trade agencies at Gyantze and Yatung to be speedily reinforced in case they should at any time be in immediate danger of attack. The force which is held in readiness includes one battalion of native infantry, two sections of mountain artillery, and a section of sappers and miners, and also a battalion and a section of sappers and miners will be sent if necessary to hold the lines of communication. This force will not cross the frontier unless the protection of our officers renders it necessary, and it will in no circumstances intervene between Tibetians and Chinese, and if it should ever enter Tibet it will be withdrawn as soon as the situation permits.

, asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the nature and extent of any arrangement that may have been arrived at with the Belgian Government as to the formation of English trading companies in the Congo territory; and whether he will say whether any concession of zone rights has been sanctioned to His Majesty's Government?

No arrangement has been arrived at with the Belgian Government of the nature indicated. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to the case of the children of Mr. and Mrs. Franklin, of 290, High Street, Watford, who have been detained since 1904, and are still being detained in the Leeds and Macclesfield industrial school; whether there is reason to think that the children were originally sent to the school in consequence of some mistake or miscarriage of justice; whether he was aware that the parents are ready and willing to maintain them at home; and whether he would order that the children shall be restored to their parents?

The Home Secretary has made inquiry, and is satisfied that there has been no miscarriage of justice in this case. He thinks that it is in the best interests of the children that they should remain under the care of the Managers of the Industrial Schools to which they were committed, and therefore he does not propose to take any action.

asked the Home Secretary if he would state when this year's volume of licensing statistics for England and Wales would be published; and whether it could be arranged that another year these statistics could be available at an earlier period?

The volume is in the Press and will be issued as early as the great amount of work which the printers have in hand admits. The Home Secretary hopes that next year's volume will appear earlier.

asked the Home Secretary if he was aware that some of the men who have been released from Borstal prison under the supervision of the Borstal Association were now employed by Messrs. Waring, White, and Company, contractors, at Pall Mall, and were working under the current rates of wages to an extent ranging from 1d. to 2d. per hour less than the wages paid to the ordinary builders' labourers; and if he intended taking action in the matter?

The Home Secretary understands that in one or two cases lads leaving Borstal have been employed by Messrs. Waring, White, and Company; but, on leaving Borstal, they are boys not men, and fit only to do boys' work and earn the current rates paid for boys.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the men named in the question are grown up persons and married men? This can be proved by the secretary of the Borstal Association.

I will convey the hon. Member's remarks to my right hon. Friend

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that although there are but comparatively few questions on the Paper there is an almost complete absence of Members of the Government to deal with them. That, I venture to say, constitutes a great slight upon the House and a gross neglect of the duty which devolves upon the right hon. Gentlemen.

I beg to move that the Lords Amendments to the Small Holdings Bill be now considered.

I accept these Amendments with considerable regret, but in view of the position of the Session and the fear that if we do not accept the Amendments it might seriously jeopardise the Bill, we accept them in the interests of the agricultural community, though we do not agree with them.

I think a voice ought to be raised in disagreeing with the Amendments of the House of Lords, which I have not been able to see. It is a critical moment at which to accept an Amendment of this kind, which has already been considered by the House, I understand, and sent back to another place. I remember the concessions which were made by Mr. Forster on the Education Act of 1870, which led to the smothering of the country with new voluntary schools which the Act was intended gradually to absorb. I am afraid this extension of time will lead to an enormous number of claims being put in and the object of the Act will be defeated. I feel that the self-respect of the House of Commons is challenged if we send back an acquiescent message to the House of Lords. The relations between the Houses are now sub judice. It has been suggested that the restoration of this Amendment by the Lords constitutes a breach of what is called the truce. I cannot help feeling that it prejudices the whole working of the Conference, for which we are all standing aside, if we allow this to go forward. The question which is being settled behind the curtain is whether the will of the Commons is to prevail. If we give way on this Amendment, we are giving away on that principle. Exactly three months ago the whole of this question was before the country. It was left to the people to decide, a strong conflict was threatening, and a General Election was expected.

Is the hon. Member in order in discussing the whole question of the relations between the two Houses on the Motion now before the House?

The only point that we have to discuss is whether the word "November" should be substituted for "September." It is not a big peg for the hon. Member to hang a great oration upon.

I do not propose to hang any oration upon it, but I wanted to show how the whole question as between this House and the other had been changed in its aspect.

That really has nothing to do with the question of alteration of the date which is now proposed.

I am strongly of opinion that this House should do nothing to prejudice the work which is going on, and which we know nothing about. I will say nothing to interfere with the blessed work of conciliation, but to acquiesce in this Amendment would be to imperil the work which we believe to be going on, and, therefore, I think the House having once refused the Amendment, should not now accept it.

I think the House ought to understand the actual position in which it is at present. The Board of Agriculture, when this Bill first came up, distinctly stated that further time ought to be given for these claims, and this Amendment only extends the time from 30th September till 1st November. There is no great constitutional question, and I hope the Government will agree to the Amendment.

I do not know whether the hon. Member (Mr. Byles) intends to take the matter to a vote or not. If he has pacific intentions, which he generally has, he has not been much helped by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I rise to join in the protest against the treatment of this House by the House of Lords, and I should like to say a word about a question of privilege. The Amendment involves public expenditure, and it is a strange thing that it should have got so far. I should like to protest as a Member of the House of Commons against the Lords putting an Amendment through which means an additional expenditure of public money. I should like to say a word on the Bill in its character of an agreed Bill, and I want to make a protest as one of a section of the House which knows nothing at all about any agreement.

The hon. Member would not be entitled to discuss any question of agreement. The motion now is that the Lords Amendment be considered.

I will leave that point, and treat the matter in another way. I wish to raise a protest against the Lords introducing Amendments of this sort at the eleventh hour, or what may be said to be the twelfth hour. This is not the time to make any alteration, and I should like to remind the House that this is quite in accord with their action upon another Bill. I cannot help thinking that there may be an ulterior motive behind it. Hon. Members will remember in regard to the Old Age Pensions Bill that an Amendment involving additional expenditure was proposed on the other side, and the result of it would have been to wreck the Bill. I take it that the Lords have now got us in the position that if we do not accept the Amendment they will know that the Bill will be lost. That would be very regrettable. I understand that the Lords are not sitting after this day, and therefore, unless we accept the Amendment the Bill will be lost. I feel inclined to go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend (Mr. Byles) if he goes to a division, but the result might be that the Bill would be lost, and the Lords and their friends would go up and down the country saying that they were in favour of giving the tenant farmers a great deal more than the Government were willing to give them. I am between two difficulties, and if I yield to my fighting instinct I will oppose the Amendment. I know there are many who attach considerable importance to this Bill. I believe it has been a long fight to get the Opposition side to assent to the principle of compensation for disturbance, and therefore I am in a quandary what to do, but on the whole, as a matter of principle, and following the line of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, I am inclined to take all the chances and vote against the Lords Amendment.

I wish to join my hon. Friends in protesting against the action of the Lords. The administration of this Bill rests entirely with the Government.

On a point of Order. May I ask whether if this Amendment is not agreed to before half-past twelve, it cannot be considered?

We expect that the House will be summoned to the Lords at half-past twelve to hear the Royal Assent given to certain Bills, and if at that hour the House has not assented to the Lords Amendment, this Bill will not be included, and, of course, the Royal Assent cannot be given to this Bill. Therefore the Bill will be killed.

This is a Land Bill. Whenever we have a Land Bill this House has always to accept the will of the other House.

Question, "That the Lords Amendment be considered," put, and agreed to.