asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any commercial treaty was in force between Portugal and Germany; and, if so, whether the terms of such treaty were to be found in any Parliamentary Paper presented to this House or could be so communicated now?

A treaty of commerce and navigation between Germany and Portugal was concluded on the 30th of November, 1908, and ratified on the 21st of May, 1910. It is to remain in force for eight years. A full account of it was given in the Board of Trade Journal for June 17th, June 24th, and July 1st, 1909. The text will appear in Volume 101 of the State Papers, to be issued in March next.

asked if British Consuls have instructions to watch the interests of British subjects who are citizens of the self-governing Dominions; and whether they are also instructed to report on trade openings for the trade of the Dominions as well as of the Mother Country?

As regards the first part of the question, no such instructions are necessary, as no discrimination is made between British subjects residing in the United Kingdom and those residing in the Colonies or Dominions. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's diplomatic representatives have been instructed to make arrangements with the Consuls to keep them fully informed of any developments affecting the position of the Dominions or Colonies as exporters of food products.

Is the hon. Member aware that cases have arisen where Canadian subjects have not been represented by the British Consul?

No, but I should be glad to have information about any such cases.

asked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that the salaries of Sheriffs Principal are as high as those of Sheriffs Substitute, though their duties are less onerous, and they are permitted to practise at the bar, he can see his way to procure a reduction of the salaries of Sheriffs Principal, and so effect a saving of public money?

The answer is in the negative.

May I ask the hon. Member if he will persuade the Lord Advocate to grant a Commission to inquire into the whole of this subject?

I will convey my hon. Friend's suggestion to the Lord Advocate.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether at a public local inquiry held on the 8th December, in connection with the appeal of Mr. Arlidge from a closing order made by the Hampstead Borough Council, none of the witnesses who gave evidence were sworn; whether it was the practice to swear witnesses at such local inquiries; whether the inspector had power to administer an oath; and whether he would consider the advisability of changing a procedure under which reports were made by the inspectors upon unsworn testimony, and a decision was given by the Board upon the inspectors' reports, which were treated as confidential, and which the accused was not allowed to see?

I am aware that at a public local inquiry held on the 8th December in regard to the appeal of Mr. Arlidge against the refusal of the Hampstead Borough Council to determine a closing order the witnesses were not sworn. It is not the usual practice at such inquiries to put the witnesses on oath, as it is not found necessary to do so. The inspector has (as he stated at the inquiry) power to administer an oath, and would, in accordance with the Board's instructions, do so in any case where the circumstances appeared to him to render that course desirable. The point was raised and expressly waived by Mr. Arlidge's solicitor, Mr. Rubinstein. I am not aware of any ground for changing the procedure.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases notices of appeal to referees had been given under the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, for the valuation of lands?

The number of appeal cases against provisional valuations is eighty-six, comprising 370 separate notices of appeal, a notice being given for each separate occupation.

asked how many valuations of land had been recorded by the Inland Revenue Commissioners as having been finally settled pursuant to Section 30 of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910?

The records referred to by the hon. Member are at the present time kept at a large number of offices all over the kingdom, and the number of them vary from day to day. It would not be possible to supply such information as is desired without the expenditure of much time and labour, and the information would no longer be accurate by the time it had been summarised.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the estimate given of the cost of the change of the headquarters of the Government of India to Delhi includes the provision of compensation to officials for the losses that will be entailed upon them by the move?

The hon. and gallant Member will see from the papers presented that the estimate given is necessarily only a rough indication of the cost. In the preparation of detailed estimates such points will be considered.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he proposes to present the promised Return of proceedings under the Irish Land Purchase Acts, in continuation of the Return [Cd. 4412] presented to Parliament in 1908?

The preparation of the Return will take some time, but it is hoped that it will be ready for presentation early next Session.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the principal operations of the Board of Works in improving Liscannor Harbour consisted in making two holes in the rock bottom with a patent apparatus whose breakage terminated the whole proceedings; and whether, now that the natural operation of the sea has filled these holes with silt, he could state that Liscannor Harbour had resumed its normal condition and that the notice calling attention to its want of safety may be removed; (2), whether he was aware that, on account of the condition in which Liscannor Harbour had been left by the Board of Works, over 200 workmen had been thrown out of employment with no prospect of resumption; and whether, instead of providing relief works, as had been occasionally done in other parts, he would consider the advisability of completing the work left unfinished of rendering the harbour serviceable, especially in view of the fact that such work would be of the reproductive character recommended to the Congested Districts Board in the distribution of the Development Grant; (3), whether, in view of the importance of Liscannor Harbour, the neighbouring district, and the necessity of encouraging industry in West Clare, he would consider it advisable to obtain the report of a competent engineer as to the best means of securing the safety of the harbour at a moderate cost of about £5,000; and whether he would expedite this matter so that a promising industry which gave employment to hundreds may not be ruined; (4), whether, previous to the operations of the Board of Works in improving Liscannor Harbour, they had displayed any notice that the harbour was unsafe; whether it was after the termination of their operations of improvement that the notice was posted; and whether he could state the total sum expended by the Board of Works in their operations in Liscannor Harbour?

The principal operations of the Board of Works under the Marine Works Act in improving Liscannor Harbour consisted in the construction of two new berths, the extension of the North Pier, the provision of a large storage area, and the deepening of the harbour. The latter work consisted in the removal of over 7,000 tons of silt and a considerable quantity of rock. Under certain conditions of wind and weather the harbour is not safe, and cannot be made safe except at the expenditure of a very large sum of money. It is desirable to retain the notice to prevent any excuse for claims for damage. If the workmen are, as stated, out of employment, it is not in consequence of the condition of the harbour, which is as safe now as it has ever been, and is as safe as it can be made unless an expenditure of between £25,000 and £30,000 is incurred. There does not appear to be any necessity for obtaining a further report upon this harbour, even if there were money available for its improvement. Previous to the operations of the Board of Works the harbour was in charge of the county council. The notice was posted after the operations. The sum of £8,531 has been expended by the Board of Works on this Harbour under the Marine Works Act.

May I ask if it is the intention of the Government not to spend any more money on the Harbour?

Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that question.

I give notice I will call the attention of the House to this matter at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what are the names of the commanding officers referred to by Sir John French in his Report on the Territorial Force who complained to him that their endeavours to obtain recruits were much hampered by agents of the National Service League; what are the names of the agents of the National Service League who so hampered the endeavours of the commanding officers; what are the names of the men who were advised by these agents not to take service in the Territorial Force; and what are the names of the districts in which those agents carried on their activities?

I am not prepared to ask the Inspector-General of the Forces to give information in detail in regard to facts and opinions which he may feel it his duty to bring to the notice of the Army Council in such instances as that referred to.

May I ask whether a serious charge has been made reflecting on the honour and patriotism of the National Service League and why does the right hon. Gentleman propose that the War Office should decline either to substantiate or to withdraw the charge?

On the contrary the Inspector-General has thought it his duty to make this statement to which he adheres. He thought it his duty to convey it to the Army Council and one can only hope that the National Service League will take steps to clear the matter up.

On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to make a definite statement to which the society can reply in a definite fashion?

I should be glad to make a definite statement, but I am only asked whether I will request the Inspector-General to give the names of the officers referred to by Sir John French in his report. Names are not given in any part of the report.

Is it right that a public department should make these allegations anonymously and then prevent the society from clearing themselves before the public.

I have answered the question on the Paper. The Inspector-General does not in his report give the names. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be very glad to substantiate anything he has said and I take full responsibility for anything I have said. I stick to everything I have said.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

I cannot add anything to what I have said about Sir John French's report.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large proportion of the officers of the Territorial Force are members of the National Service League?

Yes; no doubt they are.

Is it not the duty of any member of the Territorial Force to do everything he possibly can to recruit the strength of that force?

asked what is the actuarially calculated saving to Army funds for the years 1912, 1915, and 1920 by the Issue of Army Order 237, of 1911, altering the conditions of retirement from the Army?

The effect of the changes depends largely upon the voluntary action of officers, and no definite figure can be given. During the earlier years of the new arrangement, however, the change is not expected to produce any saving, but an increase of cost.

asked whether Army Order 237, of 1911, is intended to alter the conditions of retirement of officers who joined the Army prior to the elate of that warrant?

Under the new regulations a captain or subaltern is not necessarily compelled to retire until the age of 48, instead of 45.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he was aware that Army Order 237, of 1911, reduced the pension of majors retired at 50 years of age from £300 to £200 if they joined the service after the age of 23; and, in view of this alteration of the conditions under which these officers joined, officers who joined prior to the date of this Order may be allowed to retire at the old rate of pension?

A major who had the substantive rank before 1st September, 1911, retains the right to £300 a year on age retirement. It is not proposed to extend this, as a reserved right, to officers of lower rank. Such officers will, in all but most exceptional cases, be entitled under Article 513 of the Royal Warrant to considerably more than £200 and the majority to £300.

asked whether, under Army Order 237, 1911, a captain commissioned before the date of the warrant may retire after fifteen years' service on retired pay at £120, whereas in the case of a captain commissioned before the date of the warrant, if he accepts promotion to the rank of major after the issue of the warrant and retires after fifteen years' service, he will come under Article 509, and can only retire on £80 a year?

The officer in question, if promoted major, will retain his right to £120 a year retired pay on voluntary retirement.

Does not Article 509 lay this down?

It is a very technical matter, and I do not think I can discuss it by way of question and answer across the floor of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman will write me on the subject I shall be very glad to send him a reply.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the Amendment of the Royal Warrant so as to allow of all officers commissioned before the 1st April, 1909, being permitted to continue serving under the conditions of the Royal Warrant, 1906, and all those commissioned before 1st September, 1911, being permitted to continue serving under the Royal Warrant of 1909 on making application to do so before a given date, those not applying to be held to serve under the conditions of Royal Warrant, 1909, as amended by Army Order 237, 1911.

The question of what rights should be reserved to serving officers was very carefully considered, and the Secretary of State for War is not prepared to make any alteration.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that; this continual alteration in the conditions of service is a hardship to individual officers and discourages them from putting their sons into the Army?

Suppose that statement to be true, it surely would be a hardship now to make another alteration.

I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether the rejection of the Metropolitan Police Rate Bill by the House of Lords will have any effect upon the Government's promise to give the police one day's rest in seven?

The rejection of the Bill, which had passed all its stages in this House by general consent, will seriously affect the financial position of the Metropolitan Police Fund as it will now be impossible to pass the Bill again by the date in February when the Metropolitan Boroughs require to have notice of the rate which is to be levied during the ensuing financial year. In the course of the last six years, owing to excess of expenditure over income, the working balance of the Metropolitan Police Fund has been gradually reduced by a sum amounting in all to nearly £200,000; with the result that it is necessary twice every year to resort to loans up to £200,000 in order to meet from week to week the current expenses. During the present year, the existing rating powers have been exercised to the full, and it is estimated that the income will barely meet the expenditure. Next year the expenditure is necessarily increased by large sums not only for normal increase due to growing population, and for the issue of heavy clothing, but also to meet the charges for the weekly rest day sanctioned in accordance with the intention of Parliament, and for the increased pay recently granted to the force with universal approval. The total increase of charge is estimated at £180,000. On the other hand, there will be a large falling-away of revenue, due to the failure of the Exchequer Contribution Accounts of London and Middlesex to meet their statutory requirements. This failure amounted in 1910–11 to £38,000; is expected to amount to a larger sum this year; and next year may be a still larger amount. In these circumstances, it was clearly necessary that I should take steps to prevent the Metropolitan Police Fund from falling into a state of insolvency. While I cannot doubt that this House will again approve of steps being taken to secure the revenue required to make good the promise made to the police, I have at this moment no course open but to suspend all recruiting for the purpose of the augmentation of the Force, including the augmentation necessary to provide the instalments still due of the weekly rest day.

I should like to ask how it is that the Government could not secure a majority in the other House, seeing there were only 15 for and 22 votes against?

My hon. Friend knows the composition of that House as well as I do.

Yes, but you ought to have been able to get a majority in this case.

Did the Home Office receive the assent of the London County Council for the raising of the rate?

Parliament gave the authority to the Home Office and not to the County Council in this matter.

Is it not the fact that the controlling authority for the Metropolitan Police is the Home Office and not the London County Council?

Yes, Sir.

But it is the ratepayer, is it not, who will have to pay the increased rate?

The Bill gave the Home Office power to increase the rate from 9d. to 11d., but as I explained to those who acted on behalf of the London County Council, there was no intention to raise the rate next year to lid. I undertook not to raise it more than 1d. until an opportunity had been given in this House for debating the subject, and for giving sanction to the proposed increase of the rate.

Could not the right hon. Gentleman raise the necessary money by way of loan?

No, Sir, it is most undesirable for a public authority to live on borrowed money.

I shall take the Chair at Two o'clock, when there will be a Royal Commission.

I have also to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, being one of the High Commissioners, delivered His Majesty's most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of His Majesty's command, as follows:—