asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding the situation in Persia?

As regards the situation in Persia itself, there is little to add to previous answers to questions on the subject. In the North and at the capital the situation remains much the same. The main Southern road is still the scene of lawlessness, and His Majesty's Government have been compelled to retain the regiment at Shiraz. A new Governor-General of Fars is, however, proceeding to his post, and His Majesty's Government, desirous of showing their good will to the Persian Government and of not embarrassing His Excellency, have withdrawn the detachment hitherto stationed at Ispahan. They have also advanced £25,000 to the central Government, stipulating that the sum shall be used for the Southern road. If the hon. Member desired by his question to refer to the recent conversations with the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, the general purpose and scope of them as affecting Persia was as described in the statement communicated to the Press at the time.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he can hold out any prospect of His Majesty's Government helping to bring about a restoration of constitutional government in Persia?

I think I should ask notice of that question, because it does hot directly arise out of the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date he will be in a position to make a full statement concerning the Chinese Loan; whether the Foreign Office is hostile to the Crisp Loan; and, if so, on what account?

I will at once inform the House of the main facts concerning the Chinese Loan. His Majesty's Government have acted with the Governments of France, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United States in supporting an international financial group in its negotiations for a loan with China. We have done so because it seemed very desirable that all the Powers most largely and directly interested in China should be in concert and should not compete against each other, each trying separately to get political advantages for itself out of the situation; and because, without such agreement, the result would probably be a series of indiscriminate loans that would impair the Chinese credit and not be to the interest of China itself or of its foreign trade, in which we are so largely concerned. At the present moment no large loan has yet been concluded with the six-Power group, as the Chinese Government objected to some of the conditions. The principle of conditions that have been considered essential to make any loan sound and really advantageous to China must be maintained, but this is not incompatible with fair consideration of any proposals that China may put forward for an amendment in some particulars of the conditions originally laid down. For the reasons given above it is most undesirable to break up the agreement between the six Powers, but, on the other hand, there is no desire or intention of maintaining it for the purpose of attempting to enforce harsh or unreasonable conditions in China. The Crisp Loan was opposed because, while negotiations were proceeding with the six-Power group, we did not consider that China was free to borrow elsewhere, and we were under an honourable obligation to oppose any outside loan. But apart from this, the loan did not, so far as we are aware, offer adequate guarantees for the proper and useful expenditure of the proceeds.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the conditions laid down by the six Powers have been made public?

I think not.

May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can state what are the guarantees for the repayment of the Crisp Loan?

I think that will be a matter for the holders of the stock.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what advantages are expected to accrue to this country from forcing China to submit to a monopoly in Chinese finance in favour of what is called the six-Power group under German management for the advancement of Russian and Japanese designs upon Chinese territory; what return that group makes or promises for the British pressure to which it owes that monopoly; on what grounds China is thwarted in obtaining instead an independent British loan on terms agreeable to both parties to the transaction; whether a similar veto will be extended to the independent loan China has thus been forced to seek from a Belgian group; and how the imposition of those restrictions upon China can be reconciled with the impartiality of Great Britain and with the integrity and independence of China?

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have given to-day to the hon. and gallant Member for Hampshire, from which he will understand that his question is founded on a misapprehension of the policy of His Majesty's Government and of the objects of the six-Power group in negotiating a loan to the Chinese Government.

May I ask why whatever restrictions are deemed to be necessary are not made generally to apply to all who care to conform to the conditions instead of being made in favour of an international group under German management?

The supplementary question of the hon. Member contains a suggestion which is not correct. It would be much easier to answer the hon. Member's questions if they did not contain so many suggestions which are incorrect. Perhaps he will give notice of the question.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is willing to state the conditions?

I see no reason why we should not if a question is put down.

The hon. Gentleman is surely able to answer the question—Why is not a general rule laid down for all who care to comply with it?

The general principle was laid down that it was most advantageous for the representatives of the Powers to act in concert to prevent loans from individual groups which would be used to obtain political advantages for particular countries as against the general advantage of China herself.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Chinese are not the best judges of their interests?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to an assault made at Jilore, in British East Africa, by an assistant district Commissioner upon a native clergyman who had declined, on being called out of his church while service was proceeding, to sell him food for his porters; whether the assistant district Commissioner struck him and kicked him before his congregation; and whether the Government is satisfied that an apology by the official concerned is an adequate termination to such an incident?

My attention had not previously been called to the occurrence. I have called for a report from the Governor, which has not yet reached me. On the receipt of it I will communicate further with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state which West Indian Colonies have accepted the preferential trade agreement with Canada; whether His Majesty's Government has approved; when the agreement is to be submitted to the Canadian Parliament; whether, since the conclusion of the agreement, proposals have been made for the federation of the Colonies of the West Indies; and what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government to such a proposal?

The agreement has been accepted by the Legislatures of Trinidad, Barbados, British Guiana, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Antigua, St. Kitts-Nevis, Dominica, and Montserrat, and has been approved by His Majesty's Government, subject to its acceptance by the Canadian Parliament, to which it will no doubt be submitted shortly. No definite proposals for the federation of the West Indian Colonies have come before me; but in the event of any such scheme meeting with general approval in the Colonies concerned it would, I need hardly say, receive very careful consideration from His Majesty's Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde) had authority from him for saying in a recent speech that certain Members of the Cabinet, amongst whom was included the Chancellor of the Exchequer, approved the policy associated with the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme of expropriating landlords by excessive taxation?

I am not aware that my hon. and learned Friend ever made the statement attributed to him.

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech?

I am perfectly certain that no report I have seen bears out this question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what actually is his policy? May I ask what does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate of a more drastic character than he has already done?

The hon. Gentleman should give notice of the question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what are the items of expense in respect of which a deduction of £100 is allowed to Members of Parliament for the purpose of Income Tax on their salaries; and whether similar deductions from salaries are allowed in any other, and, if so, what cases?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain why the salaries of Members of Parliament have been increased for the past quarter owing to a reduction in the amount of Income Tax deducted; what representations were made to him on the subject; and is this to be a precedent for the allowance of a similar reduction of Income Tax in the case of other salaries earned under similar conditions?

In assessing the duty chargeable in respect of the emoluments of any public office or employment a deduction is allowable, and is in practice allowed, in respect of the expenses of travelling, and of other expenses and disbursements wholly, exclusively, and necessarily incurred and defrayed, in the performance of the duties thereof. For administrative convenience, and after receiving representations from certain Members, I have decided that in assessing the salaries allowed to Members of Parliament from public funds, a uniform sum should be adopted as the deduction to be granted in respect of such expenses.

Which are the items in respect of which the allowance is made, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the travelling expenses of directors of public companies have been disallowed, and will he allow the legality of this deduction to be contested in a Court of Law?

I do not think that the case of directors of public companies is an analogous case at all, but if travelling were an essential part of a man's work certainly travelling expenses should be allowed.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in the case of a London Member travelling is an essential part of his work?

I am sorry to say that it is an essential part of the work of every Member of Parliament in these days to go about a great deal to address not only his own constituents but others. Apart from that there is the other point, I had to consider whether there should be a separate allowance in each case, or whether it would be better to have it uniform.

Is it not the fact that in the case of other public servants, when travelling expenses are given, it is necessary to send in a bill? Why should an exception be made in the case of Members of Parliament?

How many Members of the House have refused to accept the increased allowance?

That does not arise.

Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly give us the names of the Members who asked for it?

No. I think that that would be a rather invidious thing to do.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend's question as to why a different procedure is pursued with regard to Members of Parliament from that which is pursued with regard to all those who are engaged in other services who have to show what their expenses are before an allowance is made?

I thought on the whole that it would be more desirable that there should be a uniform rate rather than that there should be an examination of each case and that Members of Parliament should bring up their bills and vouchers.

Unhappy lawyers have to bring up their bills.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give the House the interesting information how any Member of Parliament coming, say, from Ireland, can possibly pay his necessary expenses out of £100?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a recent conference of local authorities at Richmond, at which a resolution was unanimously passed in favour of giving the proceeds of Petrol Taxes and Licence Duties in respect of motor omnibuses to the local authorities in whose areas such omnibuses ply; and whether he is prepared to give effect to this proposal?

A copy of the resolution referred to has been forwarded to me, but I do not propose to take any action in the matter pending a general settlement of the question of the relations between Imperial and Local Taxation. The hon. Member is of course aware that under Section 90 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and Section 18 of the Revenue Act, 1911, the net proceeds of the Duties in question are carried to the credit of the Road Improvement Fund, and are thus made applicable to services of a local character.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider some proposal supplemental of the law in that respect, and with regard to the report referred to can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to when we are likely to get that report, the evidence having already been published?

I could not answer the second question. With regard to the first, I will consider any suggestion which the hon. Gentleman makes to me on the subject. I am very doubtful as to the advisability of the course.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the whole of the tax paid by each motor 'bus went to the local rates, it would be altogether inadequate to repair the amount of damage done by these 'buses to local roads?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any and, if so, what precedent, prior to the case of Mr. Mark Wilks, for the enforcement of payment of Income Tax on a wife's income by imprisonment of the husband; and whether he will introduce an amendment of the law into the Finance Bill of next year so that a man may no longer be made responsible for income over which he has no control; and whether he will give orders to stop any further imprisonments in the meantime?

asked (20) who ordered the imprisonment of Mr. Mark Wilks for non-payment of tax due on the income of his wife, Dr. Elizabeth Wilks; for what year or years was the amount due on which the proceedings were taken; whether the tax demanded, or any part thereof, has been paid; by whose instructions was Mr. Wilks released; whether it is contemplated to take any further action against him or his wife; and (21) whether the usual proceeding of the Income Tax Commissioners is to exact from the husband Income Tax on the separate income of a wife over which he has no control, and, if so, has this course been followed from the commencement in the case of Mr. Wilks; and whether, if this is not found practicable in all cases, he proposes to take any steps to amend the law so as to enable the collectors to proceed directly against the owner of the property which is taxed?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Mark Wilks by the order of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the offence charged against him being that he refused to pay Income Tax due from his wife; whether he is aware that Mr. Wilks is a school teacher without means other than his salary, and has no means with which to pay; if, under those circumstances, he will consider the advisability of asking the House to so amend the law as to make a married woman liable for Income Tax herself responsible for its payment; by whose instructions Mr. Wilks was released; and if the Income Tax has yet been paid?

Mr. Wilks was imprisoned under a writ of the High Court executed by direction of the Board of Inland Revenue in consequence of his failure to pay Income Tax and costs due from him under a judgment of the Court. The tax was payable for the years 1909–10 and 1910–11 in respect of the income of his wife, which, under the Income Tax Acts, is deemed to be his income, and the tax thereon is recoverable from him. Previously to 1909–10 tax was recovered by distraint, but it was subsequently claimed that the goods on which distraint was made belonged to Mrs. Wilks. Mr. Wilks was released by order of the Board of Inland Revenue. The tax has not yet been paid. No further action is being taken in respect of the sums comprised in the judgment. I am not aware of any previous instance in which it has been necessary to have recourse to the ultimate remedy of imprisonment in such a case. I will consider the question of amending the law so as to obviate the necessity for such action, but in the meantime I am certainly not prepared to instruct the Revenue authorities to refrain from administering the law as it stands.

asked what was the total amount of property and Income Tax received into the Exchequer on and since 6th April, 1912, up to and including 7th August, 1912; how much thereof represented arrears of tax for previous years; and how much thereof represented tax levied by deduction during the period in question?

The total amount of Income Tax (exclusive of Supertax) paid to the Exchequer from 6th April to 7th August, 1912, inclusive, was £4,190,000. Of this sum approximately £3,210,000 consists of arrears of tax for previous years, and £980,000 represents tax paid by deduction and proper to the year 1912–13.

asked what steps, if any, have been taken with reference to the appointment of the promised Committee to inquire into the working of the valuation of land under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and whether an early opportunity will be afforded the House of considering the terms of reference and the constitution of the Committee?

Yes, Sir. I at once took steps to frame terms of reference, and secured the services of a suitable chairman. Before, however, the constitution of the Committee was definitely completed, I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, to whom I had communicated the proposed terms of reference, to enlarge their scope in such a manner as to take them outside the undertaking that I had given, and to introduce questions of principle and policy with which a purely expert Committee such as I was constituting could not suitably deal. I was, and am still, perfectly willing to fulfil my original promise.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will consider whether the quarantine regulations as to Irish store cattle should not be carried out at the Irish ports previous to embarkation, so that healthy cattle when landed might not be left at the mercy of English buyers?

I think it is important that Irish store stock should be inspected and kept under observation for the prescribed period after they are landed in Great Britain. I regret therefore that I am unable to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the long period of supervision of fifteen days over cattle after they have reached the consignee ought to be sufficient security?

I think it is necessary to have inspection at the port of arrival in order, if they are diseased, that they may not be allowed to travel along any high road.

asked whether it has come to the knowledge of the Board of Agriculture that the recent relaxations of the Order forbidding the export of Irish store cattle to England are quite inadequate for the relief of Ireland's principal trade; that, except in the case of direct Orders from England, the cattle will be subject to a loss of £1 per head for keep and deterioration during the four days of detention, and must then be sold at any figure offered by English purchasers; whether any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has taken place in any district of the two provinces of Munster and Con-naught; and, if not, what is the reason for subjecting stock raisers and farmers in these provinces to a boycott from which those of England are exempt?

I realise that the facilities which have been given for the admission of store stock will not admit of the resumption of the trade to anything like its normal extent, and that the requirements of the Orders will entail special charges upon the trade, but I am by no means sure that the effect upon prices will be what the hon. Member anticipates. As regards the necessity for special regulations in connection with the movement of stock from Ireland to Great Britain, perhaps he will allow me to refer him to the full explanation which I gave to the hon. Member for North Westmeath on Monday last. I have no reason to believe that any outbreak of the disease has occurred in either Munster or Con-naught, but it would be convenient if questions as to the existence of disease in Ireland could be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department.

If the President of the English Board of Agriculture claims the right to hinder the trade of two whole provinces admittedly free from disease for the last thirty years, may I ask whether the Vice-President of the Irish Agricultural Department would be allowed to retaliate by preventing the landing in those provinces of any merchandise from England because of fear of contagion from cases of disease which are far more numerous in areas of England?

I cannot go into the questions of the comparative powers of the English and Irish Departments, but I would point out that until quite recently the Irish Department always took a very severe view of the importation of English animals into Ireland in the case of an outbreak.

Would not the whole difficulty be met by a uniform administration of the Contagious Diseases {Animals) Act by one authority?

Did not the right hon. Gentleman state to-day to a Unionist deputation that the English county councils had the power to completely frustrate the existing regulations for the sale of Irish cattle in England?

I have not received a Unionist deputation. I saw a deputation representing agricultural interests in England. I do not recognise the sentence which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, but if he has any question to put on the subject, perhaps he would give notice in the usual way.

asked if he will permit the free transit of pigs and store cattle to the several English markets free from detention at any of the English ports to the different markets throughout England from the South and West of Ireland, where no foot-and-mouth distemper has appeared for the past thirty years?

No, Sir; I regret that under existing arrangements I do not see my way to sanction the arrangement proposed.

Is it not reasonable to allow pigs to be imported into English markets, and, where they are brought in wagon loads, to be killed in the English markets?

I am afraid that at the present time I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman will state the number of live cattle and sheep imported into Great Britain from Ireland for the months of July, August, and September, 1911, and the number for the corresponding period this year; and whether he will also state the quantity of dead meat imported from Ireland during the respective periods?

With regard to the first part of the question I propose, if the hon. Member will allow me, to circulate the statistics with the Votes. I have no information enabling me to answer the second part of the question, but perhaps the hon. Member would address his inquiry to my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department.—[See Written Answers this date.]

asked whether deputations both from Manchester and Ireland have urged upon the President of the Board of Agriculture the advisability of allowing fat cattle for immediate slaughter to be trucked from Liverpool to Manchester; having regard to the relief to the fat cattle trade from Ireland that would ensue from his conceding their request, is he now prepared to grant it; and whether he is aware that the landing of fat cattle in this particular market is considered to be of far greater importance to the cattle industry than the admission of store cattle to it at the present time?

I regret that I do not see my way, under existing conditions, to allow Irish fat cattle to be moved from the places at which they are landed to markets held elsewhere. The representations made to me by the deputations to which the hon. Member refers will, of course, be kept in view.

asked whether, in view of the long continued and serious check to the interchange of live stock between different countries owing to the fear of transmitting contagious animal diseases, the Government will consider the advisability of convening at an early date an international conference to consider the matter?

I do not at present see that any advantage would be likely to be gained by the issue of invitations for an international conference, but perhaps the hon. Member would let me know the particular points to which he thinks that the deliberations of such a body could usefully be devoted.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at several meetings of agricultural societies held recently resolutions were passed to this effect?

I have heard of the resolutions, but if some definite suggestions can be made I shall be very glad to go into them.

asked whether, since the publication of the Board's order permitting the landing at certain British ports of store cattle from Ireland, any further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred in Ireland; and, if so, whether it is proposed to cancel the Order?

I was informed yesterday that an extension of the disease had occurred in the Fermanagh prohibited area, but it would be convenient that questions as to the existence of disease in Ireland should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department. The extension in question makes no material change in the position, and it is therefore unnecessary to cancel the Order to which the hon. Member refers.

asked what are the specified ports in Ireland from which, under the recent Order of the Board, store cattle may be shipped to the five British ports mentioned in the Order; and will the right hon. Gentleman state whether, since the issue of such Order, suitable accommodation for such cattle has been found to be available at any other British ports, and similar shipments thereto been authorised accordingly?

The Irish ports, named in the First Schedule to the Order, are Belfast, Cork, Dublin, Londonderry, and Waterford. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will arrange to allow the sale of young pigs at the following markets: Lisnaskea, Enniskillen, Derry-gonnelly, and Blacklion?

In view of the occurrence on 7th instant of a further case of foot-and-mouth disease in the district scheduled in the county of Fermanagh, the time has not yet arrived when such markets can be allowed with safety.

asked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he will reduce the restricted area in county Fermanagh to within a few miles of where the foot-and-mouth distemper broke out, so that the farmers may be able to dispose of their cattle and to enable them to meet their liabilities, seeing that no outbreak of the foot-and-mouth distemper has occurred for the last fourteen days?

It would be premature to reduce the restricted area in county Fermanagh, especially in view of the fact that another case of foot-and-mouth disease in the area was confirmed on Monday last.

asked: (30) Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the recent floods in Huntingdonshire; and may I ask what help the Government can give towards the farmers in their distress; (31) has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the plight of the county council small holders in Huntingdonshire; and will he authorise the county council to remit their rent for the current year?

Has the President of the Board of Agriculture caused inquiry to be made into the loss and damage sustained by farmers and small holders in Norfolk through the recent floods; and whether it is proposed to render assistance to those seriously affected out of national funds, either in the shape of special Grants or by loans made on easy terms, whereby such may be enabled to tide over a period of stress and difficulty.

I have caused inquiries to be made as to the extent of the damage caused by the recent floods, and, although it is impossible at present to estimate the loss even approximately, I am afraid there can be no doubt but that farmers and others have suffered severely not only in Huntingdonshire and Norfolk, but in other parts of England as well. Funds have been opened to public subscription for the relief of distress in several districts, and I do not think that it is either necessary or desirable for the Government to take any action, at any rate for the present, but I shall continue to watch the situation very closely. With regard to small holders, the Board are prepared to consider favourably applications from county councils for assistance out of the Small Holdings Account, in conformity with the conditions prescribed in the Treasury Minute of the 31st December, 1907, in cases where schemes have resulted or are likely to result in loss through the inability of small holders to pay their rent in consequence of the floods.

If I raise £5,000 outside, will the right hon. Gentleman contribute a similar sum in order to start a credit bank for farmers?

I am afraid I could not at present see my way to agree to that suggestion. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific proposal to make, I shall be only too happy to consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the numerous fatal accidents due to celluloid, he will make, any further regulations for its manufacture or use or require it to be distinguished by some mark which will readily direct attention to the dangerous nature of the material?

asked whether any steps have been taken with the object of securing greater safety against fire in industries in which celluloid is used; and, if so, whether he will indicate them?

I have decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into this important matter. The names of the members of the Committee and the terms of reference were published in the papers this morning.

Will the Committee sit at once, so that we may have a speedy decision?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has now been able to consider the case of William Crew, sentenced at Keynsham (Somerset) Petty Sessions, to six weeks' hard labour for stealing some apples; whether he has received a petition on Crew's behalf; and will he, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, advise a reduction of the sentence?

I have had the facts of this case under my careful consideration. The prisoner and two other men with a horse and cart were found plundering an apple orchard in a lonely village in broad daylight. When the owner tried to get them to stop, they threatened him and went on with the work of pillage. In these circumstances I do not find any sufficient ground for advising a reduction of the sentence.

asked how many persons have been killed by motor omnibuses and electric trams, respectively, in the Metropolitan area since the 1st of January, 1912?

The Commissioner of Police informs me that 118 persons were killed by motor omnibuses and twenty-one by electric trams from 1st January last to yesterday, inclusive.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether any inquiry other than the inquiry of the Coroner's Court was held into the causes of those 118 deaths by motor 'buses?

I think my hon. Friend should give me notice of that question, and I will have inquiries made.

asked how many new licences have been issued for motor omnibuses in London this year?

The number of licences issued during the nine months ended 30th September, 1912, was 1,949. I am informed, however, that many of the licences issued during the end of last year and the early part of 1912 were in respect of vehicles of an old type since permanently withdrawn.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he has seen the resolutions passed by borough councils and other public bodies in London, calling attention to the increase in the number of persons killed by motor omnibuses; to the damage which such omnibuses cause to property; to the unsuitability of many of the routes through which they run; to the excessive speed at which they are often driven; and to the failure of the present system of traffic control by the Home Office to remedy any of these evils; and whether he proposes to introduce any reform?

I have seen the resolutions referred to, and the whole matter, so far as it concerns the public safety, is engaging my attention. I will confer with the Commissioner of Police as to whether any further action by the police is possible; but it must be remembered that neither the Commissioner nor the Home Office has any power to control the omnibus routes or to deal with questions of damage.

Is it not within the power of the Commissioner to decide how many licences shall be issued to such people?

I believe that to be so. I would rather have notice of the question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there is a lever by which pressure can be put on the company that is killing all these people?

The question is engaging the immediate attention both of the Chief Commissioner and of the Home Office.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anybody has been seriously punished—whether anybody has been hanged or sent to penal servitude?

I do not know if Police Court proceedings have been taken, but if those were cases of unjustifiable homicide proceedings would certainly be taken.

Can the right hon. Gentleman ascertain which of the companies that run motor 'buses has killed the most people?

asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the revolt of certain aggrieved districts in Outer London, the refusal of the West Ham overseers to pay in full the police precept now levied upon them, their payment of the previous precept only under threat of personal distraint, the fact that the basis of levy for the expenses of the Metropolitan Police has become disarranged, and that the recent Departmental action only perpetuates the disarray and aggravates it, he will undertake to refund all unjust balances charged or to be charged on the aggrieved districts in this matter pending speedy readjustment, if these districts on their part will consent to pay them for the present without prejudice and under protest; whether he can give any hope of a speedy readjustment and rectification of the basis of Government contribution to the Police Fund or of the methods of financial maintenance of the Metropolitan Police; what practical steps he is prepared to take to put an end to the present disarray; and when is he prepared to take such steps?

I cannot accept as accurate the hon. Member's statements. A slight inequality in the incidence of the charge for the Metropolitan Police has arisen owing to the fact that the counties of London and Middlesex are unable to pay from their Exchequer Contribution Accounts the full sum due from them, while the West Ham Borough Council has sufficient funds from the Exchequer Contributions to meet the full charge. The overseers of West Ham, by way of a protest, have deducted a portion of the police rate due from them. The grievance is a very small one, and can only be set right by legislation; and I have strongly advised the West Ham overseers to represent their case to the Departmental Committee which is now considering the whole subject of the incidence of local taxation. No Departmental action has been taken outside the ordinary procedure required by law. I have no power to give any such promise as the hon. Member suggests, and I can only say that I shall be very glad to assist in putting the matter on a more satisfactory footing when Parliament finds time to deal with the important question of local taxation in all its bearings.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the prosecution of Mr. Ebury and Miss O'Brien for taking collections in the streets of Bow and Bromley at meetings held under the auspices of the "Clarion" Van Committee, and that in each case fines were inflicted by the magistrate; whether he is aware that at similar meetings held before and after the alleged offence by the same man in other districts of London collections were taken and no complaint made, and that only during the visit to Bow and Bromley were any proceedings taken, and that in the same road, at the same time as the collections were taken by Mr. Ebury and Miss O'Brien, the Salvation Army took collections and continue to do so without any interference by the police; and whether under the circumstances, he will issue such instructions as will secure that the law shall be administered in such a manner as not to differentiate between political or religious bodies?

My attention has been drawn to this matter. One of the Regulations made under the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1903, prohibits collections in the carriageway, but allows them in the footway if they do not cause obstruction or annoyance. The Commissioner of Police informs me that on three or four successive days Mr. Ebury and Miss O'Brien, in spite of repeated warnings from police on the spot, persisted in breaking this Regulation. After this deliberate breach of the law they were both summoned. Miss O'Brien gave an under- taking not to offend again, and the magistrate discharged her on payment of the costs of her summons, but Mr. Ebury refused to give an undertaking and was fined. The collections referred to of the Salvation Army were, I am informed, made from the footway.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man had taken exactly similar collections right throughout the summer in every other part of London, and in the Poplar parish portion of this particular borough, and proceedings against him were only taken in reference to his action in Bow and Bromley, and that since the summonses he has taken collections regularly in Bethnal Green, Hackney, and every other part of the Metropolis?

I was not aware of the circumstances stated by my hon. Friend, nor do I gather from what my hon. Friend states that in the other cases the collection was made on the carriage way. As I understand, it is legal to make a collection on the footway, but not on the carriage way.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the collections for the last thirty years have been made in the carriage way and on the footway; and that this man, who was fined for making collections in Bow and Bromley, made exactly similar collections in the road and carriage way in Poplar, Bethnal Green, and all the surrounding districts, and that the same collections are being made now both by the Salvation Army and other people?

I can assure my hon. Friend Miss O'Brien and Mr. Ebury were extremely lucky in not having got into trouble before.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last part of my question and tell me by what right the Police Commissioner singles out the "Clarion" Van for prosecution, and does not proceed against other people who to my knowledge do tly the same thing in the same road and at the same time?.

From the information given to me, I understand my hon. Friend does not accept it.

I was there.

The information given to me is that the other case was on the footway, and in this case it was on the carriage way.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow evidence to be put before him as to the statements of those who gave him the information. Nobody objects if the Salvation Army is prosecuted as well as the Socialists of the "Clarion" Van?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why while the Liberals are in office there are so many petty prosecutions?

asked the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that many of the telephone factory hands who are about to be moved from Nottingham to Birmingham are natives of the former town, where they have been employed for many years; that many of them are unable to move to Birmingham for financial reasons; and whether he can see his way to take any and, if so, what steps to mitigate the hardships imposed by this transfer, and to obtain accommodation in Birmingham for those transferred?

I do not know how many of the staff of the Nottingham factory are natives of that town, and I am not aware that many are unable to move to Birmingham for financial reasons. Removal expenses will be borne by the Post Office. Nor is it to be anticipated that any real difficulty will be experienced by the staff obtaining accommodation in Birmingham. I am informed that the transfer, which is essential for administrative reasons, is welcomed by the majority of the persons concerned, who will perform their work at Birmingham in much more comfort than is possible in the existing building at Nottingham.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has taken into consideration the fact that the change in telephone numbers proposed for January next will be a matter of considerable expense to those who have already had their letter-paper stamped in quantities and who will also be subject to the expense of a new die?

The transfer of subscribers to the new Regent Exchange may put some among them to some inconvenience and expense, but the transfer is indispensable if the service is to be efficiently conducted. Three months' notice has been given to the subscribers concerned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman sympathetically consider the question of expense?

If there are any exceptional circumstances.

asked whether the telephone subscribers in Cambuslang are no longer allowed to use the Glasgow area without extra charge; and, if so, whether this new arrangement is intended to be permanent?

New telephone subscribers in Cambuslang are required to subscribe at the current tariff which involves the payment of junction line fees on calls to exchanges in the Glasgow area other than Cambuslang, Shettleston, and Baillieston. This arrangement, which has been in force for the last two years, will come under review in connection with the general revision of rates which I have promised.

asked if the agreement entered into with the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company in 1909 provided for extending the system outside Great Britain upon arbitration terms; and, if so, whether advantage was taken of this provision when arranging terms of the new contract with the company?

The paragraph in the agreement to which the hon. Member refers merely provided that if at any future time the Government desired to use the Marconi patents for purposes of communication with any station outside the United Kingdom the terms should be settled, failing agreement, in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1907. It therefore merely recited, and added nothing to, the powers already existing in the hands of the Government under that Act, which apply to the use of all patents. Advantage could only have been taken of this provision if the Government had decided itself to erect the stations for the Imperial wireless system through one of its own Departments instead of contracting for them. For reasons which I outlined to the House on 7th August this course was not considered advisable.

asked upon what terms the use of the Muirhead system of wireless telegraphy was offered to the Government; whether the Law Officers of the Crown opposed the validity of the Muirhead patents in the Courts; whether such patents, although refused by the Government, have as the result of being upheld in the Courts been purchased by the Marconi Company; and, if so, what were the terms of such purchase?

With regard to the first part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, as the use of the Muirhead system was not offered to the Post Office. In answer to the second part, my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General informs me that there was no question of opposition by the Law Officers to the validity of the patent referred to; but when the patentees applied to the Court for an extension of the statutory term of fourteen years the Solicitor-General appeared on behalf of the Crown. It is usual in all such cases for appearance to be made by or on behalf of the Law Officers in order that, in the public interest, all relevant considerations may be laid before the Court. The action taken in this case was in the ordinary course of procedure. I would add that the Post Office were not concerned. The patent was afterwards acquired by the Marconi Company, but I do not know upon what terms.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at the inquiry into the loss of the ss. "North Briton"; and whether he intends to take any steps to lower the deep-load line to accord with the Regulations which existed before 1906, seeing that the loss of this vessel with twenty lives was, according to the finding of the Court, primarily due to insufficient freeboard?

I am examining the evidence given at the inquiry into the loss of the ss. "North Briton;" and the question whether any action should be taken by the Board of Trade in connection with the case is receiving my careful consideration.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the day the "North Briton" went down, fifteen other ships also disappeared; and does he attribute that to the altering of the load line?

I must ask for notice of that question.

Since the regulation of 1906 placing the mercantile marine of this country on the same terms as the mercantile marine of other countries, has there been any extra loss?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the House the amount of the expenses, from public funds, of the "Titanic" Inquiry; and if he will further itemise such expenses?

The accounts are not yet all settled. As soon as they are, I will circulate with the Votes a statement showing the various items of expenditure.