asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will make inquiries from insurance committees in order to ascertain whether they have allowed any arrangements under Section 15 (3) of the Insurance Act with herbalists and Christian scientists?

No, Sir. I have no doubt that in due course full information will be available as to the administrative action of the insurance committees under the powers given them under Section 15 (3).

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be available?

I may be able to get it in the general Report which I hope to present during the summer.

asked whether the National Insurance Act Amendment Bill will provide a remedy for the grievance of the Scottish Clerks' Association, which joined in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme on the understanding that their method of providing medical benefits and free choice of medical attendant was saved, whereas it has in fact been sacrificed, notwithstanding the fact that Section 15, Sub-section (4), provides for satisfactory recognition?

So far as I am aware there is nothing to prevent the association from working a scheme for additional medical benefit on the private side with free choice of their members for ordinary attendance amongst panel doctors or (where the local insurance committee permits it) amongst non-panel doctors also, of whom in Scotland in most districts there are very few. The Commissioners are advised that the special medical scheme of the association could not legally be approved as a system or institution under Section 15 (4) of the National Insurance Act.

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that promises were made to this association while the Bill was under discussion which have not been fulfilled?

I do not think any promises were made which have not been fulfilled. If the association chooses to adjust itself to the conditions laid down by the Act, they can carry out their scheme.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the inquest held at Henley on 4th February on Mr. Green, who died from cocaine poisoning following upon a dental operation, the drug having been administered by an unqualified person who was severely censured by the jury; to the inquest held on 4th March on Mrs. Petersen, in whose case also cocaine was administered by an unqualified person under similar circumstances; whether he is aware that there are in the United Kingdom 20,000 persons practising as dentists who have not qualified; that any layman can administer chloroform or cocaine, ether, and other anæsthetics; and whether it is proposed that, under the National Insurance Act, arrangements with any unqualified person who may succeed in imposing on any insured person shall be officially recognised?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Brentford on 26th March. I have no information with regard to the specific cases referred to in the first three parts of the question, as they have no connection with the Insurance Act. With regard to the last part, I would point out that dental treatment is not included within medical benefit, and could in no case be given as one of the benefits of the Act except as an additional benefit after the valuations required by Section 36 of the Act.

Does the Treasury willingly co-operate with these unqualified persons who victimise the public? Is there nothing in the Act to prevent it?

I know nothing about unqualified persons victimising the public, nor does this seem to me to be relevant to the National Insurance Act.

asked whether prescriptions for insured persons given by non-panel doctors will be dispensed and treated in the same way as those prescribed by panel doctors?

No, Sir, Section 15 (3) contemplates that when insured persons are allowed to make their own arrangements for medical attendance and treatment they shall also make their own arrangements for the supply of medicines and appliances. It would obviously be unfair to require chemists on the panel, whose remuneration is based on a capitation system and accordingly limited to the sum available, to supply medicines to an unlimited extent on the prescriptions of doctors who have not, like those on the panel, a collective responsibility with regard to the arrangements made for medical benefit in the area.

Is the House to understand that the insured persons, if they go to a chemist not on the panel have to pay the extra cost whatever may be demanded by the chemist, and that they consequently get no recompense under the Insurance Act?

An insured person can make his own arrangements—

Does he get any allowance if he goes to drug stores not on the panel?

The only one who gets the payment is the chemist on the panel.

Then, if he is not satisfied with the chemist on the panel and goes elsewhere he must pay the full price and gets no allowance although he is insured under the Act?

Insured persons have a choice of ninety-nine out of a hundred chemists and should experience no difficulty in getting satisfied.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Leeds? [Mr. O'Grady, National Insurance Act,—Return showing, as at the 10th day of April, 1913, for each county and county borough in England, in respect of the National Insurance Act, 1911:—(1) The number of insured persons in each area; (2) The number of such who are deposit contributors; (3) The number of insured persons in each approved society in each area, with the name of the society.]

As I have informed my hon. Friend the Member for East Leeds, the information as to the number of insured persons in each approved society in each area, as shown by a count of the index slips in the hands of the committees about 10th April, is now being obtained, and will be published in connection with the appointments to the New Committees, and doubtless this will serve his purpose as well as a formal Return.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the information given by the various societies only concerns the members belonging to the societies, and do not include the information asked for in the Return? Cannot he give us that?

If I have any information that my officials can get out without undue trouble I shall be glad to supply it.

asked whether a journalist, who is also a Law Courts shorthand writer, a reporter of sermons on Sundays, and who gives private tuition in shorthand, is compulsorily insurable because he also acts, at a remuneration of £60 per annum, for two hours a day as a shorthand writer to a firm of engineers, and at what rate per annum the Insurance Commissioners calculate the equivalent of £60 a year for two hours a day; whether a shorthand writer is for the purpose of the Act deemed to be a manual labourer; and, if such a person is compulsorily insurable, why the Commissioners object to so stating in writing?

The person referred to in the question would not be compulsorily insurable in respect of his employment by the firm of engineers since employment as a shorthand writer is not employment by way of manual labour within the meaning of the National Insurance Act, and a payment of £60 a year for two hours work per day would be regarded as equivalent to a rate of remuneration exceeding £160 a year for whole-time service. The exact duration of work which would be held to constitute whole-time service must be determined in any case of doubt by reference to the custom in the particular trade and locality.

What number of hours constitutes a day's work for a shorthand writer?

I have said the exact duration must be determined by reference to custom in the calling.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that questions put to the Commissioners in these matters are answered in writing?

I do not quite gather what the hon. Member means.

asked whether Rose Cox, an insured person recommended for institutional treatment in a sanatorium on the 29th March last, has yet been given such treatment by the Hertfordshire insurance committee; and how many similar cases are on the waiting list of that committee?

A formal application for sanatorium benefit was received from the insured person referred to on 4th April, and she received domiciliary treatment on the same day. She was subsequently, after examination by the county tuberculosis officer, recommended for institutional treatment; and arrangements have been made for her to enter the Mount Vernon Hospital. The number of insured persons on the waiting list in this area is fifteen, but several of these have only recently been reported to this committee, who are now negotiating for additional accommodation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the arrangements made for treating her in Mount Vernon Hospital were made since this question appeared on the Paper?

I cannot say that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the public that there would be a first-class hotel in the country waiting for every person who wanted sanatorium treatment?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the country that every person would receive sanatorium treatment who was in need of that treatment. So far as I know, every person who is in need of sanatorium treatment is receiving it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to imply that my question is incorrect?

I am very reluctant to say so. If the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour to go with me to the school at Carshalton, where over 200 persons have been received for treatment from the London Insurance Committee, he will see that the first-class hotel is a mild way of describing these benefits.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether Scottish Parliamentary burghs with a population of less than 20,000 have no direct representation on county insurance committees; and whether, in view of the financial burden which may be placed on ratepayers of these burghs for medical and sanatorium benefit, he will instruct the Insurance Commissioners to arrange that representatives from these burghs should be members of the county insurance committees in order to voice the interests of the burghs in all questions affecting medical and sanatorium benefit?

The Commissioners have no power to vary the provisions of Section 59 of the National Insurance Act with regard to the constitution of insurance committees in the manner suggested in the question. The Scottish burghs with a population of less than 20,000 are represented in the county councils, which appoint, one-fifth of the members of the insurance committees, and their representatives thus have a voice in the appointment of representatives to these committees. The insur- ance committees have no power to render the rates liable for any expenditure except with the express agreement of the local authorities; and Section 22 (1) of the Act provides that a burgh by itself undertaking any excess expenditure properly attributable to the burgh may protect itself against bearing an undue proportion of the sums payable by the county council.

Cannot a direct representative be appointed by the Insurance Commissioners under Section 59, Sub-section (3), so as to give the burghs direct representation on the county insurance committees?

Then there would not be direct representation of the burghs. The Insurance Commissioners can appoint any men who they think are suitable for the work of the insurance committees. I certainly could not make any promise that the insurance committees would limit themselves to representatives of the burghs.

Could not the Insurance Commissioners ask the burgh councils to nominate members?

I should be very sorry, when there is no restriction of that sort in the Act, by Regulation to make a restriction which was not contemplated when the Act was passed.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen a circular issued and signed by the chairman of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne medical committee, which states that only one free certificate will be given to sick insured persons and that 1s. will be charged for each additional certificate; and, if so, what action, if any, he intends to take in the matter?

I am informed by the insurance committee that the charge of 1s. referred to certificates required for purposes other than for claiming sickness benefit under the Act; but as the circular, issued by the local medical committee in January last, gave rise to misunderstanding, the insurance committee took the matter up, with the result that wherever any charge had been made for certificates required for the purposes of the Act the money has been refunded to the insured persons.

asked if any persons other than duly qualified medical practitioners have been placed or are still on panel lists in connection with the administration of medical benefit under the National Insurance Act?

As I informed the hon. Member last Tuesday, duly qualified medical practitioners alone have the right to be included in a panel list, and, so far as I am aware, no other persons have been placed or are still on any panel list.

asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the question of extension of medical benefit to Ireland is a question involving legislation, and consequently incapable of being raised on the Temporary Commissions Vote or any other Civil Service Vote, he will say what other opportunity does he propose to give for the discussion of the subject?

While the actual question of the extension of medical benefit to Ireland cannot be raised as a Vote in Supply, the constitution and methods of procedure of the Treasury Committee can be discussed on the Temporary Commissions Vote. If a Bill is introduced to extend medical benefit to Ireland, the subject can, of course, be discussed then.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will see that there will be an occasion when the subject can be discussed?

As the hon. Member is aware, the Committee has not yet reported. Certainly, we will give an occasion for discussion

asked whether any Post Office contributors in the county of London have lost their right to medical and sanatorium benefit by reason of not having a sufficient amount to the credit of their account; and whether the Government proposes to deal with such cases in their Bill to amend the National Insurance Act?

The contingency referred to in the first part of the question has arisen in a certain number of cases. The persons so suspended were those whose accounts, on examination of the second quarter's cards, did not show them to have had sufficient to their credit at the beginning of the year to entitle them to benefit under Section 42 of the Act. The question whether any amending legislation is possible or desirable is receiving consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give this case sympathetic consideration, as it gives rise in many cases to serious hardship?

I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I shall be glad to consult with him if he has any suggestions to make on the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any knowledge of the circumstances under which the books for the unemployed section of the National Insurance Act have been held up by the Caledonian Railway Company in the western division of their system; if he will ascertain why the books were refused by the company nine months ago; and if arrangements can be made to bring the men into immediate benefit?

Some complaints have been received to the effect that the company referred to have not paid contributions in respect of certain classes of their workmen stated to be following insured trades, and the question of their liability to pay contributions in respect of these workmen is, at present, under consideration by the Umpire. Action in accordance with the Umpire's decision will be taken as soon as that decision is given, which I understand will probably be within a few days.

Will it be made retrospective?

I cannot say.

asked whether persons engaged in making wood mantels in the provinces, which are classified by the railway companies as furniture and not as joinery, are compelled to be insured under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, seeing that these wood mantels are made by cabinetmakers in cabinet shops and are not of the kind commonly made in builders' workshops or yards?

The decision of the question referred to by the hon. Member rests, not with me, but with the Umpire, who has decided that contributions are payable in respect of workmen engaged in the work of making chimney-pieces in wood. I do not see that the classification adopted by the railway companies for purposes of their charges has any bearing on the question.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of making regulations as to classifying these men?

The whole problem of regulations to prevent "in-and-out" cases will be considered very carefully, but at present it is too soon to go on with it.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the final notices for payment of assessments under Schedule A were sent out by the collector of Customs and Excise in Greenock on 11th February of this year; that these notices gave seven days wherein to pay, after which costs would be added; will he say who was responsible for this, whether the official in Greenock or the sub-collector in the Cowal district; and will he see that in future these districts are not allowed to threaten costs before the taxpayers in London and elsewhere are threatened in the same way?

I am informed that the issue of final notices in the Greenock collection commenced on the date mentioned by my hon. Friend, but that it was not earlier than is prescribed by the general regulations, which are substantially the same throughout England and Scotland. As I explained on the 21st ultimo, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, owing to the size and nature of the Income Tax collections it is not practicable to fix a uniform date for the issue of final notices. In view of the fact that the duty is by law payable on or before the 1st January, and that at the time when the final demand notes were issued the taxpayers in the case quoted had already been allowed six weeks' grace, I do not consider that they have any reasonable grounds of complaint.

Are the English notices sent out at the same time as the Scotch?

I am not so sure about that.

Was not this grievance raised six years ago and redress then promised?

I can hardly imagine Scotland having a grievance with regard to taxation for six years and not getting it redressed.

asked the total number of hereditaments which had been finally valued up to 31st March, 1913; and what was the aggregate total value and assessable site value of the hereditaments so valued?

The number of hereditaments in Great Britain in regard to which provisional valuations had become final up to 31st March, 1913, cannot be exactly stated; but it is certainly not less than three and a half millions. The number in regard to which valuations had been served is 4,482,279, and involved an aggregate total value of £1,561,286,431. I fear the figures as to the aggregate assessable site value at the present time are not readily available.

Why are they not available? They are all registered at Somerset House; it is only a question of adding them up?

They are not available without some work being done, and that would mean taking the staff off other work which is more pressing.

asked what is the total number of notices of appeal against determinations of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue which had been given, pursuant to Section 33 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, prior to the 29th April, 1913; how many of such appeals have been disposed of; and how many are still pending?

The total number of separate notices of appeal received in Great Britain prior to the date named was 8,348, of which 2,548 are disposed of and 5,800 are outstanding. It is anticipated that the great bulk will be settled without recourse to a Referee.

Is it not the case the right hon. Gentleman was not quite so accurate as usual when he informed the Committee of Ways and Means that there were only 236 cases in which notice of appeal had been given?

That was exactly true at the date I quoted. There were 236 cases, of which only twenty-three had gone to the Referee.

But not at the precise date I asked the question.

May I, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has accused me of mendacity, just explain what occurred? I gave very definitely what appeals had been either laid before the Referee or were in a position to be laid on the final valuation which had been made. I stated in regard to the provisional valuation that some appeals were outstanding, and those are the figures I have now given the hon. Member.

I had not the least wish to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of mendacity when I asked him if he had been not quite so accurate as usual when he told the Committee of Ways and Means on 29th April that only in 236 cases had notice of appeal been given.

The hon. Member takes the sentence from its context. I was referring to the final valuation, and to the number of notices of appeal against that I gave the actual figures.

asked what was the number of valuations under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, which, up to 31st March, 1913, had resulted in the assessable site value being valued at a minus quantity; what was the largest minus quantity so arrived at by that date; how many valuations resulted in the assessable site value being valued as nil; and whether, since proceedings were commenced to question the validity of minus valuations, any provisional valuations have been issued assessing minus values, or how otherwise cases of minus values have been dealt with?

Since the Scottish Court decided against the validity of provisional valuations involving minus quantities, the service of such valuations has been stopped pending the result of the appeal to the House of Lords. That appeal was on Friday last unanimously decided in favour of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The figures remain as stated in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. and learned Member on the 14th May, 1912. I regret that the infor- mation with reference to nil values is not immediately available, and could only be obtained by a considerable expenditure of time and labour.

How is it the right hon. Gentleman can give the figures as regards minus valuations and not as regards the others?

I do not think I have ever given the exact number of minus valuation arrived at. It is only an approximate estimate.

asked what law costs have been paid out of public funds in connection with the "Hawke" and "Olympic" case; how much to each of the Law Officers; what interests the several recipients of this public money represented; and by what disinterested authority this expenditure was held to be necessary?

The total law costs to date are £9,648 15s. 4d., of which the Attorney-General received £1,645 18s. Od. The Solicitor-General was not briefed. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the "Hawke" was a cruiser belonging to His Majesty's Navy and the Attorney-General represented the Admiralty and the commanding officer of His Majesty's ship.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he will specify the peerage cases in which the Law Officers have been paid out of public funds fees in addition to salary during the last two completed financial years, the amount paid to each of the Law Officers in each of the cases, how the public were supposed to be concerned in the cases to the extent of paying; and whether the Controller and Auditor-General has called special attention to any of these payments?

I will circulate a statement with regard to the first part of the question. The Crown is always represented by the Attorney-General in peerage cases, because it is concerned in the correctness of the decision arrived at with regard to the claims made. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.—[See Written Answers this date.]

Are the claimants required to pay any of the costs?

So far as I remember, the claimants make their own representations. So far as the Attorney-General is concerned, he is acting for the Crown in the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman quite clear that no part of the costs is recovered in the case of a Parliamentary petition?

In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, that of an election petition, the Crown claim the expenses to which they are put.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether clerks promoted on the ground of special merit from the rank of assistant clerk to the second division prior to December, 1908, are in receipt of a salary lower than that payable to them had they not been selected for promotion; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Certain advances in salary were given to assistant clerks serving as such on the 1st April, 1909, or subsequently appointed; but, as was made clear at the time, these increases were not given to officers who had left the class in question before that date. They have in any case by promotion to the second division obtained greatly increased prospects and a scale of pay rising to a maximum of £300 instead of to £150.

asked what is the balance standing to the credit of the Road Board; and what is the amount invested in their names?

The sum standing to the credit of the Road Improvement Fund in the Bank of England on the 30th April, 1913, was £120,283 19s. 3d. The investments held by the Road Board on the same date amounted (at cost) to £2,481,542 18s. 10d.

When is London, which contributed such a large sum towards this Fund—

That does not arise out of this question in the least.

asked when the accounts of the Road Board for the last financial year will be published?

The accounts of the Road Board for the financial year ended 31st March, 1913, will, it is expected, be published in August next.

Is there no chance of getting the accounts before we have a debate upon the matter?

I understand that this week they are being sent for audit by the Exchequer and Audit Department. If I can hasten it in any way I shall be glad to do so.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it important, if we are to have a discussion, that we should have the figures for last year?

They are now under audit. In so far as I can hasten them I think it is a perfectly reasonable request, and I shall do so.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to arm the vessels of the White Star Line or any other vessels controlled or owned by the International Mercantile Marine Company, or controlled or owned by any other foreign corporation or individual?

My right hon. Friend has no further information to give at present on this subject.

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the questions which have already arisen as to the ownership of vessels in many shipping companies now sailing under the British flag and other difficulties that may arise with regard to the proposal for arming merchant vessels, he can see his way to give the House an early opportunity for considering this matter before further steps are taken, apart from the usual discussions in Committee of Supply?

The position of the Government in this matter was explained by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech on 26th March, and the question could have been debated then or on any of the other days which have been given to Naval Estimates. I cannot give any further opportunity at present.

Is it the function of the Government to conduct a policy of this kind without the leave of the House of Commons?

The House had on the Estimates, and will have, ample opportunity of expressing its opinions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we can get no details from the Admiralty, and the country is taking great interest in the matter?

asked how many ships in the merchant service the Admiralty have arranged to fit with armament up to the present; what conditions are laid down before guns will be supplied; what is the estimated cost of the armament of each ship; whether in every case members of the vessel's crew have been instructed in the use of the guns beforehand; who is responsible for the fighting; and what general instructions have been given to him?

My right hon. Friend does not desire at the present time to add to the full statement he gave to the House on this subject when presenting the Navy Estimates. It is sufficient to say that good progress is being made and the various difficulties which readily occur to any student of this subject and have long engaged the attention of the Admiralty, are being successfully surmounted.

When will the House get sonic such particulars as I ask for in the question, having regard to the fact that really no details have been given to us in the original First Lord's statement?

Obviously I cannot add to the explanation of the First Lord.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the approaching summer and the answer which he gave on the 5th of November last to the effect that the question of the construction of a swimming bath for the use of cadets at Osborne College was then receiving the attention of the Admiralty, he can now state what steps have been taken to provide the cadets with a swimming bath or the means of learning how to swim?

As stated by my right hon. Friend the Civil Lord on 16th April, money has been taken in the Estimates for the provision of a swimming bath, but the work has to be considered in connection with other questions concerning the whole of the college buildings.

Is not this one of the most essential things in a college of this sort, and has it not long been felt to be a need that ought to be supplied?

Money is taken in the 1913–14 Estimates for it. The Custance Committee went into various questions with respect to this establishment, and no doubt that delayed our operations for some time.

Is it not a fact that owing to these delays these boys training for the Navy are not receiving facilities they would get in any first-class school throughout the country?

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, on Tuesday, the 22nd, and on Sunday, the 27th instant, on the occasion of certain ceremonies in connection with the Roman Catholic congress at Malta, the leave of petty officers and men of the Fleet was stopped between certain hours; and whether an order of this kind, preventing men from attending their usual places of worship on Sunday, is necessary and received his sanction?

I am not aware what the local orders on this subject were, but, assuming the facts to be as stated, I can well imagine that the large crowds which the congress brought about made it necessary to alter the leave routine in some particulars. In any case this was a matter for the judgment of the local naval authorities, who were acting in complete accord with the military authorities.

Will the Admiralty make representations to the local naval authorities not to prevent young men who desire to go to church from doing so?

Will the men who were deprived of their leave get additional leave to make up for it?

That is a very fair thing to consider.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make any statement to the House with regard to the unrest in His Majesty's dockyards?

Since early in March a number of workmen have refused to work overtime until a reply be given to their request for an advance in wages. They claim this on the several grounds of recent increases in certain trades in the outside yards, the increased cost of living, and the heavy charges for rental in the, dockyard towns. The Admiralty undertake to make an annual survey of wages and conditions, and issue annually, where necessary, a statement of revision. The last such statement was issued on 22nd July, 1912. Since that time new petitions have been received, and I have visited each yard with a view to personal investigation of the requests put forward. That work was completed last week. The decisions of the Board will be issued, I hope, in a very short time.

Are we to understand that no answer will be returned to the men until an answer is given to the petition?

I hope the reply will be issued in a very short time.

Is there any truth in the rumour in the yards that a circular has been received from the Admiralty pointing out that owing to their having made certain complaints at the Admiralty their pensions will be in danger?

No such circular has been sent from the Admiralty.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received an application from the men that they shall be allowed to see the Treasury before the decisions have been given. Will that be duly considered?

I have not received it. The whole matter is now under consideration. I hope the reply will be issued in a very short time.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that at meetings in the dockyard resolutions have been passed to the effect that the men desire to put their case before the Treasury?

I cannot have in my head all the terms of the resolutions which have been passed. It may be so, but it has not reached me in that form.

Is it too late now? Providing such an application comes before the Board will it be entertained?

I cannot give an answer upon that. The direct employers of the men are the Admiralty.

The hon. Member ought to give notice of further questions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Return as to Royal Commissions, in continuation of and in the same form as Parliamentaary Paper, No. 315, of Session 1904, promised on 15th July, 1912, is now ready, and when it is likely to be issued?

It is hoped that the Return will be ready for press in about a fortnight's time.

asked why an Englishman living in the island of Guernsey has to register himself as an alien or étranger?

An Ordinance relating to the Poor Law, passed by the Royal Court of Guernsey in 1897 and approved by the states of that island, requires all labourers, workmen and domestics, other than natives of Guernsey, who were then in the island or subsequently came there to earn their living, to register themselves. The object, I am informed, is to have particulars recorded in case they should become chargeable to the Poor Law. "Etranger" in the Ordinance does not mean "alien," but "one who is not a native of Guernsey." This is clearly shown by the fact that stricter provisions apply to an "étranger" "who is not a subject of His Majesty."

asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement as to the reason why the police have raided the offices of a women's political organisation in London?

The police acted in pursuance of the warrants of a magistrate issued for reasons which will sufficiently appear in the course of the proceedings taken in the case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House by whose authority counsel for the Crown, in proceeding in a London magistrate's Court, has threatened any printer or publisher of future issues of a political journal, known as the "Suffragette," with criminal proceedings, irrespective of the contents of such issues; and whether such threat was made with his approval or represents any policy of the Home Department?

I do not think my hon. Friend can have seen a full report of what Mr. Bodkin said. His warning had reference solely to the consequences which might fall upon any printer or publisher who continued to print or publish matter which incited to the commission of crime.

Did Mr. Bodkin not suggest that anyone who printed a paper called the "Suffragette," whatever it contained, would be liable to prosecution?

No, Sir.

Why was it not sufficient ground for letting off the printer of the particular copy which was printed with the front page marked "Raided," that it had nothing whatever in it of a dangerous character?

I understand that is my hon. Friend's view of that particular copy. I am not aware that he has studied the copy with any care. If he had done so, he would have found there was certainly matter in it which ought not to have been printed.

That was ruled by the Court to be irrelevant.

May I ask whether the police warning extended to the wholesale newsagents?

Yes, any newspaper, whatever its name, that publishes incitements to crime, is liable to prosecution. It does not matter what the paper is, or who sells or prints it. Any person who is concerned in the publication of a paper which advocates crime is liable to prosecution.

Is there any precedent for preventing a newspaper from being printed in this country before the contents are known?

May I ask whether there is any precedent for saying that a newspaper shall not appear, and whether up till now it has not been the practice to prosecute a newspaper which publishes incendiary matter, but not to say that the paper shall not appears, whatever the contents?

My hon. Friend is not stating the circumstances accurately. It is impossible in answer to questions to explain what are the true legal aspects of the case. They will be fully opened up on the prosecution itself.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are now six or seven periodicals advocating or opposing Women Suffrage; and whether, in the interests of peaceful society, they will all be suppressed alike?

I am not aware that advocacy of female suffrage or opposition to it affords any ground for taking proceedings against a periodical.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that some emotional female might be incited to violence by reading the "Anti-Suffrage Review."

I cannot say.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of a Mr. Bodkin, made in the course of a Crown prosecution on Wednesday last, in which he laid it down, speaking as the mouthpiece apparently of the Director of Public Prosecutions, that in future people who printed a newspaper entitled the "Suffragette," people who subscribed to the funds of a political organisation called the W.S.P.U., and the people who made generally inflammatory speeches would be prosecuted; whether these statements have the sanction of His Majesty's Government; whether the Director of Public Prosecutions or Mr. Bodkin had any instructions to make a statement of this character; and, if so, will he lay these instructions upon the Table for inspection and publication?

My hon. Friend is inaccurate in his reference to Mr. Bodkin's remarks. What Mr. Bodkin said was that persons who published or printed a news- paper which incited to crime, persons who made speeches inciting to crime, and persons who subscribed to the funds of a society for the promotion of crime would be prosecuted. Mr. Bodkin said this on verbal instructions from the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the giving of a serious warning as to the consequences of criminal acts and incitements has my full sanction.

asked the Prime Minister whether, before the House adjourns for the Whitsuntide recess, he will place upon the Order Paper a Resolution proposing a comprehensive time table, under which the Government of Ireland Bill, the Established Church (Wales) Bill, and the Temperance (Scotland) Bill may be passed through all their stages with the least possible delay and the least possible waste of the time of the House?

The Government will state their views as to the future course of these measures when the Irish Bill comes on for Second Reading after the recess.

Is it intended to have a new stage in the course of the discussion of these Bills, namely, for making suggestions to be laid before another place?

I cannot make any suggestion until the Second Reading of the Irish Bill.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has taken notice of the recent decision of the University of Oxford to continue to exclude those not in holy orders from examining for, and obtaining, degrees in divinity; and, having regard to this being only one in a series of futile attempts to bring the University of Oxford into line with modern ideas, whether he will now advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to report on the changes desirable in our ancient universities?

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the achievement of Convocation of the University of Oxford in the matter of theological degrees; whether he has considered whether the time has arrived when Oxford should be allowed a constitution whereby it might be governed in national rather than denominational interests by persons of less specialised tastes than non-resident Masters of Arts; and whether he will advise His Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to consider the best method of attaining this end?

asked the Prime Minister whether, as the University of Oxford has determined to continue the interposition of religious tests as to examiners in its divinity schools and graduates in divinity degrees, thus excluding the ministers and laity of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland, he Will consider the expediency of submitting the question of religious tests to a Royal Commission whereon the Presbyterians shall be represented?

Speaking for myself, I greatly deplore the recent decision of the Convocation of the University of Oxford. I have for a long time had under consideration the various proposals for the appointment of a Royal Commission or Commissions to inquire into the constitution of, and other matters connected with, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that in existing circumstances the setting up of such an inquiry might lead to delay in the prosecution of necessary reforms and is not likely to be productive of fruitful consequences.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I hold in my hand a book written four years ago by the Chancellor of the University advocating this and other reforms and that not one of these reforms is yet brought about? Does he think we must have at least four more years before anything can be done?

I have read the book. It is not quite accurate to say nothing has been done. A Financial Board has been appointed for whose enquiries and operations I personally anticipate good will result. I cannot add to what I have already said.

Will the coming Education Bill take in not only the abolition of tests for teachers—

The hon. Member is getting a long way from the subject.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that in Standing Committee A on Thursday last, on the Motion of the hon. Member in charge of the measure, the Bill for the better housing of the working classes was withdrawn from consideration; and if, in view of this loss of a measure which passed Second Reading by a majority of 150, he intends to make Government proposals to the House to deal with the admitted evils with which the Bill in question was concerned?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Standing Committee A has unanimously decided that the Government's refusal to provide any Grant in aid of housing reform renders it futile to proceed further with the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, he intends to bring forward any proposals of any sort this Session for the better housing of the working classes?

This question has for some time past been receiving close attention, but it is impossible for the Government to introduce proposals in the present Session.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that housing reform is very much more needed than Home Rule or Welsh Disestablishment?