asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since Tibet is now practically independent of China, the conditions of the Anglo-Russian Convention in regard to Chinese suzerainty, subsequently claimed as sovereignty, will now be reconsidered so as to give British-Indian commercial and other interests opportunity and scope for development without the necessity for the concurrence of any Chinese administration at Peking, whether or not recognised by Great Britain?

As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a conference will shortly meet in India for the purpose of negotiating a settlement of the entire Tibetan question and of endeavouring to conclude a Convention on the subject between Great Britain, Tibet, and China. Until the results of this conference are known it would obviously be premature to come to any decision upon the points raised in the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can say what are the foreign countries which do not give us the full benefit of the MostFavoured-Nation Clause?

Apart from the special Customs treatment sometimes accorded to products of adjacent countries and the preferential arrangements in force between the United States and Cuba, all foreign countries give United Kingdom products complete most-favoured-nation treatment except Portugal, Brazil and Haiti, each of which gives special reductions of duty on a limited number of articles to certain countries, not including the United Kingdom.

Do not foreign Governments get out of allowing us the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause by various devices? Does not Russia put a heavier duty on seaborne coal than on that imported by land, and do not other nations get out of it by the minute subdivision of industries?

If the hon. Member has any information we shall be glad to have it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is the opinion expressed by the Foreign Secretary?

I am not aware.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether on 6th June Lord Gladstone brought into operation the Transvaal Law 6 of 1894; and, if so, what were the circumstances at that date justifying this departure from the ordinary law?

By a notice in the "Government Gazette" of 6th June, the resident magistrates of Boksburg, Germiston and Krugersdorp, were appointed to be for their respective districts the "local authority" under Section 5 of Law 6 of 1894, whose consent is required for public meetings. This notice does not, like that of 20th June, quoted by Lord Gladstone at page. 5 of Cd. 6942, actually prohibit any particular meeting, but I presume that the responsible Government of the country considered it necessary that the local magistrate should have this power in reserve.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the resident magistrate refused to put it into actual operation in consequence of there being no trouble there?

asked what notice was given that the meeting of miners called in Johannesburg market for 4th July had been prohibited; when the decision to prohibit the meeting was come to; and whether men attending the meeting were not aware it was prohibited until they arrived on the spot?

I have no official information beyond what has been published in the Blue Book.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the. date on which a handbill was issued calling upon the miners who were on strike on the Rand to come to a meeting fully armed to meet force by force; whether it applied to the meeting arranged to take place at Benoni on 28th June; whether it was issued after that meeting had been proclaimed; whether any similar handbill was issued for the Johannesburg meeting of 4th July; and, if not, will he contradict the statement that it was in consequence of this handbill that troops were employed to disperse the meeting?

I have no later information than what is given in Lord Gladstone's telegram published at page 17 of Cd. 6941 and the Statement at page 5 of Cd. 6942. All these questions will, I presume, be investigated by the recently appointed Judicial Commission.

As this handbill was issued before the meeting on 28th June, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition justified the use of the troops of 4th July on the assumption that this handbill had been issued for that meeting, will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that that misapprehension is removed?

I do not think I laboured under any misapprehension, as in my speech on the Colonial Office Vote I said that the handbill, whatever its date, was an indication of the circumstances with which the local Government had to deal.

asked whether Mr. De Loessa, now the Rhodesian manager of the Liebig Company, was formerly one of the native Commissioners appointed by the Chartered Company; whether an inquiry was held into his conduct towards the natives by Judge Vincent; whether a Report of that inquiry was forwarded to the Colonial Office, and, if so, will this Report be circulated; whether the investigation by Judge Vincent of the conduct of Mr. De Loessa towards the natives took place before or after the grant of 1,200,000 acres of land in Rhodesia to the Liebig Company at the price of I s. per acre; did the Administrator consult his executive in accordance with the 1898 Order in Council before the making of this grant of land, and, if not, why was this not done; was a copy of the Minutes of the decision of the Executive sent to the Secretary of State as prescribed; and what reason, if any, having regard to his previous conduct, has the Colonial Office for believing that the eon-(Wet of Mr. De Loessa towards the natives will be just and humane?

I am not aware of the name of the Liebig Company's manager. An inquiry was held by Mr. Justice Vincent in 1907, into the conduct of a native Commissioner named H. de Laessa. This officer was suspended by the High Commissioner, who held that Mr. De Laessa's views on native administration made it impossible to continue him in his office, though there was nothing against his personal character, and the suspension was confirmed by the Secretary of State. I do not propose, at this distance of time, to circulate the Report of Mr. Justice Vincent. The sale of the land did not come before me in the Minutes of the Executive Council, which are furnished to me regularly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Mr. De Loessa, who is now managing director of this company and has great control over the natives, was expelled from his office as High Commissioner on account of his ill-treatment of the natives?

I do not know more than I have informed the hon. Member.

Will the right hon. Gentleman try and get some information about this?

asked whether the Secretary for the Colonies has received any report concerning the investigation of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine into the prevalence and spread of contagious disease in the island of Jamaica?

My hon. Friend no doubt refers to the investigation of "vomiting sickness." I have not yet received a report upon it, but I expect to do so soon.

asked the Secretary for the Colonies whether he will call for a report from the Governor of Jamaica on the system of medical service on the island, with a view to its reorganisation in order to meet the pressing needs of the population?

The information at my disposal indicates that the medical service of Jamaica is as good as financial exigencies permit, and that every attention is being paid to its improvement. In these circumstances I should not feel justified in calling for a detailed report, but I will invite the Governor to say whether he considers that there are any serious grounds for dissatisfaction with the present system.

asked what. is the number of hospital beds in the Island of Jamaica; how many are proportioned to indentured coolies; to how many estates these coolies are attached; and what is the proportion of hospital beds to the total population?

The total provision of hospital beds in the Colony, so far as can be ascertained, amounts to 1,504, of which 207 are in the coolie wards of the various hospitals; the total population of the island, according to the Census taken in 1911, is 831,383 persons; there are about seventy estates employing indentured labourers.

Are the natives not now excluded from the hospital? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible to so increase the hospital accommodation and improve the treatment of the natives that their efficiency as workers would be increased and they would, eventually, be fitted to take the place and do the work of indentured coolies to a greater extent than they at present do?

I cannot answer that in detail, but I should hardly think, as there are 207 beds in the coolie wards as against 1,504 for the whole of the Island of Jamaica, that the assumption is justified.

asked the Secretary for the Colonies whether he will take steps to provide that increased facilities are given to ordinary medical practitioners in the Island of Jamaica for visiting the hospitals and for rendering such service as wil enable them more effectively to cope with the increasing mass of contagious and other diseases?

I will ask the Governor to consider whether increased facilities are required.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House before it rises for the Recess any information regarding the disposal of the stocks of opium imported into China by British and British-Indian merchants, which remain unsold owing to the refusal or omission of the Chinese authorities to carry out their engagements with the British and British-Indian Administrations; whether there is any reason to suppose that his expectation of the speedy absorption of such stocks will be realised; whether he will explain how such expectation can be justified, in view of the extensive cultivations reported in the last official Reports from the opium-growing provinces; whether sufficient evidence is now on record to show that Chinese provinces have been prematurely closed to Indian opium, for which native Chinese opium is substituted; what guarantee His Majesty's Government and the Government of India have that this is not the real policy of the Chinese Government, and that the sacrifice of Indian revenue is not being made in vain; and what representations, if any, have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Chinese Government, in order -to make it clear that the shooting, burning, and looting of opium-cultivators and their homes must not be regarded as such an enforcement of a joint policy as public opinion in Britain can approve?

The opium in question is passing steadily into provinces which have not yet been closed to the import of opium, and there seems reason to expect that the whole will ultimately be absorbed, though within what period may be uncertain. There is still an effective demand in China for Indian opium, as there was when the cultivation of poppy in that country was more extensive than at present. In two or three of the provinces closed to Indian opium under the agreement there has been some recrudescence of poppy growing, but on a diminished scale. His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the Chinese Government are not in earnest in their endeavours to suppress poppy cultivation. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's question, I may refer him to the reply given in this House on the 15th July.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has, and will communicate to the House, statistics showing to what extent the abolition of licensed houses, since the passing of the Finance Act of 1910, has been followed by a corresponding increase in the number -if clubs; what increase has occurred in respect of clubs since the passing of that Act; and how it compares with the increase in this behalf of the preceding five years?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The hon. Member will find full information as to the rate of decrease in the number of licensed houses and increase in the number of registered clubs for each of the years 1903 to 1912 if he will refer to pages 3 and 4 of the Introduction to the Licensing Statistics for 1912 and the diagrams mentioned therein. These statistics will be presented to the House before it rises.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the view approved in various ways from different quarters that noneducational ecclesiastical endowments with trusts of an obsolete nature should be diverted to educational and unsectarian purposes, and especially whether he has examined the provisions and effect of the Oxford University (St. Edmund Hall and Gatcombe Rectory) Act passed this Session, and the. Hulme Trust Estates Charity Dill now down for Second Reading; and whether, bearing in mind the difficulty and expense of passing separate Bills, private or public, to attain the ends now so generally approved, he will next Session, either in connection with a comprehensive Education Bill or otherwise, initiate legislation to facilitate the transfer of antiquated religious trusts, of whatever denomination, to educational purposes?

The provisions of the Bills to which the hon. Member refers have been considered by my Department. I have, however, no authority to deal with non-educational ecclesiastical endowments, and I see no prospect of giving effect to the suggestion of the lion. Member by general legislation.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman try to get powers to deal with these endowments and so increase the sphere of his influence and the funds at his disposal?

I do not see much prospect of that,

asked if the rector of Llansannor has had to pay the salaries of the teachers at the Llansannor Church school out of his own pocket; and how long the Board is going to tolerate the action of the local education authority in refusing to pay these salaries when they are due?

Since I replied to a question in regard to this school on 31st July, the Board's architect has inspected the premises, and I gather from his Report that the managers have not completed the repairs which, in their letter of 4th December, 1912, they undertook to carry out before 9th March last as a condition of the continued recognition of the school. Although it appears to me that I have now no alternative but to strike the school off the Annual Grant List, I have sent a copy of the architect's Report to the managers and await their reply before taking further action. With regard to the salaries of the teachers, I understand that the payment of salaries has been withheld on account of an allegation of the local' education authority that the managers have failed to carry out their directions as to the appointment of a head teacher. I have asked the managers for their observations with regard to this allegation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that the objections to this school was only discovered at this very late date? Why not before

Their attention has been repeatedly directed to the matter by the Board since the 14th May.

Have there beea no communications on the subject?

I believe the communications have been with reference to an understanding they committed themselves to in December last.

asked the President of the Board of Education if the present head teacher of Towyn Church school, having paid superannuation money for years, is allowed to continue his annual contributions while that school remains unrecognised by the Board; and if he will be entitled to the same superannuation benefit as he would if the school had been kept on the Grant list?

The answer to both questions is in the negative. The Towyn Church school is not recognised as a public elementary school, and service in that school is not "recorded service" for the purposes of the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898. Consequently no contributions to the Deferred Annuity Fund are payable in respect of such service.

Is it the view of the Board that not only the parents, who prefer this school to the county council school, but also the teachers are to be penalised in order to gratify the feelings of the local authority?

The school is not a recognised school, and, therefore, does not come within the purview of the Superannuation Act.

Are there not sixty children on the roll, and is the school to be allowed to go down rapidly owing to the action of the local authority, seeing that since the managers have had it in their hands, at least sixty children have been in average attendance?

I think the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman do not really stand investigation. They have fluctuated and, at the present time, I do not think that there are sixty in attendance, and a -very large proportion of the children are under the age of five.

asked the President of the Board of Education if in Toltington the Roman Catholic sisters of charity have conducted a school for six years, giving continuation classes which follow a curriculum recognised by the Board, and that 93 per cent. of the pupils -have passed the examinations of the Lan-cashire and Cheshire Institutes, and have received no Grant from the Board; and the distance to the nearest council continuation school?

The evening classes at the Toltington St. Philomena's Home, to which I assume the hon. Member refers, have never been on the Evening Schools' Grant List, and I have, therefore, had no occasion to recognise or not to recognise the curriculum. The classes form part of a residential institution, and I am not prepared, pending the settlement of revised regulations for Grants to evening schools, which I have now under consideration, to make evening school Grants to any new residential institution not already in receipt of Grants. I am unable to state without further inquiry the exact distance of the home from the nearest recognised evening school.

Do I understand that the question will be considered when the general question of continuation schools is under review?

Yes, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Education if, though the Trefdraeth Church school has been conducted by a master since 1857, a mistress has now been appointed by the Anglesey education authority against the wishes of the managers; why the education authority appoint masters in the council school in the same parish, although there is in that school a smaller roll and average attendance than in the Church school; and if it is the settled policy of that authority to appoint masters to council schools and mistresses to Church schools?

In this case a formal appeal has recently been made to the Board by the managers under Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Education Act, 1902. The Board have forwarded to the managers the reply of the local education authority to their appeal, and have invited the observations of the managers thereon with a view to the determination of the question at issue.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether any Grant is made to Messrs. Rowntree towards continuation classes held in connection with their factory; and, if so, for how long has it been made and what has been the amount in each year?

Grant is made to the local education authority for York in respect of schools carried on by Messrs. Rowntree for boys and girls in their employment, under the educational direction of the authority. The classes for girls have been on the Grant List since 1905, and the classes for boys since 1908. The latter have recently been greatly extended and improved at the suggestion of the Board. The Grants for the year 1911–12 for the boys' and girls' schools were £505 and £981, respectively. am sending the hon. Member a statement of the Grants paid in previous years.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the difference between the earning power of Roman Catholic schools and of Messrs. Rowntree's schools?

:I do not understand where the Roman Catholic schools come in.

I mean the school mentioned in Question 38: Why is it that the managers of Roman Catholic schools do not enjoy continuation Grants, while Messrs. Rowntree do?

I should like to have notice of that question, so as to compare exactly the two cases. I have recently seen this institution at York, and am satisfied that excellent work is being done there. I hope that other firms will do similar work.

Does not the fact that 92 per cent. of the children at the Roman Catholic school have passed their examinations prove that they do excellent work, and quite as good work as that done at Messrs. Rowntree's school?

There is certainly no intention of making any preference.

had given notice of the following question: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board sanctioned the provision out of public money of furniture for a school erected in connection with the works of Messrs. Rowntree; and, if so, to what amount?

I shall be glad to give the answer. As regards Messrs. Rowntree, it is in the negative.

asked the President of the Board of Education, in reference to Table 3 on page 13 of the Statistics of Public Education (Cd. 6934), whether he has observed that in the decennial period ending 1901 the population between three and fifteen years of age increased 3.28 per cent., and the scholars in attendance between three and fifteen years increased 17.71 per cent., but that in the decennial period ending 1911 the like child population increased 5.5 per cent., and the scholars in attendance only increased 2.9. per cent.; and whether any explanation can be given of this marked decline in the proportion of scholars attending schools to total child population?

The explanation of the decline in the rate of increase in the number of scholars on the registers of public elementary schools in the decennium ending 1911 as compared with that ending 1901 is to be found in the falling off of the number of children under five years of age who are on the school registers. This falling off has already been the subject of comment in the Reports issued by the Board. In the decennium it amounts to a decrease of over 45 per cent.; the children aged between five and fifteen who are on the registers have in the same period increased by more than 8 per cent.; hence the figure of 2.9 per cent. total increase mentioned in the question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that on the Estimates he gave a totally different explanation, namely, that the falling off was due to the declining birth-rate, and do not my figures show that I was quite right in my contention?

I think I could give the hon. Gentleman an explanation. I shall be very glad to send him one.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether officers of Customs and Excise at the port of Manchester, when paying overtime visits on Sundays and public holidays, recorded in the appearance book what they believed to be the time allowed for the visit under a special Board's order, in accordance with the practice of the port; that this record was certified by the surveyor and collector, but, upon the records being questioned by the Controller-General, alterations were made excluding the time travelling between the depot and the ship, and the certificate given by the surveyor was time at ship's side; and, if so, and as the wharves in question are situated from two to four miles from the depot and half an hour is not enough allowance for such distances, will he instruct the correct officials to allow overtime payment from the time of signing on to the time of signing off, in accordance with established custom and regulations?

The answer to the first part of the question is that the officers recorded as attendance the fixed period of time formerly allowed for a visit, although the new Regulations in General Order 54j1912, of which they were well aware, distinctly stated that the actual period of necessary attendance only was allowable. As regards the remaining parts of the question, I must refer tha hon. Member to my reply to the questions addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Montgomery District on the 12th and 4th inst. on this subject.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether when an old age pensioner who is not able-bodied is admitted to the workhouse for medical or other care and assistance that pensioner is disqualified for pension and, if so, will he consider the advisability of allowing the guardians to appropriate the whole or such portion of the pension as may be required for that cost and attendance?

I fear I am not prepared to promote the legislation which would be necessary to make the change suggested by the hon. Member.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to alter the mail service which has been in operation from Tralee to Dingle for now nearly a quarter of a century, and instead of two services per day, as given heretofore, to substitute one service per day; whether, before he proposed this alteration, he considered the inconvenience and injury that would be caused to trade, and more especially to fishing, which in the Dingle district is the most extensive of any in Ireland; and whether he can furnish another instance of cutting down by more than one-half a service which has been in existence so long?

The alterations are due to the fact that the Tralee and Dingle Railway gave notice to terminate their contract. I propose to continue to provide a second delivery of letters at Dingle and a second dispatch therefrom so long as trains are run between Tralee and Dingle at such hours that they can be used for the conveyance of a day mail bag in each direction.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Lord Newton's Betting Inducements Bill has been passed twice through the House of Lords and has been starred once by the Government; whether a Bill has been printed in the name of Lord Loreburn dealing with coupons in newspapers; whether another Bill has been introduced into this House dealing with ready-money football betting; and whether, in view of these indications of a desire in both Houses of Parliament to deal with the evil of betting, he can give any indication as to the intentions of the Government to deal with the matter, either by legislation or by speeding up the administration of the existing law?

The question of legislation with regard to this matter will continue to receive the serious attention of the Government. The authorities are fully alive to the necessity for enforcing the existing law, and in this connection I would refer to the reply given by the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend on 4th August last.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take notice that the opponents of this measure may be actuated by motives quite as enlightened as those who think that public morality may be summed up in a series of grandmotherly "don'ts"?

asked the Prime Minister (1) if the Patronage Secretary to the. Treasury was speaking on behalf of and with the authority of the Government when addressing a meeting on the education question at Shipley, on Saturday, 3rd May, in saying that it was a scandalous humiliation that scores of good men, the best men in the land, through the inequality and the injustice of the present law" should have been compelled to passively resist, that of that fact the Government was deeply conscious, and that he was able to say to Nonconformists that in any Education Bill introduced by the Government the first consideration would be the removal of this grievance; and (2) when the Government intends to remove the inequality of the Education Act of 1902, under which persons who elected the Government to power have suffered imprisonment, the spoiling of their goods, and the insults of some magistrates; and is he aware that, though five Education Bills have been introduced into the House of Commons and four Members of the Government have occupied the position of President of the Board of Education since lie and his colleagues pledged themselves to remove these grievances, their pledges are still unfulfilled?

The Government are fully aware of the importance of this matter, and my hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, in the speech to which the hon. Member refers, expressed generally our views with regard to it. The Government intend to introduce next Session proposals to deal with this grievance, which will, I trust, prove satisfactory, but I am not prepared to anticipate them at present.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the services rendered to aviation in this country by the late Mr. Cody, it is proposed to make any provision for his dependants?

I am inquiring into this matter, but cannot say anything definite at present.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience and annoyance caused to the public in the Metropolis by trailers drawn by motors or locomotives like goods trains proceeding through the streets; whether he has powers to make regulations on the matter; if so, whether such powers have been exercised; whether such regulations have been enforced; whether further statutory powers are required; and, if so, whether he proposes to introduce legislation?

My attention has been called to this matter. A heavy motor car cannot legally be used to draw more than one trailer, and a heavy locomotive or traction engine is, by Section 3 of the Locomotives Act, 1898, prohibited from drawing more than three loaded wagons (exclusive of any wagon solely used for carrying water for the locomotive). As regards unloaded wagons, the London County Council and the Common Council of the City of London have made by-laws under Section 6 of the Act referred to which limit to three (exclusive of the water cart) the number of such wagons, except with the permission of the council. I am not aware that these requirements are not enforced, and I am not in a position to promise legislation on the subject at the present time, but any proposal to amend the by-laws so as to reduce the number of unloaded wagons which may be drawn together with loaded wagons would receive my consideration.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will issue prepaid return postage coupons of the value of ld., as those of the value of 2½d. are useless for sending to the United States of America or other countries where there is 1d. postage with this country; and whether he can say why 3d. is charged for the 2½d. coupon?

The question of introducing reply coupons of the face value of ld. has been considered more than once. There is no great demand even for the existing 21cl. coupons, and the inducement to use coupons for ld. would be substantially less. Reply postcards furnish an easy means of prepaying a reply from the United States of America and other places included in the penny postage scheme. In consequence of the differences in currency which exist in the various countries of the Postal Union, and in order to prevent speculative dealings with coupons in those countries where the rate of exchange is favourable, the minimum selling price of the 2½d. coupon was fixed by the Postal Union Convention at 28 centimes (gold), the nearest sterling equivalent of which is 3d. For a similar reason the proposed ld. coupons could not be sold to the public at less than rid., a fact which would still further restrict their use. I do not consider that there is sufficient reason for the issue of such coupons.

Will the right- hon. Gentleman consider the sale of these 2½d. stamps at a reduced rate, so as to bring the price of issue nearer to 25 centimes?

I should he very glad to consider the suggestion.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his inspectors have conducted an inquiry into the taking of gravel from the beach at Porthcawl; if, since the question was brought to the attention of his Department, 8,000 tons of gravel have been taken by a trading company from the Porthcawl beach; when the Report from the Board of Trade may be expected upon this subject; if it is the intention of the Board to prevent this damage to Porthcawl as a seaside resort being continued; and, if not, will he say why this is not to be done?

Yes, Sir, an inquiry has taken place, and the report of the officer who held it is now receiving my most careful consideration. The removal of gravel is on a large scale—about 600 or 700 tons weekly—but, as was explained yesterday in answer to a question by the Noble Lord the Member for Cardiff, this removal takes place on private property above the line of high water. I will send a further communication to my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so. Meanwhile, if my hon. Friend cares to call at the Board of Trade, the solicitor will be glad to explain the position further to him.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in regard to the Panama Exhibition at San Francisco, if the conditions of foreign participation are altered by the authorities in the direction of securing for the United Kingdom a single collective national exhibit, he will reconsider his decision not to give his official support to the exhibition?

As I pointed out yesterday, the fact that national exhibits are to be scattered in different buildings and not shown together as a collective national exhibit is only one of the reasons which appeared to make participation inexpedient. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my remarks of yesterday in Debate, and to the answer of my right hon. Friend as reported in the Parliamentary Debates of the 5th instant, which fully explain the commercial and economic reasons which induced His Majesty's Government to come to the decision they did. The circumstances do not appear to have altered since then.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any correspondence has passed between him and the promoters of the San Francisco Exhibition as to the representation of Great Britain, its manufactures, and arts and crafts at the same; and, if so, will he publish such before the rising of the House?

Beyond the transmission of documents and a letter on the subject of the protection of unpatented inventions and designs no correspondence has taken place between myself and the promoters of the San Francisco Exhibition. In May, 1912, a special Commission, presided over by Mr. John Hays Hammond, visited London to expain the scope of the exhibition, and the further information which the Board of Trade required as to the conditions upon which foreign nations were invited to participate was obtained in San Francisco by an officer of the Exhibitions Branch of the Board of Trade sent for that purpose from this country.

Was it in the right hon. Gentleman's Department. that the estimate of £250,000 as the probable cost of a British section was arrived at?

An officer of the Department went out there to inquire on the spot in regard to the question of expenditure, and' came to the conclusion, after careful consideration, that to make anything in the nature of an effective exhibit —and unless effective it would be useless —the cost would be at least £250,000.

Had this officer any experience of either the Chicago or the St. Louis Exposition, and was he aware that at Chicago the British section was run at a cost of £00,000?

He made the best inquiries he could, and that was the cone elusion he came to, and on examination of the figures I think he was probably correct.

In forming this estimate was consideration given to the fact that the canal would be opened quite a year before the exhibition is opened, and that all goods would be sent by water transit?

I think that was taken into consideration.

Has the matter gone so far that it could not be remedied, and that these exhibits might be collected all under one building, as in other expositions, and can he say whether this decision on the part. of a Free Trade Government not to take part in this exposition is a proper return to make to the United States for reduction in its tariffs

I can only say that the regulation in regard to the scattering of the exhibits seems to be perfectly in accordance with the regulations of the exhibition authorities, and that it is only one of the reasons which induced the Government to think that the very large expenditure of £250,000 would not be justified. With regard to the last part of the question, the tariff is not yet reduced.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the German Union of Merchants is changing its mind upon the matter and has come round to the view that Germany should be represented, and if in that case it would not be necessary for us to further our own trade and commerce by being represented there?

I do not think that even that fact will induce the Government to go back on their decision that it is not justifiable to expend £250,000, which is two and a half times greater than that which the Congress of the United States is going to expend.

How is that sum made up? Have they taken into consideration land transport or sea', transport?

The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a man by the name of Sibley was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment last December at the Maidstone Assizes for slightly tapping a knobstick on the nose of a man who was working at Cory's coal firm at Erith; and whether, in view of Sibley's character and of the fact that he has never been imprisoned before, he can see his way to grant the prisoner an unconditional release?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask if he accepts the statement in the question that the offence was that of simply tapping a knob-stick on the nose of a man?

As the reply will show, I have not accepted that view. I have had full reports of this case before me. The assault of which Sibley was guilty was a most serious one—he led several companions in an attack on a defenceless man —and he was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm. I have consulted the judge and I have carefully considered all the circumstances, including the prisoner's previous good character, but I regret that I can find no sufficient ground to justify any reduction of the sentence beyond the remission which the prisoner is entitled to earn under the prison rules.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the evidence was not disputed at the time and that the hon. Member (Mr. Rowlands) and I were in communication with the right hon. Gentleman, trying to get the sentence reduced, and that the judge who tried the case is known by organised labour as one of the most brutal judges we have ever had?

The hon. Member is not entitled to make such statements as that, especially at Question Time. If he has any charge to bring against any of His Majesty's judges the proper way of doing it is to put a notice on the Paper.

I understand that if a notice is put down on the Order Paper to impugn the action of a judge it is ruled out of order by the Clerks at the Table.

Nothing of the sort. The hon. Member can bring it to me.

asked whether the release of prisoners under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-health) Act depends entirely on the doctors',report; whether the length of licences is determined wholly or in part by the doctors; or, if not, on whose authority do these decisions rest?

The decision whether the prisoner is to be released and for how long rests entirely with the Home Secretary. I receive reports from the medical officers of the prisons and give due weight to them, and in some cases I have given a limited discretion to the governor as to the time of discharge, but in all cases the decision rests with me.

asked whether the salaries of the prison doctors at Holloway have recently been raised; and, if so, whether this is in consequence of duties involved in the treatment of suffragette prisoners?

The scale of pay of the deputy medical officers at Holloway Prison has, in common with those of all other whole-time medical officers and deputy medical officers throughout the prison service, lately been improved, but this improvement was on general grounds, and had no connection with the treatment of suffragette prisoners.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a mass meeting was held in Trafalgar Square, on Sunday afternoon, 10th August, to demand the unconditional release of George Lansbury, Mrs. Cohen, and others; if he is aware that the meeting passed a resolution of protest against magistrates having power to send to prison persons who may express views which they or the Government do not approve; and if he can see his way to grant an unconditional release of Mr. Lansbury and Mrs. Cohen, who were prosecuted and imprisoned under an Act 550 years old?

I have received from the hon. Member a copy of the resolution passed by the meeting in Trafalgar Square last Sunday. So far as the resolution "protests against magistrates having power to send to prison persons who may express views of which they or the Government do not approve," I cordially agree with the view expressed by the meeting and should be ready at all times to support and to enforce it. There is no such power under English law; and if, while I hold the office of Home Secretary, it should be shown to me that any person has been sent to prison merely because he expressed views of which the magistrate or the Government do not approve, I shall have no hesitation in advising his immediate release. As I explained last night, Mr. Lansbury was required to find sureties, not on account of the views which he expressed, but because; he used words which incited to disorder and crime. Among other things, it was proved before the magistrate that, speaking at Albert Hall of the militant women who have been guilty of arson and other outrages, he said, "I ask all of us here to stand shoulder to shoulder with them; let them burn and destroy property and do anything they will, and for every leader that is taken let a dozen step forward in her place." There can be no question that this language was a direct and effective incitement to crime; but as I said last night, I am perfectly willing to believe that Mr. Lansbury does not intend in future to be guilty of such criminal incitement., and, if I receive an assurance from him to this effect, I shall be very glad to consider favourably the question of remitting the remainder of his sentence. Mrs. Cohen is not in prison, and her case has not come in any way before me.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks the language used by Mr. Lansbury was any stronger than that used by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Sir Edward Carson) and the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith)?

I must have notice of that question.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the magistrates are the sole judges whether the words used may be an incitement to disorder or not, and whether it is fair to leave in the hands of a bench of country magistrates power to decide whether the words used by a strike agitator are, or are not, an incitement to crime?

My hon. Friend is going into a much larger question here, and I cannot undertake to reply without notice as to general jurisdiction of the magistrates in the country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this power which is exercised by the magistrates arises out of common law, and not out of Statute law?

I do not think it would really be advisable to enter into an argument, and I hope my hon. Friend will not misinterpret what I say when I state that I do not think he has correctly interpreted the law.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the power of binding to the peace which is exercised by the magistrates is judge-made law and not statutory

Oh, no, I am aware of the contrary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether his attention has been called to certain serious assaults committed upon women at St. Neot's, Stafford, Tiverton, and Cirencester, during suffragist meetings in connection with the suffrage pilgrimage; whether any arrests have been made or prosecutions instituted by the Public Prosecutor; and whether the Government propose to take any steps to investigate these occurrences; and (2) whether he is aware that at St. Neot's, Stafford, Tiverton, and Cirencester, nonmilitant women suffragists were pelted and otherwise assaulted by roughs, who were endeavouring to break up peaceful meetings held during the recent suffrage pilgrimage; whether he is further aware that no arrests have been made in connection with these offences; and whether he will take steps to secure to all subjects of His Majesty the right of free speech?

I received about a fortnight ago a deputation from representatives of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies who organised and conducted the suffrage pilgrimage. They put before me with great moderation their complaint that at some of the places where they held meetings the police failed to give them adequate protection, with the result that their meetings were broken up. I explained to them that the County and Borough Police are not under my control—there was no complaint against the Metropolitan Police—but I undertook that, if they gave me a precise statement in writing of their specific complaints with regard to each place, I would communicate in the matter with the several police authorities. This document I have received this morning, and it appears to be a moderate and fair statement of the facts, though, of course, before pronouncing any opinion, I am bound to hear what the police authorities concerned have to say on their own behalf. The statement shows that in most places the police gave the pilgrims ample protection, and that in some other places they failed only because their numbers were insufficient. I shall at once communicate, as I promised to do, to the several police authorities, and I shall not leave any of them in doubt as to their duty to protect men or women who are holding peaceful meetings for a lawful purpose.