asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the experiments being made in Ireland to extract oil from the beds of coal and shale in that country; and if he can state the percentage of oil recoverable from each ton of coal or shale?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, it is understood that the percentage depends not only on the quality of the coal or shale, which varies with the locality in which it is mined, but to some extent also on the particular character of the products which it is desired to extract and the purpose for which they are to be used.

Are the Admiralty watching these experiments? I know that one is being conducted.

Yes.

In what part of Ireland is shale being experimented upon—is it in county Cork?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has caused any experiments to be made for the extraction of oil from the coal now being raised in Kent; and, if the experiments are favour able, would he consider the question of the advantages of that field for the supply of oil for the Navy?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It is only quite recently that this coal-field has furnished to the Admiralty a sufficient supply for test as coal. In regard to its possibilities for production of oil, which would, of course, involve the finding of a profitable market for the other products of distillation, no doubt the colliery companies will take the matter up if they so desire, and inform the Admiralty of results. The Admiralty will give consideration to any information in regard to developments which may take place in this or other fields. In regard to the general aspect of this question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which my right hon. Friend has already given to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil.

asked what readjustments of work as between the different Royal yards have been made with a view to the avoidance of discharges as far as possible?

I am glad to say that such rearrangements of work have been made as will reduce the number of discharges substantially below the number which originally seemed necessary.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the exact dates (month and day) when establishment in the Royal dockyards was suspended in 1907 and when it was resumed in 1910; the exact percentage of men on the establishment at the date of suspension compared with the number of men employed in the Royal yards at the same date; and the exact percentage of men on the establishment at the date of resumption compared with the number of men employed in the yards at that date?

The Admiralty Order to the dockyards suspending the establishment was dated 6th May, 1907; the Order resuming the establishment was dated 2nd June, 1910. As regards the remainder of the question, I do not think I can usefully add anything to the information which I gave the hon. Member in reply to his questions on the 15th instant. I then stated the percentage of established to unestablished men in the Home establishments based on numbers provided for in the Estimates for each year over a period of nine years, including the two years to which he refers. To give the exact percentages for the particular dates in question would involve a great deal of labour

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the value of the question?

I appreciate all questions put by the hon. Gentleman. I have given the approximate figures, but to give the precise figures and dates would be a very heavy tax on the Department.

asked the total net addition to the personnel of the Fleet between the years ending 31st March, 1906, and 31st March, 1912, and the total net addition to the personnel of the Fleet between the years ending 31st March, 1912, and 31st March, 1914?

Between March, 1906, and March, 1912, there was a net addition of approximately 6,315 officers and men, and between March, 1912, and March, 1914, a net addition of approximately 11,780.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give any assurances that the area of reserves of land for the natives in the Protectorate of East Africa shall not be curtailed, or any of the people at present on them removed without their consent?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for West Leeds on the 28th April.

asked the conditions on which compulsory labour for public works can be demanded in the Protectorate of East Africa?

Under the existing law free labour can be demanded for the construction and maintenance of boundary beacons, roads, bridges, water-courses, or other work for the benefit of the community in native reserves, provided that the period of work does not exceed six days in any one quarter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the India Office has received a Report from the Allahabad Bank after an investigation invited by the Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces and Berar on the general working of the co-operative land societies in those districts; and, if so, will he cause a copy of the Report to be placed in the Library?

The Report has not yet been received by the India Office.

Is there any report on the same subject from Burma?

I will inquire and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

asked whether there is any obligation on the part of purchasers of blocks of land in the Punjab irrigation colonies of larger extent than can be cultivated by a single peasant and his family to refrain from subletting such holdings to rack-rented tenants, or are all possible sub-tenants, protected definitely by law against harsh rents and unfair treatment by landlords?

I am not aware of any obligations of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers; but I would point out that the scale of the larger blocks offered for sale is in general too small to attract the class of landholder whose dealings he views with apprehension, and that even under the earlier schemes of capitalist Grants, which have now been abandoned in favour of the smaller scale of allotment, there does not seem to have been cause for complaint on the score of rack-renting.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the Revenue Bills which he proposes to introduce in connection with the Finance Bill, with reference to local rating, the question of contributions to local rates from Crown and Government properties will be considered?

The answer is in the negative so far as the Revenue Bill is concerned. Contributions in lieu of rates are not regulated by Statute, but the effect of any proposed changes in the law, on the present method of assessing these contributions, will be carefully considered.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what means will be used for the repayment of Income Tax in cases where the tax has been already deducted at the rate of 1s. 4d. from dividends paid and coupons cashed since his Budget statement?

When effect is given to the present proposal of the Government with regard to Income Tax, the Board of Inland Revenue will issue a Circular dealing with the adjustment or repayment of any tax received by them in excess of the rate imposed by law.

Would it not be advisable to make some statement, either through the Press or otherwise, so that the present practice of banks might be regulated and made uniform; and is it not the fact that at the present time banks are in doubt as to the exact course they should pursue?

Under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, passed last year, the Income Tax remains at the rate of 1s. 4d. until the House alters it.

Would it not be possible to inform banks, companies, and others paying dividends what course they should take?

Yes, I think it would, and the Inland Revenue propose to issue a Circular for that purpose.

Is it not the case that banks and others will be bound to make deductions at the rate of 1s. 4d. until the Report stage of the Finance Bill when the House will be able to alter if?

The Income Tax now authorised is at the rate of 1s. 4d.

Is it not the fact that banks are unable to make adjustments before 30th June?

Banks are authorised to make deductions at the rate of 1s. 4d. That is the only authorisation made by Parliament.

Has not the Bank of England said it cannot be so?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, as originally introduced in this House, contained a Clause protecting live poultry from unnecessary suffering while travelling by rail or otherwise; that that Clause was, at the suggestion of the then President of the Board of Agriculture, withdrawn by the promoters of the Bill upon his undertaking to bring in a measure to enable the Board to make Orders under the Diseases of Animals Acts for such purpose; and that, in accordance with such undertaking, the Poultry Act, 1911, was duly introduced and passed into law on 18th August, 1911, enabling the Board to make Orders for protecting live poultry from unnecessary suffering while being conveyed by land or water and in connection with their exposure for sale and their disposal after sale; whether any Order has yet been made by the Board under that Act, and, if not, will he explain why this has not been done and when such Order will be made?

The delay in the issue of an Order is due to the fact that difficulty has been experienced in arriving at a decision as to the best way in which to attain the object in view.

asked the Home Secretary whether every female person who is known to be an active participant in or in any way connected with the outrages committed by the militant suffragists is constantly and at all times shadowed by members of the detective force; and, if not, whether he will make arrangements for this to be done?

I fear it would be quite impracticable to undertake such shadowing as my hon. Friend suggests.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why?

That would necessitate a long statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the date of the arrest of Miss Grace Roe who, with others, has been charged with conspiracy at the Marylebone Police Court; how many times since her arrest and imprisonment in Holloway Gaol has she been remanded by the magistrate; for how many days she has been forcibly fed; whether there is danger of her health breaking down; and why her case has not ben dealt with before now?

Miss Roe was arrested on the 23rd May, and, after being five times remanded for short periods by the magistrate, was committed for trial on the 9th June. She was forcibly fed for the first time on the 26th May, and has been fed every day since. Her condition of health is now reported to be generally satisfactory. Since she was deprived of certain noxious drugs, which had been surreptitiously supplied to her by her friends, the process of feeding her has been attended with much better results. She will be tried at the present Sessions at the Central Criminal Court. Her case could not have been dealt with any earlier.

asked the President of the Local Government Board the cost to the State of maintaining the 299,474 indoor and outdoor paupers over seventy years of age in 1906, and the cost to the State of providing old age pensions for the 172,426 persons who, but for the pension, would have come on the State as paupers on the 1st January, 1914, taking all charges into consideration?

Nothing more than an estimate can be given, as the actual cost in the case of the persons referred to is not shown in any return. It is estimated that the cost for one year of maintaining the 229,474 (not 299,474) indoor and outdoor paupers would be about £2,336,700. The cost to the State of providing 172,426 persons with old age pensions for a year would be, approximately, £2,133,000.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will explain to the House how the cost to the State of maintaining the 266,366 indoor and the 563,790 outdoor paupers, taking the numbers, respectively, on the 1st January, 1909, compares with the cost to the State of maintaining the 243,913 indoor and the 384,409 outdoor paupers, taking the numbers, respectively, on the 1st January, 1914?

Statistics showing the cost of maintaining the paupers of England and Wales are not available for particular days. For the year ended 31st March, 1909, the cost that could be apportioned to indoor relief was £7,432,600, and for the year ended 31st March, 1913, £8,925,400. The cost that could be apportioned to outdoor relief for those two years was £3,908,300 and £3,092,000 respectively. The figures for the year ended the 31st March, 1914, are not yet available. The increased cost of indoor pauperism accompanying a decrease in the number of paupers maintained may be mainly attributed to the improved classification and the higher standard generally of the treatment provided in Poor Law institutions.

May we take it that the cost of pauperism has gone up considerably?

There has been an increase in the cost of pauperism, but a great decrease in the cost of outdoor pauperism.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government have under consideration a scheme for forming a State approved society for deposit contributors under the National Insurance Act, 1911; and, if so, whether he is now or has been in consultation with collecting societies and friendly societies concerning the formation of the scheme?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 17th instant to the hon. Member for Pontefract.

asked if any decision has been arrived at by the medical benefit sub-committee of the London Insurance Committee in regard to the distribution of the panel fund surplus; and, if so, whether insured persons who have paid private fees in addition to their compulsory contributions for medical benefit, will have their contributions repaid to them out of the said surplus?

My right hon. Friend understands that the London Insurance Committee are still considering their decision as to the precise method of distribution to be adopted. The rest of the question does not, therefore, arise.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to a recent decision in the Edinburgh Court of Session, on an appeal before a full bench of judges, to the effect that it is impossible for the Scottish Insurance Commissioners to enforce payments under the Insurance Act in cases where both the employer and the employé refuse information; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

As I stated in reply to a similar question on Monday last, the decision referred to has no such effect as that suggested, but merely dealt with the question whether the evidence in a particular case was sufficient to warrant a conviction.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether he is aware that the British Medical Association offers opposition to workmen who desire to make their own collective arrangements under Section 15, Sub-section (3), of the National Insurance Act, and that the General Medical Council places a ban on any doctor who contracts to work under such collective arrangements; that it is made imperative upon every member of a collective arrangement under Section 15, Sub-section (3), to resign a very complicated statutory form every year, notwithstanding he has no desire to change his doctor or scheme; whether he will take steps to so amend the Act as to make it easier for such collective arrangements to be made and established; and whether a doctor who has accepted service on a panel has any limit to the number of patients, and, if not, will he take steps to set such a limit?

With regard to the earlier part of the question, if the hon. Member will give particulars of the cases he has in mind I will make inquiries. With regard to the last part of the question, a doctor on the panel is under an obligation to give proper attendance to all the insured persons requiring treatment for whom he is responsible; and the Regulations provide for the removal, in certain circumstances, of insured persons from the list of a doctor who has assumed a greater responsibility in this respect than he can fulfil. The whole matter is, however, under consideration.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether the drug fund in Glasgow has turned out £2,000 short for the first quarter of this year, with the result that the chemists on the panel there have been forced to accept a reduction on their accounts of 25 per cent.; whether this sweeps away the whole margin of the profits of these chemists; and what remedy he proposes to adopt to remedy this state of affairs?

The chemists in the area referred to have been paid in full for the period ending on the 14th March last, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the state of the drug fund cannot be finally ascertained until after the close of the medical year, and any payments in the meantime are in the nature of advances.

Do I gather that the 25 per cent. will not be taken off these accounts?

For the period named by my hon. Friend the chemists' accounts have been settled in full.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether the cost of central administration and audit and the expenditure upon management by the approved societies amount together to a sum equivalent to more than one-third of the benefits annually payable under the Act; and whether the average rate of management expenditure by friendly societies before 1911 amounted to not more than one-eighth of their benefit payments?

The actual expenditure on administration by all approved societies is not at present ascertainable, but on the assumption that all societies spend on administration the maximum allowed under the Regulations (which is not, in fact, the case) the total expenditure on administration referred to in the question would amount to about one-fifth of the cost of benefits under the National Insurance Acts. The Returns made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies before the passing of the National Insurance Act appear to indicate that the cost of administration by the friendly societies bore a considerably higher proportion to the cost of benefits than is suggested in the question.

I understand that the first part of the answer includes the cost of central administration and audit?

It does.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Com- missioners, whether Mr. Levershon, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, is an inspector or otherwise employed by the English Insurance Commissioners?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether, in a case where an insured person claimed to transfer from his approved society on the ground that he wished to take his State insurance through his trade union approved society, the English Insurance Commissioners have enforced the claim to transfer; whether they have declined to enforce a claim to transfer by an insured person who gave as his reason that he wished to take his State insurance through the State sections of a society in which he is insured on the voluntary side; and what is the reason for the differentiation in favour of trade union approved societies?

I do not know to what cases the hon. Member refers, but no such preference has been given to any type of approved society. Each case of disputed transfer is decided after consideration of the statements of the society and the insured person.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that there have been decisions by the English Commissioners allowing transfers to a trade union approved society on the ground that the man was a member of a trade union and wanted to have his State benefit from the same society?

Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of any particular case he has in mind.

May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the question on the Paper, which specifically asks whether a decision has been given in these circumstances?

I stated in my answer that the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred are not known. Perhaps he will give the names, and then I will make inquiries.

Do not the trade unions complain of friendly societies and companies taking away their members?

The admission and transfer of members do give rise to disputes, which have to be settled by the Commissioners.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to three advertisement hoardings which have been put up in Regent's Park, near the Regent's Canal, in close proximity to the bridge carrying the Albert Road across the canal to the south of St. Mark's Square; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The First Commissioner is making inquiries as to his power in this matter.

Will not the First Commissioner, quite apart from any powers he has, make representations to the company that these hoardings interfere with the amenities of the park?

The First Commissioner is making inquiries as to whether he has power to order it to be stopped. That is the first step.

asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce a Housing Bill to take the place of the housing provisions now excluded from the Revenue Bill?

I hope that this Bill will be introduced next week.

asked whether the Government propose to appoint district land commissioners, who will themselves fix a minimum wage for the agricultural labourers in their district; and, if so, what approximately will be the size of the districts which such commissioners will administer, and what will be the salary that they will receive?

I am not prepared at present to announce the details of the Government's proposals for dealing with this subject.

Does it approximate to the proposals which have hitherto been made by the Government?

I think so.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the opposition likely to be encountered by the Checkweighing Bill, he will take an early opportunity of saying whether it is intended to proceed with that Bill this Session?

My right hon. Friend is not aware of any opposition to the Bill. I am unable to say at present whether time can be found for it.

asked if the tribunal which it is the intention of the Government to set up to inquire as to the future relations of the State and the men employed in the Royal dockyards and other State employés will be by a Royal Commission; and, if not, what is to be the form of the inquiry and when it will be inaugurated?

The inquiry will be instituted as soon as possible. The form it should take is still under consideration.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House on what day the Plumage Bill will be proceeded with?

asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the Report stage of the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Bill?

I fear I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration, in arranging for the Report stage of this measure, the number of days it occupied in Committee and the likelihood of it being longer on Report stage?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule, so that obstruction may be defeated?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take towards carrying out its recommendations?

The Report is still under consideration, and I can say nothing further at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable discontent amongst large numbers of Government employês, and the longer the right hon. Gentleman delays the action he intends to take the worse it is?

It raises a number of very complicated matters which require very careful consideration.

asked whether it is still the intention of the Government to introduce an Education Bill this Session; and, if so, whether it will contain the comprehensive proposals outlined by the President of the Board of Education in his speech on the Education Bill that was introduced and withdrawn last July?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am not prepared to anticipate the terms of the Bill.

When will the Bill be introduced?

I cannot give the exact date, but it will be soon.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he is aware that an outbreak of small-pox has been reported amongst the members of the Bedfordshire Regiment whilst stationed at Pretoria; whether he will give the names of the men attacked, the dates of their vaccination and revaccination, and the dates of their attack by small-pox; and (2) whether, with the further proof of the failure of vaccination and revaccination to prevent small-pox, as demonstrated by the recent outbreak of that disease amongst members of the Bedfordshire Regiment at Pretoria, he is now prepared to recommend the recognition of conscientious objection to vaccination in the Army in the same way as obtains in civil life and in the Territorial Force?

So far as the Army Council are aware, only one case of small-pox has occurred in the Bedfordshire Regiment at Pretoria. The man had undergone primary vaccination on enlistment in October, 1906. The case occurred in May, 1914, and the man had not been revaccinated since 1906. In the circumstances, no change in the present regulations in regard to vaccination appears to be called for.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the House any particulars of the lease of 65,120 acres of grazing land, south of the Red Deer River, in Alberta, to the National Livestock Exchange, Limited, of Montreal, for the purpose of raising Cavalry mounts for the British Army?

Under the lease which has been granted by the Canadian Minister of Militia and Defence, the Government of Canada has a right of preemption in respect of all horses raised, and the company must hold and mature all horses which the Minister of Militia may desire for Militia purposes. A maximum purchase price has also been fixed. It has been further arranged that the British War Office may exercise preemption rights if they desire to do so at the same price and terms in respect of such horses as remain after the Canadian Minister has made his choice.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving a breeding station nearer home?

We have a breeding station at home in this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of getting more?

I will consider that, but I do not think there is any necessity.

asked what was the number of houses closed or demolished during the years 1909 to 1913, respectively; under what Acts they were so closed or demolished; and the number dealt with under each Act?

The Command Paper 7206, on Housing and Town Planning, contains on pages 3 and 4 the information which the Local Government Board possess in regard to the closing and demolition of houses under the Housing Acts. Information is not available as to the number of houses closed and demolished under the Public Health Acts or under local Acts.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the possibility that Kasr-i-Shirin might be adjudicated to Turkey by the Boundary Commission had been foreseen and provided for by him; and, if that possibility has been realised, or is likely to be realised, will there be any invalidity of any part of the concession from Persia at present in the possession of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

My attention has been called to a statement in the "Times," to which, I presume, the hon. Member refers. Kasr-i-Shirin, which has been in the de facto occupation of Persia for ninety-two years, was awarded to her de jure by the protocol signed at Constantinople last November by the British, Russian, and Persian Ambassadors and by the Grand Vizier of Turkey. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hopes to lay this document, with other Papers and maps, early next month. Chia Surkh, where the Anglo-Persian Oil Company have wells, has been transferred to Turkey, but the rights of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in the "transferred territories" have been fully safeguarded, and they have acquired the additional privilege of constructing pipe-lines through Ottoman territory to the sea. I must point out, however, that the prospective development in new places to which His Majesty's Government must look forward for the purposes of Admiralty supply is in the South of Persia, especially in what is called the British Sphere and on the islands.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if that pipeline to Bagdad will be protected by the Turkish authorities, and if they will receive any royalties for doing so from the company?

That is rather an indefinite extension of the question which my hon. Friend has put on the Paper, and I must ask for notice of it.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say de jure. Is it not de facto ?

No, Sir. With regard to the first-named place, for ninety-two years it has been de facto, and continues de facto, and now it is also de jure.

I desire to ask the Home Secretary a question which I put to him yesterday, namely, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Vale Rawlings, of Burton-on-Trent, who was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment for an alleged assault during a trade dispute on Inspector Oulton, of the borough police; whether the only evidence against him was that of two constables, whereas six independent witnesses were called who denied that there had been any assault; whether the magistrates who heard the case were themselves employers of labour; and whether he will order suspension of the sentence pending an investigation into all the circumstances by some independent authority?

I telegraphed yesterday for a report from the magistrates in this case, and I understand from a telegram which I have received this morning that the report is now on its way. As soon as I receive it I will look carefully into the case. I have since been informed that the report will reach me to-morrow morning. I will look into the case at once.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, of which I could not give him private notice, namely: Whether he is aware that constables have taken the place of labourers on strike at Cambridge, and whether he will make inquiry into this, and, if found to be correct, withhold the Grant in respect of these constables?

I have no knowledge of any circumstances such as are alleged by the hon. Member, and I could not, without notice, take any action on that question—in fact, I rather doubt whether my powers would enable me to do so.

I will raise this matter on the Adjournment to-night.

I hope the hon. Member will not raise it to-night. If he will raise it to-morrow, it may be possible to give him an answer on the question, and also with respect to the case of Mr. Vale Rawlings.

I desire to ask a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether any White Paper has been issued to the public or the Press containing the evidence given before the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, and, if so, why has it not been circulated to Members of the House?

I have made inquiry, and I am informed that the Royal Commission on the Civil Service places on sale from time to time through the Stationery Office instalments of the Minutes of Evidence given before them. This is in accordance with practice, and no exception has been taken to it. The Minutes of Evidence are embodied in the publication. I shall be glad to consult the Stationery Office as to whether the Report can be issued to those Members who express a wish to have it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will use his influence with the Secretary to the Treasury, seeing that these Royal Commissions take evidence on which legislation is to be based sooner or later, to see whether that evidence cannot be put in the Pink Paper day by day as it comes out?

I will consult with my hon. Friend.

I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether, in view of the fact that the Chairman of a Standing Committee announced to-day that he would report to the Committee of Selection in order to secure their removal from the Committee certain Members whom he alleged refrained from entering the Committee Room to make a quorum, you can inform the House if the Committee of Selection has power to remove from a Standing Committee the opponents of any Bill merely because there are not on the Committee sufficient supporters of the Bill to make a quorum; whether it is legitimate in the case of a Bill so inadequately supported to give absolutely unprecedented facilities for its passage into law; whether it is competent for you, Mr. Speaker, when a count has been called in the House, to take cognisance of or to visit penalties upon Members who refrain from entering the Chamber to make a quorum; and, if no such powers are vested in you whether such powers can be claimed or exercised by any subordinate authority?

The Chairman of a Committee has no power to make any official Report except such Report as is passed by the Committee. He acts as the mouthpiece of the Committee and can only report that which the Committee orders him to report. The Committee of Selection have power from time to time to discharge for non-attendance. They have power—I am reading now from Standing Order 48—"to discharge members from time to time for non-attendance or at their own request, and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged." I do not suppose that the Committee of Selection would discharge members from attendance on the Committee simply because they were opponents of the Bill. They would discharge them if they found on investigating the facts that there was constant non-attendance. Then with regard to the hon. Member's question as to counts, I have no power to compel hon. Members to come into the House, nor would I like to exercise it.

Would you consider that it is a proper course for the Chairman of the Committee to threaten penalties upon certain members of a Committee whom he has not himself seen, and whose names could only have been brought to his notice by officials of the House or by the supporters of a particular Bill?

I must not pronounce any opinion in regard to the conduct of Chairmen of Committees. They are responsible to the Committees for the way in which they carry on their business, and are not responsible to me.

Are we to understand from your ruling that the threat which was made by the Chairman in Committee to-day was a mere brutum fulmen, and had no effect whatever?

The Chairman of the Committee is not here. I have no jurisdiction over him whatever.

The Chairman has no power to make any Report except as the mouthpiece of the Committee, and as the Committee was not constituted I presume that we may take it for granted that the announcement made was of no effect whatever?

What I said was that the Chairman of the Committee did not make any official Report. I cannot stop the Chairman gossiping with the Committee of Selection, like other people.

As I do not see the Chairman of the Committee of Selection here, may I say that the Committee of Selection passed a Resolution that they would neither alter nor change the name of anybody on the Committee, except in the case of severe illness.

Then I ought to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that probably they have violated the Standing Orders.

May I ask if you have any power to govern the attendance of those Committees? The point I want to bring to your notice is this: You know, and all the Members of the House know, the great difficulties that private Members have in getting Bills sent up to a Committee, and that when they go up to a Committee their progress depends upon a quorum. Already this year a large number of the Committees upstairs have been unable to get a quorum, and so the Bills for which private Members have had such great difficulty in securing a Second Reading in this House have been delayed. There are a great many Members of the House who do not desire to attend, and a great many others who would be quite glad to attend if they were asked to attend. I myself would be glad to attend, and so would other private Members. My point is that there is a large number of Members sitting in the Library in the morning, doing their own work, who would be perfectly glad to be on those Committees and provide the quorum necessary to do the business of this House. I submit that it is most unfair to private Members of this House who have great difficulty in getting their Bills through that they should be deprived of the opportunity of having those Bills discussed upstairs, simply because the Committees are made up of Members who do not desire to attend.

I am the last man who would wish to pass any criticism upon the conduct of Members not attending these Committees. I simply say that there is the general duty cast on Members to attend the Committees on which they are appointed, and if they cannot attend for any particular reason, public or private, their proper course is to inform the Committee of Selection that they cannot attend, and I have no doubt that the Committee of Selection, if they are informed that other hon. Members are ready and anxious to attend, and have the opportunity, would be very glad to avail themselves of their services.

Might I ask if you are fully seised of all the facts, that on two occasions hon. Gentlemen at great inconvenience to themselves, have come down to this House in order to discuss the Dogs Bill, and have been disappointed by the failure to obtain a quorum, while it is notorious that many opponents of the Bill were clustered together in mysterious corners, eligible to make a quorum, but hesitating to enter? May I appeal to them to come in like men and fight out this Bill in Committee instead of hiding in these mysterious corners of the House like the slaves of a seraglio?

Arising out of the point submitted, may I say that the Selection Committee for at least two Sessions now have passed the Regulation to which the hon. Gentleman referred? I presume that that Resolution was reported by the Chairman of the Committee to this House, and that this House endorsed the Regulation framed by the Selection Committee. Will that, therefore, constitute a modification of the Standing Order to which you have directed the attention of the House?

May I ask whether it is not a fact that this Regulation has only been in operation for the last two years, and that it is during that time that there has been a difficulty in getting a quorum on these Committees, and whether that Regulation was not passed in order that the composition of the Committee might not be altered and that people who want to get on those Committees might be kept off them?

I do not know what the reason is which induced the Committee of Selection to pass that particular Regulation. I can only read again what the Standing Order says: namely, "that the Committee of Selection shall have power to discharge Members from time to time for non-attendance." That means that the House contemplated that there might be occasions on which the Members would not attend, and that the corrective for that was that the Committee of Selection should discharge them. It leaves it to the discretion of the Committee of Selection whether it will discharge them or not. If the hon. Member asks me what my personal opinion is about it, I think that the Committee of Selection ought not to shuffle off their responsibility. They ought to have maintained it. I do not wish to be taken too strictly upon that, because I have not heard the reasons which actuated the Committee of Selection in passing that particular Resolution.

In regard to the Scottish Standing Committee, and the Scottish Members appointed by virtue of the fact that they are Scottish Members, would it be within the competence of the Committee of Selection to discharge Scottish Members from that Standing Committee for non-attendance?

I think that the powers of the Committee of Selection with regard to discharge are limited to the fifteen extra members who are appointed.

In reference to members who have not attended the Committee, may I point out that Committee A has nearly 100 members upon it, and that only fourteen were present. Would the Committee of Selection have power to discharge all save those fourteen? With regard to the alleged facts in possession of which the hon. Member for Clare sought to put you, might I say that a few of the opponents of the Bill were whipping in the Lobby outside, and waiting for their supporters when the Chairman prematurely adjourned the meeting before their supporters at length arrived.

The hon. Member who has just spoken was outside the Committee Room this morning, and he and several others chose not to go in to make a quorum.

These are not matters for me at all; they are matters under the control of the Chairmen. The Chairmen are really responsible in regard to the Standing Committees.

Should I be in order in moving the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance?

Does the hon. Member think the passing of the Dogs Bill a matter of urgent public importance?

My point really is this: I shall not move the adjournment if there be any means of getting some satisfaction. As a matter of fact, any Member looking at the Committees upstairs this week would have seen a Member of the Cabinet now sitting on the Front Bench scouring the Lobbies for two days in succession trying to get a quorum for a Government Bill. It is a scandalous state of affairs that this House, after passing the Second Reading of a Bill cannot furnish a quorum for ten minutes' work. May I point out that there are a great many of us who are willing to go upstairs and sit on Committees and see that the Government business is got through. May I ask you, Sir, if you can suggest some means by which those members willing to serve can find readier access to those Committees than through the present channels?

May I say one word in explanation of the Sessional Order, about which some misconception appears to have arisen. It was not passed for the purpose of preventing members from getting on the Committees, but simply and entirely because, after a Bill had begun, it sometimes happened that some members wanted to get on the Committee, and they persuaded other members on the Committee to make room for them. That was considered a manifest injustice, because it opened the door for simply filling the Committee with those particular supporters of a Bill. This Sessional Order only applies in the case of Bills that have been begun in Committee and nothing else. It is a Sessional Order that has been reported every Session, and it is therefore of course open to the House to discuss it. That is a simple explanation of the Rule which was passed by the Committee.

I cannot carry it any further than to say that there is a general duty upon members appointed to Standing Committees to attend. Their duty is, as far as it is in their power, to attend these Committees and see that the work of the House is carried through. At the same time I may perhaps make the suggestion that this would be a fit and proper subject for the Committee which is now sitting on Procedure to consider. They may be able to produce some solution of the difficulty.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what proportions the £750,000 proposed for the extension of the tuberculosis arrangements to dependents of insured persons, tuberculosis laboratories, and nurses is to be divided amongst the three items mentioned; and whether it is intended to introduce legislation on the subject this Session?

It is proposed that of the sum referred to £400,000 should be allocated to tuberculosis services, £250,000 to nursing, and £100,000 to pathological laboratories. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on this subject on the 16th instant.

Have these Grants been abandoned or are they included in the Amended Budget?

They have not been abandoned, but they are not in the Finance Bill.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the provisions of the Finance Bill, the additional relief to ratepayers in aid of education in Scotland will be subject to the condition that the benefit of such additional relief shall be first given in respect of rates charged on the houses, buildings, or other improvements on land, or whether this condition only applies to additional relief in respect of local services other than that of education in Scotland?

The condition referred to applies to the proposed new Grants for Scottish education, as well as to the proposed new Grants for other Scottish services.

asked the Secretary for Scotland if he will give a definition of what services are included under the term public health purposes, as mentioned in Part II. of the Second Schedule of the Finance Bill?

The hon. and gallant Member will see on reference to the Schedule that the language is very general.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the decision of the Government to withdraw the promise of Grants to local authorities, he will arrange for any costs which local authorities may have incurred in obtaining information at the request of the Local Government Board in respect of the classification of roads to be refunded from the Imperial Exchequer and not placed upon the rates?

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that local authorities in preparing those plans and information have incurred little cost?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. No such decision has been arrived at by the Government and the point therefore does not arise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider any applications made to him?

I understand the expenses are extremely small. Hardly any local authorities have raised the point. The Rural District Councils Association have promised their most cordial co-operation in the classification of roads.

How have local authorities had time to raise the point?

asked the President of the Board of Education when the regulations for the allocation of the new Grants for necessitous areas and the provision of meals will be published?

The regulations are with the printers, and their publication may be expected this week.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that twice in the last month he has told me we may expect the publication of these regulations at once?

I do not think I ever used the words "at once." I may have said "shortly," which is rather a vague word.

I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question arising out of a recent discussion in this House. On Monday last the President of the Local Government Board said:—

"The Government have decided to invite the House, after the Second Reading of the Bill, to pass an Instruction which should also include the minor points on which you, Sir, have made reference this afternoon, and to divide the Bill into two parts, the one part dealing with all the provisions relating to the new taxation and the National Debt, and the other part consisting of Part IV. of the Bill, and the Schedules that attach it—that is to say, the parts of the Bill that deal with the new Grants to local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1914, cols. 1589.]

I wish to ask whether there might not arise some difficulty as to the course which the Government have announced their intention to pursue. Earlier in the afternoon you were good enough to point out to the House that Part IV. was not yet part of the Finance Bill at all, and will not be part of the Finance Bill under any circumstances, unless and until a Committee of the House, after proper Resolutions have been passed, insert these Clauses in the Bill. In these circumstances, I wish to ask whether it would be possible to pass an Instruction to the Committee to divide the Bill into two parts, one part of which should consist of Part IV., which does not yet exist. Until Part IV. has been put into the Bill you cannot take it out, and, therefore, it would be impossible to pass an Instruction directing the Committee to divide the Bill into two parts, one of which has no existence.

If the Instruction were taken before the Resolution, of course the Instruction could not be carried out until these Clauses were in the Bill. If the Resolution be taken first, and the validity of Part IV. is established, it will be open to the House to pass an Instruction to the Committee to divide the Bill.

Will the Clauses in Part IV. be inserted in the Bill by the Resolution, or will they have to be inserted in the Bill in Committee after the Resolution has been passed authorising the Committee so to insert them?

The passing of the Resolution would enable the Chairman, when a Committee reached Clause 13 (I think it is), to call Clause 13 and deal with it. The Committee could either deal with it there and then, or postpone it in order to put it into a divided Bill. Of course, the Resolution must come first; otherwise the Chairman has no power to call Clause 13 at all.

In connection with the same question, as I understand the matter, if the Bill were not divided and a Resolution were passed under which these Clauses in italics could be inserted in the present Bill, it would be necessary for the Chairman when the Clauses were reached to put the question, "That the Clause be read a second time," as a preliminary question.

No, he simply would call Clause 13, and then take the Amendments, if any. But until the Clause has been validated by the Resolution he would not be entitled to call the Clause at all. The Clause being in italics is not there, and he could not see it. By the Resolution you turn the italics into ordinary print.

I do not quite understand what is the exact position of these Clauses. They do not exist in the Bill, and I ask how can they get into the Bill unless they are put in by the Committee in charge of it?

It is nothing novel. We have these Clauses in italics about once a week, but still the actual position is this: They are there for Second Reading and not for the Committee—that is to say, no questions can be put on them in Committee until they are sanctioned by a Resolution of the House. It is a matter which comes up often in Standing Committees, and the Chairman of the Committee has no power to put any questions in regard to Clauses in italics until they are sanctioned by a Resolution passed here. It is not necessary to put the Question: "That the Clause be read a second time."