asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will restore to those officers of Customs and Excise, late Customs port clerks, lower section, the twenty-four days' annual leave to which they were entitled after five years' service, in view of the fact that the Hobhouse Committee declared any reduction of leave to be inequitable except on promotion and that the recent Royal Commission recommended increased leave facilities for other grades of Civil servants?

The scale of leave under which officers, formerly port clerks, became entitled to twenty-four days after five years' service disappeared as the result of the reorganisation. The Committee made no recommendation that an officer should retain any prospective right to increased leave, and I cannot admit such a claim. On the other hand, no officer suffered reduction in the amount of leave he was receiving.

asked which branch of the Inland Revenue Department collects the Mineral Rights Duty?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 8th April to the hon. Member for Chelmsford.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland under what circumstances Mr. Patrick M'Namara was evicted from his house in Lisdoonvarna on 26th May last?

As Mr. Patrick M'Namara is awaiting trial on a charge of taking forcible possession of the premises referred to it would not be proper for me to make any statement at present on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary if the Creagh estate, county Clare, has been purchased by the Congested Districts Board?

The Congested Districts Board have not purchased the estate referred to.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the resolutions adopted by the National Board of Education in 1899, relative to the new system, contained a proviso that the case of Queen's scholars then in training was to be reserved; and will he state why, in view of this resolution, the Commissioners of National Education paid twenty-seven Queen's scholars of the year 1899 the ordinary salary of £56 per annum, while they paid two of equal rank, classification and age an initial salary of £75 per annum.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question of the hon. Member for East Down on this subject on 18th April, 1912, to which I have nothing to add.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death of Henry Hartney, gunner, Royal Garrison Artillery, regimental number 27,073, who was killed accidentally while on duty and obeying orders at the Forth Bridge in the month of September, 1913; what, if anything, has been done for his widowed mother in the way of compensation for the death of her son; what inquiry has been held in this case; and will the War Department grant some compensation to his mother to help her in the loss she has sustained by the death of her son?

It is not the practice to give compensation to the parents of soldiers who meet with accidents in the Service unless these accidents occur in very exceptional circumstances, or unless the parents were dependent upon the soldier. I am having further inquiries made, and if the hon. Gentleman will ask me again in a little time, I will give him an answer.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether orders have been issued by the Army Council for the discharge to pension of all warrant and noncommissioned officers of the garrison staff on completion of thirty years' service; and, if so, what is the reason for taking this course, which abrogates the conditions under which these men enlisted and which is likely to have a detrimental effect upon recruiting?

The rule referred to has been in force since the early part of 1913, and does not, as stated, abrogate the conditions under which men enlist. It is calculated to assist recruiting by helping the flow of promotion. There is a long list of candidates for these appointments, and I would point out that a soldier reaches his maximum pension after thirty years' service.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the quantity of high-grade phosphate in Ocean Island, West Pacific, from the report made by the expert, Mr. E. Danvers Power, at Sydney in 1901, as proved by prospecting to that date, which that report says may be more than doubled, to find the actual quantity on the island; whether he can state the actual quantity ascertained independently of the Pacific Islands Company, now called the Pacific Phosphate Company; the approximate value of that quantity in England at current prices and, deduced from this, its value on Ocean Island?

I have not seen the report of the expert referred to by the hon. Member. No survey on behalf of the Government was made of the quantity of phosphate on Ocean Island in 1901. As to the value of the phosphate at that date, I can add nothing to my reply of 18th December, 1912, to the question of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the cause of the diminution of sovereigns and half-sovereigns and the increase of silver rupees in the Paper Currency Reserve of India; how do the totals of each compare with the corresponding period of last year; is the import of gold into India greatly checked, and, if so, why; are the imports other than gold much increased; and are India's requirements of gold for the making of ornaments and for hoarding being met mainly from the Paper Currency Reserve of sovereigns and half-sovereigns?

The sovereigns and half-sovereigns in the Paper Currency Reserve amounted to £11,828,000 on 22nd June, 1914, against £17,200,000 a year previously, and the rupees to 2,659 lakhs, against 1,741. The movements shown by the figures are the result of many causes, among them being the unusually large importation of merchandise in 1913–14, which must have checked the importation of gold and the coinage of new rupees which took place last winter. I cannot say to what extent sovereigns and half-sovereigns from the Paper Currency Reserve are used for making ornaments or for hoarding, but, as more than £7,000,000 in gold bullion was imported in each of the last two years, it is probable that a considerable part of the demand for the purposes mentioned was met from that source.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of prosecutions, and the amount of money paid in fines and costs, in proceedings taken by the police or others under the Act for the prevention of cruelty to animals; and whether he could state what sums had been paid for evidence given in such prosecutions during the past three years?

The numbers of prosecutions for cruelty to animals in England and Wales under the Acts relating to this matter were as follows: 1910, 13,791; 1911, 13,545; 1912, 13.737. The rest of the information mentioned in the question is not available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any Order or circular has been issued by his Department to local authorities or watch committees with regard to the holding of public meetings in streets or open spaces?

No such circular has been issued.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the particular collieries in Lanarkshire which the central rescue station referred to in the report of the chief inspector of mines for the Scotland Division is intended to serve; whether the sites for the other rescue stations to be erected in Lanarkshire, also referred to in the report, have yet been selected; and, if so, where these stations are to be erected and what collieries they will serve?

I am informed that, in addition to the station at Coatbridge, which will serve the collieries within a 10-mile radius of that place, it has been decided to erect stations at (1) Larbert, for the Stirlingshire area; (2) in the neighbourhood of Lesmahagow, for the detached portion of the Lanarkshire coalfield; and (3) at Bathgate, for the Linlithgowshire portion of the coalfield. It is not yet possible to name the exact collieries to be served by each station, but I understand that when all the stations are completed the whole of the collieries belonging to the owners who are members of the Coal Masters' Association in Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Dumbartonshire, Stirlingshire, and Linlithgowshire, will be provided for.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether any local authorities are providing for the free examination of sputum; and, if so, whether he will give their names?

Provision for the free examination of sputum is made in the tuberculosis schemes of forty-two county councils and sixty-six county borough councils. The names of these authorities are:—

County Councils.—Bedford, Berkshire, Buckingham, Cheshire, Cornwall, Cumberland, Derby, Devon, Dorset, Durham, Ely (Isle of), Essex, Gloucester, Hereford, Hertford, Huntingdon, Kent, Lancashire, Leicester, Lincoln (parts of Holland, Kesteven, Lindsey), Middlesex, Northampton, Northumberland, Nottingham, Peterborough (Soke of), Salop, Somerset, Southampton, Stafford, Suffolk East, Suffolk West, Surrey, Sussex East, Sussex West, Warwick, Westmorland, Wiltshire, Worcester, Yorkshire (East Hiding, West Riding).

County Borough Councils.—Barnsley, Bath, Birkenhead, Birmingham, Blackburn, Blackpool, Bolton, Bootle, Bournemouth, Bradford, Brighton, Bristol, Burnley, Burton-on-Trent, Bury, Carlisle, Chester, Coventry, Croydon, Derby, Dews-bury, Dudley, Eastbourne, Gloucester, Halifax, Hastings, Huddersfield, Ipswich, Kingston-on-Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Lincoln, Liverpool, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Northampton, Norwich, Nottingham, Oldham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Preston, Reading, Rochdale, Rotherham, St. Helens, Salford, Sheffield, Smethwick, Southampton, Southend-on-Sea, Southport, South Shields, Stockport, Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland, Tynemouth, Wallasey, Warrington, West Bromwich, West Ham, Wigan, Wolverhampton, Worcester, York.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in spite of the opposition of several of their members, the East Grinstead guardians have resolved upon the vaccination of an orphan child named Victoria May Simmonds, aged eleven months, now in their charge, although its grandmother had made a statutory declaration of conscientious objection to the vaccination of the child whilst it was under her care; and whether he will take steps to secure that under circumstances such as these vaccination should not be performed?

My attention has been drawn to this case. I am communicating with the guardians on the subject, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the amount of the Government contribution to agricultural research in Great Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the United States, respectively?

The particulars are as follows:—

England and Wales.—The Grants specifically allocated in aid of agricultural research by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1913–14 were as follows:— £ Research Institutes 19,456 Special Investigations 3,731 Technical Advice and Investigation of Local Problems 7,347 Forestry Research, etc. 2,744 Research Scholarships 4,342 £37,620

In addition Grants, amounting to about £132,000, have been sanctioned by the Treasury from the Development Fund in respect of education and research buildings and for investigations into various crops. Further particulars respecting the above Grants will be found in the Annual Report of the Board on the Distribution of Grants for Agricultural Education and Research [Cd. 7450].

Scotland.—An account of the agricu—tural research in progress will be found in the Second Report of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, 1913 [Cd. 7434].

France.—The Budget of the Ministry of Agriculture does not show the expenditure on agricultural research as a whole, and no definite figure can be given. The Estimates for 1914 provide for expenditure on the following items:— £ Maintenance of l'Institut national agronomique 15,900 Sericultural experiments 2,000 Plant Disease investigations 7,600

Germany.—The expenditure on agricultural research in Germany cannot be satisfactorily separated from the expenditure incurred by the various States on agricultural education. The Imperial expenditure appears to be limited to a Grant of £15,000 to the Agricultural Biological Institute.

Belgium.—As in the case of France, it is not possible to separate expenditure on agricultural research from the administrative expenses of certain Departments of the Ministry of Agriculture. The expenses of the Station Agronomique de l'Etat and the State Chemical Laboratories amount to about £13,000, but this includes charges arising from laws relating to the adulteration of fertilisers.

Italy.—The information in the possession of the Board does not enable the expenditure on agricultural research to be stated.

United States.—According to the Report of the Secretary for Agriculture for 1913, about two-fifths of the total expenditure of the Federal Department or £1,875,000 are "available for scientific research, experiments and demonstration work directly affecting the farmer." Of this sum it is estimated that some £200,000 is devoted to purely demonstration work.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Orders of the Board and of the British local authorities respecting Irish cattle have been pronounced to be illegal and unauthorised by anything in the Act of 1894 by various authorities arriving at this conclusion independently of each other, he will circulate as a White Paper the remarks of the Lord President of the Council in the course of the Debate on the Bill, of 1878 (from which the Consolidating Act of 1894 differs in no relevant detail, except Section 66, which operates adversely to the Board's Orders), making plain that the question of restricting importation of Irish cattle into Great Britain had arisen in the Report of a Commission, and had been distinctly considered by the Government, and that the said Bill was deliberately and considerately intended to confer no such power otherwise than as regards infected areas in Ireland as and when so declared by the Irish authorities?

The complete series of Parliamentary Reports is available for the use of hon. Members, and no useful purpose would, I think, be served by circulating selected passages without their context as suggested by my hon. Friend.

also asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he intends to issue a circular or other notification to the British local authorities warning them that unless they can show due authority for their Orders in relation to Irish cattle, both such authorities in their corporate capacities and the individual members formulating and officials executing such Orders are liable to damages at the suit of any trader who can prove loss of cattle trading profits as a reasonable proximate consequence of their action?

The answer is in the negative.

next asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has considered the question of its legal liability to Irish cattle traders, unless able to uphold the legality of Orders contrary as well as to the considered intentions of the framers of the Act of 1878, as to the construction placed by various independent authorities on the Consolidating Act of 1894, considered by itself as an independent document; and, having regard to the fact that the Board by such Orders have treated Irish animals to all intents as foreign animals, whether he will be prepared to admit that the Irish cattle trade in its collective capacity as regards the damage which cannot be attributable to any individual trader is entitled to the same privileges as a foreign country, and advise the Government accordingly to afford facilities for submitting claim for such damage to the arbitration of an independent tribunal, as was the case of the Alabama claims made by the United States over forty years ago?

The answer is in the negative; no prima facie reasons having arisen for questioning the legality of any of the Orders of the Board.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the date, the name, and the area affected by the earliest Order, Regulations, or other formal act of the central authority of the time being for any part of the United Kingdom under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, or the previous Act of 1878, exercising the power of prohibiting and regulating the movement of animals in Section 22 (xvii.) of the said Act of 1894 or corresponding provision of the Act of 1878 in such wise as to place any area within their jurisdiction, not being, or by such formal act becoming, an infected place or infected area, under prohibition or restriction of egress of animals thereout; the earliest such Order or so forth exercising such power as aforesaid in such wise as to affect any area, not being an infected place or infected area, within the United Kingdom but outside the jurisdiction of the authority making the Order or so forth by prohibiting or regulating ingress to their area of jurisdiction or to any part thereof of animals from such area outside their jurisdiction by reason solely of their being animals from such outside area; and the earliest such Order giving power to any one or more local authorities in the United Kingdom to affect an area, not being an infected place or infected area, within the United Kingdom but outside the jurisdiction of such local authority by such local authority prohibiting or regulating ingress in the manner mentioned as regards a central authority, and to state in each of the three cases whether the Law Officers of the Crown for the time being for every or for any part of the United Kingdom capable of being affected by each such new departure Order or so forth as under the heads referred to were consulted respecting the commercial and constitutional questions of Law involved; if so, whether the opinions of any such Law Officers are questions of law involved; if so, whether having regard to the importance of the questions involved in each such earliest exercise of power under the provisions referred to, he can state for what reasons such opinions were not sought?

I regret that I am unable to supply my hon. Friend with the detailed information asked for in this question. Prior to the Board of Agriculture Act of 1889 the Diseases of Animals Acts were administered in Great Britain by the Privy Council. The Orders made by the Privy Council, for the purpose both of direct administration of the Acts and of delegation of powers to local authorities, appear to have been substantially identical in form and effect with the Orders since made by the Board, and in this connection I would refer my hon. Friend to the Orders mentioned in my answer to his question on this subject last week. But I have no official record of the exact circumstances in which the Orders were made, nor can I say whether or not the Law Officers were consulted.

— Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Queen Anne's Bounty. Grants of Perpetual Annuities. Grants of Capital. Grants of Capital. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. To Benefices in England … *11,948 16 0 216,107 13 4 101,555 0 0 1,896 10 0 To Benefices in Wales … … *720 0 0 31,626 0 0 13,843 0 0 133 0 0 14,698 6 0 247,733 13 4 115,398 0 0 * These Grants of perpetual annuities are subject to the condition that they shall cease immediately upon any transfer of the Patronage of the Benefices to which they are parable (unless by such transfer the Patronage be made public).

asked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, what is the total amount of Grants made in England and Wales (separately if possible) by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, respectively, during the last ten years to increase the Endowments, including the provision of residences, of benefices in private patronage; and whether any condition is annexed to such Grants that, in the event of the advowson of a benefice to which a Grant has been made being sold, the amount of the Grant shall be refunded either wholly or in part?

By the courtesy of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty I am enabled to answer that part of the hon. Member's question which relates to that body. The amounts of the Grants are set out in the appended tabular statement. No such condition as is mentioned in the question is annexed to any of the capital Grants by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or Queen Anne's Bounty, but in each case a benefaction of at least an equal amount has been received from the patron or some other voluntary source. Of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' annual Grants, however, £12,689 are subject to the condition that they shall cease to be payable immediately upon any transfer of the patronage taking place unless by such transfer the patronage be made public. Aggregate Grants made during the last ten years by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty for the augmentation of Benefices in Private Patronage (including Grants made for the provision, or improvement of residence houses):—