Rathcline (Annually) Estate. MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many of the tenants on the Rathcline (Annually) Estate are still denied the right of purchase; and whether, in the case of those so remaining, he will represent to the receiver the advisability, in the interests of the estate, of accepting the tenants' offers, and let the sales go through. MR. WYNDHAM: The number of tenants on the estate who have not been declared purchasers is nineteen. The right to purchase has not been denied to any of these. In four cases the Land Commission decided that the tenants should buy their holdings for cash. In seven cases the Commissioners required certain holdings to be consolidated before making advances. In the remaining eight cases no applications for advances have been made. Belfast Water Supply. MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast Water Com missioners have compulsorily taken over some hundreds of farms within the catchment of area in the district of Carrickfergus, and that, although it is almost a year since evidence was taken before the arbitrator for the purpose of assessing compensation to the tenants, the awards have not yet been made; and, if so, whether in view of the inconvenience caused by the delay, the arbitrator will be requested to at once make his awards. MR. WYNDHAM: The final awards of the arlitrator have been made and published in respect of four sections of the proposed works. The award in the case of the remaining section will be completed after the approaching harvest. The delay is in the interests of the tenants. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.): May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he intends to proceed with the Poor Prisoners' Defence Bill? *SIR CHARLES DILKE: There is likely to be a prolonged aebate on the Indian Budget this session? MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I recognise that is so. MR. ALFRED DAVIES (Carmarthen Boroughs): Can the right hon. Gentle man say how the inquiry into the conduct of the South African War is going on, and when we shall have the printed Report in our hands? MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a Question of which I should have notice, for we have no control whatever over the proceedings of the Commission. LIGHT LOAD LINE. Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this will be pleased to communicate to this House a copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on the Light Load Line, with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, etc.-(Mr. Gerald Balfour.) MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. MILITARY LANDS BILL. Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 324.] NEW BILL. ECCLESIASTICAL SUITS BILL. "To repeal certain enactments and otherwise to amend the Law relating to Ecclesiastical Suits," presented by Lord Hugh Cecil; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 321.] CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL. [SECOND READING.] Order for Second Reading read. MR. ROBSON (South Shields) said he gathered from information given to the House that a substantial number of the servants of the State were engaged in collecting statistics for the ostensible purpose of enabling the Government to make up its mind as to what was to be its future fiscal policy. The collection. of statistics for such a purpose must be conducted on a very elaborate and costly scale, at the expense of the State, and in fact out of funds appropriated by this Bill. The House was entitled and even bound to discuss that expenditure. Hitherto the House had not been asked to authorise the expenditure which they were informed had been incurred. THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I have given no information to that effect, and I do not know that any other Minister has. I do not think there has been any such expenditure incurred. MR. ROBSON thought the right hon. Gentleman could scarcely have reflected on what was involved in the information he had already given. They had been informed that this inquiry was being conducted by the servants of the State. The servants of the State were paid by that House. Therefore this inquiry must be additional to their ordinary work of administration. IRISH VALUATION ACTS. Report from the Select Committee, Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, that with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed]; is a mistake. The collection of statistical Report to lie upon the Table and to be information is part of their ordinary printed. [No. 337.] duties. MR. ROBSON was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In that case, the collection of statistics for a general inquiry into the fiscal policy was part of the ordinary duty of the servants of the State. Prior to that answer, there might have been some doubt as to whether the expenditure on these inquiries ought not to be left over for discussion on the Supplementary Estimates. But the hesitancy and uncertainty that had existed in the in the minds of hon. Members of the House as to how far this debate would be allowed to proceed on these lines must now he thought disappear. *MR. SPEAKER: It must not be taken by the hon. Member that I have any doubt in my mind that it is not competent to discuss on this Bill the future fiscal policy of the Government, or the merits of the inquiry which is to be gone into. They are not relevant to anything in this Bill. If it were otherwise, it would be possible on a statement, or even a suggestion, by a Minister, that in the next session the Government proposed to bring in a particular Bill, to discuss that Bill, or the policy of that Bill, on the Appropriation Bill, of the preceding session. Nothing of that character is permissible. MR. ROBSON On the point of order, was sure the Speaker would acquit him either of contesting his ruling or unduly arguing it; but one might, in a matter of such interest and importance, submit some considerations which did not appear to enter into the observations just made from the Chair. He submitted that this was a matter relating to the ordinary expenditure of the year, and, although its ultimate issue in legislation might not be discussed, the expenditure for the present was an administrative act, and, like every other administrative act it would be in order to refer to it in a discussion in regard to the salary of any particular Minister concerned. That consideration alone might be conclusive as regarded the practice of the House. But he submitted another. According to the invariable practice of the House, the Appropriation Bill had been adopted as the means of a general discussion of not merely the acts of this or that particular Minister, but of the acts of all the Ministers and their Departments taken together. The Leader of the Opposition had always seized the occasion presented by this Bill to discuss at large not merely the past conduct of the Ministry, but the conduct of the Ministry in relation to its future general administrative policy. Lord Hartington did this year after year. Mr. Disraeli did it year after year when Leader of the Opposition; and if that privilege was lost one of the most essential and vital privileges of the House would be gone. This, that, or the other matter might be discussed on a vote of censure, but for a discussion of the whole policy of the Administration. they had only the Appropriation Bill or nothing. He had every confidence that the Speaker desired to interpret the traditions of the House in a sense conformable to its general practice, but surely there could be very little doubt that they were entitled to raise the whole policy of the Ministry and its administrative acts on that occasion. That the direction of this inquiry was an administrative act was clear from the statement just made by the First Lord of the Treasury. If they had not the power to discuss that act, then they had not got the power possessed by every other legislative Assembly in the world of discussing on some occasion the whole policy of the Ministry. It could not surely be said that their power to raise the discussion depended entirely on the will of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to a vote of censure. It should be a part of their regular procedure. He submitted it had always been a part of their procedure, and if they were not allowed now to adopt it the House would lose privilege and right which was essential to the proper performance of its duties to its constituents. LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich) asked whether it would not be in order on the Appropriation Bill to bring in an Amendment censuring a particular Minister; whether, if that were in order, it would not also be in order to comment on the conduct of a particular Minister; and whether that would not only apply to the conduct and administration of a particular Department, but also to so much of his political conduct as was reasonably relevant, and to the confidence the House felt in a Minister or any body of Ministers. *MR. SPEAKER: My answer to the *MR. SPEAKER: My answer to the noble Lord would partly depend on the meaning to be attached to the words "reasonably relevant." With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for South Shields, if I thought that-if there was the slightest doubt in my mind as to whether or not by any ruling of mine I was taking away any privilege of the House, the House will believe that I would not run any risk of doing so; but I am confident that, whenever the question has been raised, it has always been ruled that the Appropriation Bill stands exactly in the same position as other Bills. Whatever is debated must be relevant to the clauses of the Bill. The hon. Member justly says this Bill includes the salaries of the Ministers of the Crown, and therefore, their administrative conduct may be discussed on the Appropriation Bill. But the right goes no further. The hon. Member's proposal, as I understand it, is to go further than that, and to discuss the collection of information with a view to a policy which can only be carried out by legislation in a future session. I do not think anything the hon. Member has said is an answer to what I have said as to such a proceeding. If it were proposed to bring in a Redistribution Bill in a future session, and somebody asked a question in answer to which he learned that clerks in the Board of Trade and other offices were being employed in getting up statistics with regard to population and so forth, you cannot, on that answer, claim to discuss the proposed legislation of the future session. That is the ground on which I am of opinion that the hon. Member is not in order. MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.): On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I gather from your ruling that it would be in order on the Appropriation Bill to discuss the administrative action or inaction of any particular Minister. May I not also submit to you that it is clearly in order on the Appropriation Bill to discuss the action or inaction of the Government, as a whole, in their administrative capacity? If, for the sake of hypothesis, the Govern ment as a whole propose in their ad ministrative capacity to undertake a particular inquiry into a particular subject matter, and if, for the purposes of that inquiry, the services of persons in the employment of the State, whose salaries and expenses are paid by this House, are admitted to be necessary, is it not within the competence of the House, on the Appropriation Bill, to discuss the circumstances out of which the inquiry has arisen, the manner in which it is being conducted, and the results which it is reference to any legislative proposal which likely to produce, entirely without may hereafter be produced? *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think it is possible to debate the question entirely without reference to legislative action. A debate on the inquiry as to the future policy is a debate on the policy itself. I am therefore of opinion the debate is not in order. MR. ASQUITH: Do I understand you to rule it is not open to us on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill to discuss whether or not there is any necessity for such an inquiry to take place? *MR. SPEAKER: Yes, exactly in the same way in which it is not open to the House on the Appropriation Bill to discuss whether or not there is any necessity for collecting information for a Redistribution Bill. MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs) | subject the information should be said he had a Question to ask with obtained from the whole country and reference to the action of the Treasury not from particular districts. It was officials. *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member for South Shields is in possession of the House. MR. ROBSON said he did not propose to proceed, having regard to the limited scope to which the ruling of the Speaker confined the discussion. MR. DALZIEL asked whether any report had been received from any Treasury official in response to the inquiry by the Government for such a Return, and if it had been received what was its character, and would it be made public. He wished to point out that the permanent officials were the servants of the House, paid by the House, and the House therefore had a right to inquire as to how they discharged their duties. If Returns had been made with regard to the fiscal policy of this country they were of an important character, and it was desirable that the House should know the purport of them. He would ask further if any Returns had been received from the Board of Trade and would they be published. MR. LLOYD-GEORGE said that the Board of Trade had published a good deal of information with regard to the hours of labour, wages, and the conditions of employment in particular trades of particular districts at home, and also some invaluable documents with regard to trade abroad. He wished to know whether the Board, in the course of the inquiry it was now conducting, could extend that information with respect to all trades in France and Germany; and also give particulars as to the cost of living abroad. It was very difficult to discover from the official documents of the Board of Trade what the real condition of the trade of the country was. He had been told that the method of obtaining these statistics was not reliable. Information with regard to the shipping, engineering and textile trades was obtained only from particular districts, but now that so much importance attached to the very desirable to let the public know what was the aggregate amount of wages earned in this country, also as to the cost of living abroad and the hours of labour. He should like to know, further, how the figures with regard to exports and imports were arrived at. There ought to be no difficulty in getting accurate official information as to the condition of our trade. On the face of it, the position seemed to be that we were losing something like £150,000,000. It was very desirable to have a balancesheet. He was told that this country was earning between £70,000,000 and £80,000,000 in respect of shipping. The trade Returns showed nothing of that. Then, as to our investments abroad. He was told we had invested abroad some £200,000,000. [A VOICE: More.] Very well then, let the House and the country be informed. All this information ought to be published year after year so that the nation might be able at any moment to see what its commercial position was. That was the most effective way to stop these foolish panics about our trade. We heard a good deal about our trade abroad, but we got little information about our trade at home. The Board of Trade ought to make it its business to get statistics with regard to the value of our industries at home In the case of Canada and the United States the fullest information was collected by the Government and issued in Parliamentary Papers. Why could not the same be done in this country? I think that with regard to "dumping we could get a lot of information. This is a sort of thing which is very misleading unless you get accurate information. I think we should get this information in our official books. We hear a great deal about Germany sending steel bars and how that affects certain industries. We want information as to how it acts for the benefit of another industry. This is the sort of in ormation which the President of the Board of Trade knows can be obtained and ought to be obtained and published. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that it is important that |