that thousands of pounds worth of property has been annually destroyed on the land of the small farmers who live in the vicinity of the River Robe, in the Claremorris Union, county Mayo; whether petitions have been lodged with the Congested Districts Board asking that body to do something towards remedying the condition of affairs exist ing all over that district; and whether more than a year ago a promise was made by the Board to assist in the drainage of that river; and, if so, what is the reason they have failed to redeem their promise in a matter of urgency to numbers of poor people. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board have been urged to undertake drainage operations on the upper reaches of the River Robe for the benefit of the congested districts through which the river flows, including some of the Board's estates. About 11 miles of the lower portion of the river is already under the control of local drainage trustees. In July, 1906, the Board made an offer to the Claremorris Rural District Council to contribute two-thirds of the estimated cost of £3,500, provided that a drainage board should be formed which would undertake to carry out the proposed works on the upper part of the river and be afterwards responsible for their proper maintenance. It would seem to be for the district council to consider whether they can comply with the conditions upon which the Board made their offer of assistance. Sale of the Island Farm, Knox Estate. MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that about three years ago the Island farm, consisting of about 400 acres of good land, on the Knox estates, near Ballyhaunis, county Mayo, was purchased by the Congested Districts Board; that this farm has since then been grazed and managed by the Board, and that the greatest desire exists on the part of the tenants in the neighbourhood to have this farm broken up, so that there may be an enlargement of the holdings on which they try to live suitably to their requirements, and that they have on many occasions asked the Board to carry out their wishes in this respect without result; and whether, in view of this treatment of these tenants, owing to the delay in the breaking up of this farm, he will have steps taken to have the places divided forthwith, so that each tenant might improve his portion in his own way and prevent further pain and disappointment to the tenantry. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The estate in question is for sale in the Land Judge's Court. The Congested Districts Board were negotiating for its purchase, but for reasons already fully stated they have been obliged to postpone making an offer in consequence of the state of their funds. The Board, therefore, are in the position of grazing tenants pending the sale to them of the estate. No steps for the division of the land can be taken until the sale to them has been effected. Economic Holdings at Kilmaine. MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when the grazing farms in the parish of Kilmaine, Ballinrobe Union, and County of Mayo, are being divided, he will give instructions to the Congested Districts Board to see that the needs of the people of the parish will be properly attended to, with a view to creating a sufficient number of economic holdings to provide those who are now living on miserable patches with enough land to live on before applications from others will be granted. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board have postponed the distribution of the lands in their possession at Kilmaine until the Report of the Royal Commission on Congestion has been received and considered. Under the existing law the Board have no power to enlarge holdings over £5 valuation in non-congested districts. Sale of the Begley Estate, Iskerlavally. MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the landlord of the Begley estate, Iskerlavally, in the Claremorris Union, offered the property | Rathmines and Rathgar Urban Council, for sale to the Congested Districts Board; contrary to the provisions of Article 27 whether the tenants have agreed to leave of the Public Bodies Order, 1904; that the matter in the hands of the Board; ratepayers, viz., Messrs. O'Ratigan, Sulliand, seeing that the estate is much con- van, and O'Driscoll, have complained to gested, and that both parties have agreed the Local Government Board on this to have the purchase carried out through matter with reference to the audit of the that body, and that necessity for the 31st March, 1907; and that the Local relief of congestion exists on that estate, Government Board has failed to decide he will see that instructions to the Board's on the grievance as to the non-producofficials to proceed with the work will tion of vouchers, and has failed to give not be further withheld. any redress to the aggrieved ratepayers; and will the correspondence as to the non-production of vouchers at the audit of the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban Council's accounts for the year ended the 31st March, 1907, between the Local Government Board and the above ratepayers, between the said Board and the Rathmines Urban Council, and between the said Board and the auditor, Mr. John L. King, and all reports connected therewith, be laid upon the Table of the House. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) For reasons which I have already fully stated to the House, the Congested Districts Board have been obliged to suspend negotiations for purchase in the case of this and other tenanted estates. Labourers Act Inquiry at Mullingar. SIR WALTER NUGENT (Westmeath, N.) To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state why, at the recent Local Government inquiry held under the Labourers Act at Mullingar, five bona fide applicants for labourers' cottages on residential grazing land were rejected, the said land being situated in the townland of Rathnure and electoral division of Clonfad, and this nothwithstanding the fact that there is considerable tillage in the neighbourhood for which additional labourers are required. non (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board assume that the five cases alluded to in the Question are those in which applications were made for cottages on the property of Mr. C. B. Marlay in the townland of Rathnure. The inspector considered that the necessity for the proposed cottages was not established. The applicants were young single men, who were living with their parents, and for whom house accommodation did not appear to be particularly required. Non-Production of Vouchers by the Rathmines and Rathgar Urban Council. MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the LordLieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that certain vouchers have been withheld from the ratepayers by the purpose (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that all the vouchers which the auditor considered necessary for the of the audit were produced to him. Complaint has been made to the Local Government Board that certain documents in the nature of subsidiary vouchers for the payment of expenses incurred in the promotion of local Bills by the urban council were withheld. These subsidiary vouchers were produced to the Taxing Master of the House of Commons, and the auditor did not demand their reproduction, as he did not consider them necessary for the purpose of the audit. The Local Government Board have no power to compel the production of these documents. As regards the concluding portion of the Question, the correspondence between the Local Government Board and the ratepayers mentioned is, of course, in the possession of these ratepayers, who are at liberty to publish it, and the correspondence between the Board and the urban council can be inspected by any local government elector under Article 19 (4) of the Application of Enactments Order, 1898. It would be contrary to practice to publish any communications which pass between the Board and any of their auditors. In the circumstances the reply to the last part of the Question must be in the negative. Largy Schoolmaster. MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH (Fermanagh, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the result of the inquiries of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland into the connection between the teacher of Largy School, County Antrim, and the adjacent public-house; is the name of the publican also the name of the schoolmaster, and, if not in fact the same person, what relation is the publican to the schoolmaster; where does the publican reside, and who manages the public-house; and will he inquire as to these matters from the local police if the Commissioners are not aware of the facts. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, as the result of their inquiries, they have ascertained the following facts in connection with this case: the school is situate within a few yards of a publichouse; the licensed publican is John Rainey, who is father of the teacher, William John Rainey; the licensed person does not reside on the premises but on his farm; the teacher's sister resides in the public-house and manages it; the teacher's wife and children reside in the public house when living in the locality, but it does not appear that the teacher himself lives there; he rents a room in a cottage in which he sleeps and takes his breakfast; he states that he is a teetotaller and has been so all his life. The Commissioners have taken measures to enforce a strict observance in future of the rule in this case. Payment of Local Government Auditors. MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secre tary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the auditors of the Local Government Board of England are paid by the local bodies for the work they do on a fixed scale of moderate charges; whether the auditors in Ireland have fixed salaries; whether he can state how the fees paid by local bodies are accounted for; whether in Scotland the Local Government Board appoints registered accountants for auditing; whether he will cause the practice in Ireland to be assimilated with that of either England or Scotland; and Government Board auditors in Ireland shall confine themselves simply to the duty of auditing. (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Local Government Board auditors are paid by salary in England and Ireland alike, but the Irish scale of salaries is lower than the English. The audit fees paid by local bodies in Ireland are appropriated in aid of the Parliamentary Vote of the Local Government Board. In Scotland the Local Government Board appoints registered accountants for auditing. The practice in Ireland is similar to that which obtains in England, and is considered more suitable to the circumstance of Ireland than the Scottish practice Moreover, any change in this regard would require legislation. The duties of auditors in Ireland are prescribed by statute, and include reporting on the financial administration of the local authorities, as well as vouching the correctness of the accounts. SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES). Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Children Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Whitbread, and, Mr. Mond; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Children Bill): Mr. Bramsdon, Mr. Fiennes, and, Mr. Percy Barlow. Report to lie upon the Table. ADJOURNMENT. THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE TARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY, Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey), in moving that the House do now adjourn to 27th April, said that the first business after the recess would be the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill. MR. SPEAKER: The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman is a little previous. As the House is aware, we are in expectation of a message to attend a Royal Commission in the House of Peers. On my return I will call on the right hon. ROYAL ASSENT. Does that mean that the Second Bill. Message to attend the Lords Commis- Reading of the Licensing Bill will be sioners. The House went; and, being returned; Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to-1. Army (Annual) Act, 1908 2. Herne Bay Pier Act, 1908. ADJOURNMENT. MR. GEORGE WHITELEY then moved the adjournment of the House until 27th April. Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn till Monday, 27th April."-(Mr. George Whiteley.) *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean) asked as to the ballot. He presumed that it was intended to have a ballot for notices of Motion on the day on which the House reassembled. His point was that there would only be one day's notice between that date and the first private Members' night. MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.): May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to whom I desire to offer the warmest possible congratulations upon his accession to that office, which I am sure he will fill with the utmost eredit to the country and himselfif he can tell us a little more about the business than the information contained in the somewhat bald, and, so far as I know, quite unprecedented statement on the part of the Patronage Secretary in regard to business when the House meets again? I do not think there is any precedent for the House find ing itself in the position in which we find ourselves. The whole circumstances of the case are exceptional. A programme of business had been arranged leading up to the adjournment, and it had been intimated in the usual way that following the adjournment the business would be, as it generally is, of a non-controversial character for the first few days pending the reassembling of Ministers. We are now met with the very simple statement of the Patronage Secretary-it is more of a fighting announcement than a statement of business-that the first business of the House will be the Licensing taken de die in diem for the first week after we meet? Does it therefore mean that Thursday, which is usually given to Supply, will be devoted to the Licensing Bill, if necessary, and are we to have no information until after we reassemble in regard, first of all, to the introduction of the Budget--which is obviously a matter on which the House ought to have some information before it meets after Easter--and also in regard to the Second Reading of the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will realise, I am sure, that the House ought not to separate without Members knowing more as to the arrangements for the business of the House, so that they may make their plans to be here on the days on which special business is to be taken. MR. SPEAKER: In reply to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, I think the most convenient plan will be to take the ballot after Question time on Monday, and it will then be open for two or three days, so that Members who are successful can take their choice of days. SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY (Great Grimsby): Can the right hon. Gentleman also say taken ? when the Education Bill will be MR. BURDETT-COUTTS (Westminster): As it has been announced that the Licensing Bill is to be the first measure taken after we meet on the 27th, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading the House, and whom I, in an unofficial sense, beg heartily to congratulate on his promotion, whether it would not be advisable that we should have some statement as to the exact measure of the extensive modifications which we understand are to be made in the Licensing Bill? MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman should think my statement unduly bald. I limited my remarks when I first moved the adjournment, because I had nothing else to say, and I thought what I had said was sufficiently explanatory. The Licensing Bill will be taken on the Monday that we reassemble. I am An MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: announcement will be made in the usual way on the Thursday. quite aware it is rather unusual that EARL WINTERTON: Will the right a big Bill of that character should hon. Gentleman make an announcement be taken, but the right hon. Gentle- on the Monday as to when these Bills man must remember we have lost will be taken ? ten valuable days, and that if we do not press on with the important Bills, we shall find at the end of the session we have not achieved the legislation we desire to achieve. The division, we hope, may take place on the Wednesday night. Whether the Leader of the House will see fit to give Thursday or not I cannot say, but, as a rule, these are matters that are arranged between the Chief Whips of the Parties during the course of the Second Reading discussion of a Bill. If there were really a demand and a necessity for Thursday, I do not suppose the Premier would oppose it. With regard to the Miners' Eight Hours Bill no arrangement can be made beyond the first week. That statement necessarily applies also to the Education Bill and the Budget. The Government plans do not extend beyond the first week; but in all probability, as soon as possible after the first week, the Budget will be taken. With regard to modifications in the Licensing Bill, so far as I am concerned, there are none. MR. WALTER LONG: Has the right hon. Gentleman realised that Wednesday night is a private Members' night, and therefore the suggestion which comes from him as Chief Government Whip is that we should debate the main Bill of the session on the Monday and Tuesday and divide at eight o'clock on the Wednesday? Surely that can hardly be a serious proposition. MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: The right hon. Gentleman is a good hand at making a bargain, and it is not usual to give away, in the first instance, all one is perhaps prepared to give in the end. SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: Is there any truth in the report that the Education Bill is to be dropped? EARL WINTERTON (Sussex, Horsham) Is the Housing Bill to be taken in the first fortnight after the recess? MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: We hope to take it as soon as we possibly can. SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend) said he wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and at the same time to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for having been unable to give him notice. During the last few weeks there had been a disturbance of industrial conditions, particularly in the county of Kent, one of the boroughs of which he had the honour of representing in that House. He referred to the hop industry. [Laughter.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen might consider that a laughing matter, but he represented a borough in a county the people of which looked on it as a very serious matter, and he was quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not look upon it as either trivial or unimportant. [A voice: What is your question?] He presumed he had the privilege of putting his question in his own way. [Cries of "No speech."] He thought he entitled to make a speech, and he proposed to do so. was The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been used to dealing with emergencies, and no doubt, during his tenure of his new office, he would have Let to deal with a great many more. them consider the action he had taken, for instance, with regard to patents and to merchant shipping. That action had been absolutely independent of what might be called Party feelings or Party considerations. The right hon. Gentleman had looked at the interests of those engaged in the industries of the country from the standpoint of patriotism. He submitted that the question he was about to put to the right hon. Gentleman was one of grave importance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and many of those who sat upon the Treasury Bench had again and again said that, in any case of undue competition-in any case of dumping tion of the Government could be made which was clearly proved-the intervenindependently of legislation. That was said by the late Prime Minister and by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of whom stated that it was in the |