of State for India when the late Amir of | trustees of the bog on the Granard Afghanistan used the title of king; (counties Longford and Leitrim) Estate; whether it was recognised by the Govern- how often they meet, and whether they ment of India; and whether it appears have any power to regulate complaints in any official documents previous to the made by persons aggrieved by reason of Treaty of the 21st of March, 1905. deprivation of turbary or the like; whether he is aware that in 1897 Thomas Whitney, of Lettergullion, purchased his holding subject to a right of turbary on Derawley Bog No. 2, for which the vesting order provides; that, on application of the tenant for his turbary rights, the bailiff told him he had no turbary for him, and that on application to the Land Commission a reply was received that the case was under consideration; and, if so, will he direct the Estates Commissioners to take this man's case into immediate consideration with a view to his getting the rights to which he is by (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The late Amir appears to have first used the title of king in his communications with the Government of India in 1896. His adoption of the title did not need the recognition of the Government of India, which recognises the independence of Afghanistan; and, as stated in my Answer to the hon. Member of the 26th May, it was not questioned. The letter of 1896 to the Governor-General, using the title, was an official document. Action of the Police at Longford County vesting order entitled. Races. MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the LordLieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why the police force in Longford rendered no assistance to the stewards of the Longford county races to preserve order on the course at Greenfield, Longford, on the 17th May; whether any secret instructions were given to them to refrain from giving any active assistance for the preservation of order and the safety of human life; and whether he has any report showing that a man was killed at this meeting, and as to the conduct of the police in keeping order on this occasion. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The police attended these races for the preservation of the peare. The regulations prohibit the employment of police in keeping the course at races unless their services for that purpose are specially applied for, in which case a charge is made. No complaint against the police has been received in connection with the circumstances in which a man was knocked down and killed when trying to stop a runaway horse at these races. Turbary Rights on the Granard Estate. MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state who are the † See (4) Debates, cxlvi., 1533. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The vesting order in Whitney's case vested with the holding certain turbary rights in Derawley Bog, but the Land Commission were not parties to the deed appointing the trustees and creating the trust of the bog, and they have no information as to who the present trustees are or as to how they discharge their trust. The Estates Commissioners have no power to intervene in the manner suggested. Maconchy Estate. MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant called to the case of Michael Whitney, of of Ireland whether his attention has been Aghadowry, county Longford, who refused to purchase his holding on the Maconchy Estate because the rent of the view of the rent paid by the former holding was too high; and whether, in tenant, a bailiff, and of the fact that the other tenants on the Maconchy Estate got reductions of over 40 per cent. on their rents being fixed by the Land Commission, the Estates Commissioners, with a view to enabling this tenant to purchase, will inspect his holding before passing the sale. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) An application has been lodged for the sale of this estate, which comprises, amongst others, the holding of Michael Whitney, but no agreement for the purchase of this holding has been lodged. The Commissioners will direct their inspector to inspect and report on Whitney's holding and as to the reasons for his refusal to purchase Delvin Petty Sessions-Case of Luke Position of Mr. S. E. Stronge in National MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state who appointed Mr. S. E. Stronge to his present position in the National Education Office, Dublin; for what term is the appointment made, and when does it terminate; does he receive extra remuneration for his services and who performs his duty as senior inspector; MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.): To if the duties he is now performing are ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord- those for which the Commissioners have Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in a case against Luke appointed two chief inspectors at a Gibney on a charge of offensive and special rate of salary; and, if so, whether a charge of offensive and he will explain why these duties are threatening language, heard at Delvin assigned to Mr. Stronge instead of chief Petty Sessions, the plaintiff having inspectors, and what work is now assigned declared he was not afraid of defendant, to the chief inspectors other than that Mr. Olphert, R.M., the presiding which Mr. Stronge performs for them. magistrate, called upon the police sergeant to make an information which he dictated to him, and upon which the defendant was bound to the peace; and whether, in view of this proceeding on the part of the magistrate, the rule of bail will be withdrawn. Irish Protestant National Teachers' (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board ordered that one of the senior Education Office for special duty, and inspectors should be brought to the Mr. Stronge was the senior inspector selected. His term of employment was not defined, and it cannot be stated when it will terminate. Mr. Stronge receives no remuneration. His duties as extra senior inspector are performed, during his absence from circuit, by Dr. Bateman, district inspector. Mr. Stronge is not performing any of the duties of the chief inspectors. Retirement and Pension of John Shanley from Royal Irish Constabulary. MR. JAMES O'KELLY (Roscommon, MP. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): To ask the N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he of Ireland if he has received an appeal can state why John Shanley, Lugboy, from the Irish Protestant National county Roscommon, who was employed Teachers, pointing out the prejudicial as a detective on the occasion of the effect upon them of the present managerial system in Ireland; and what action, if any, does he propose taking in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A resolution to the effect stated was passed by the the Irish Protestant National Teachers' Union twelve months ago, and was considered by the Commissioners, who did not consider any change in the system to be necessary. The matter is one for the Commissioners. visits of the late Mr. Parnell and the hon. Member for Cork City to the United States and Canada, was allowed to retire from the Royal Irish Constabulary at forty-three years of age; how long was he employed as a detective; and what is the amount of his pension. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Sergeant John Shanley retired on pension, on the ground of ill-health, in October, 1891. He was awarded a special pension of £52 per annum, because his incapacity was due to an injury received while on Irish Education-Special Consideration Granted to Certain Teachers. MR. P. A. MCHUGH (Leitrim, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that special consideration, and a consequent rise in salary, has been granted to certain teachers appointed to principalships subsequent to April, 1900, on the ground that they acted as substitutes for principal teachers prior to April, 1900, while equal service as assistant teacher has not received special consideration; and, if so, will he state why the Commissioners of National Education have made this distinction. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In the case of certain teachers who acted as substitutes for principal teachers before April 1st, 1900, special consideration was given to the fact that they had so acted in fixing their salaries on permanent appointment as principals subsequently. Assistants in the service prior to April 1st, 1900, received, as a rule, on promotion to principalships, initial salaries equal to their salaries as assistants, but if they were highly classed special consideration was given to the fact in fixing their initial salaries as principals. Service as an assistant was not regarded by the Commissioners as "equal service" with that of a teacher acting for a principal teacher. doubt that, in order to serve their any telegram from our naval attaché with country effectually, members of rifle Admiral Togo? clubs would, in time of war, gladly conform to the requirements of the public law of nations. MR. CROOKS (Woolwich): I suppose these members of rifle clubs are real men and not spooks? MR. FREDERICK WILSON (Norfolk, Mid.) asked whether, when the £50,000 per annum now promised to rifle clubs for the second time was really given, steps would be taken so to regularise their position that they would no longer run the slightest danger of being hanged as Chunchuses. MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not know whether the Question is put seriously. If it is I can only say I can not look far enough into the future to enable me to reply. The Indian Earthquake-Gurkha Officers' Claims. *SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON (Staffordshire, Handsworth): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether anything, and, if so, what, has been done to assist the Gurkha officers in rebuilding their private houses, and also their mess room, which were destroyed by the earthquake at Dharmsala. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): I am at present not in a position to reply to this Question. As I stated in this House on the 23rd inst.,† the Commander-in-Chief in India has submitted certain proposals to the Government of India for concessions, the nature of which has not yet been reported to me. Any proposals which the Government of India think well to forward will be most favourably considered. The Naval Battle in the Far East. MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): May I ask whether His Majesty's Government have any information to communicate now to the House with reference to the naval engagement, and especially whether they have received + See (4) Debates, cxlvi,, 1119. THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY, Kensington, S.): No, Sir; I am not in a position to make any other statement except the general statement I made yesterday. Perhaps I ought to add that it is manifestly impossible for His Majesty's Government to anticipate statements of this kind, which the Japanese Admiralty will themselves make when they think proper. Dog Licence Fines. MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of fines and the total amount produced thereby which have been inflicted on owners of dogs by collectors of the Inland Revenue during the last three years; and whether, in view of the fact that such proceedings conflict with the principle of the Magna Charta that no freeman shall be disseised of his freehold except by the law of the land, and seeing that they are not clearly sanctioned by Section 35 (1) of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890, he can undertake that they shall be discontinued. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): In reply to the first part of the Question, I have to say that the records kept by the Inland Revenue do not present the statistics desired in a collected form, and I am therefore unable to give the exact figures, but I believe that the following are approximately correct:-Number of cases, 46,000; amount received, £8,800. As regards the second part of the Question, I am quite unable to follow the reference to Magna Charta, or to see the bearing of that document on the facts complained of. It is always open to an offender to appear before a magistrate if he prefers it, but the greater number prefer to avail themselves of the alternative offered by the Inland Revenue. I see no reason for depriving them of this choice. MR. LOUGH: But does the right hon. Gentleman seriously say he approves of 46,000 fines being inflicted without any Government Board whether he can state control at law? MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In these cases it very often happens that the offence is not a wilful one but is due to negligence or carelessness. In these cases the Inland Revenue offer the offender the option of paying a small fine instead of being taken before a police magistrate, at whose hands they would be liable to a much higher penalty. If the offender chooses to accept the milder alternative I see no reason to interfere. MR. LOUGH: But is it legal? MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, perfectly legal, and even compatible with the rights of the British freeman under Magna Charta. The Suez Canal. SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the declaration on May 22nd of a dividend for the past year by the Suez Canal Company which will give the British Government a dividend for the past year of nearly 28 per cent., free of taxes, on the investment of £4,000,000 in 1875; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of refunding to British tonnage passing through the canal last year some proportion, say 5 or 10 per cent., of the dividend, having regard to the charges it had to meet to earn such an income for the company. MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: According to the announcement in the public Press, a substantial reduction in the shipping dues will be proposed at the annual meeting of the company. I should not be justified in proposing a grant in aid of a particular section of British shipping on the ground stated in the Question. SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I shall call attention to this matter at the earliest opportunity. the amounts expended by the Metropolitan boroughs on works for the relief of the unemployed during the year 1904; and whether he can give similar information concerning the county boroughs of England and Wales. THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I am not in possession of the information for which the hon. Member asks, but a Return was recently moved for by my hon. friend the Member for Chelsea for the purpose of showing the amount expended in wages by the Common Council of the City of London and by the councils of the metropolitan boroughs for work undertaken specially for the purpose of providing work for unemployed workmen during the six months ending on March 31st, 1905. Return will shortly be issued. I hope that this MR. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when we may have the Second Reading of the Unemployed Bill? MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am afraid I am not in a position to do so. Irish Land Purchase Instalments. MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that tenants who have purchased their holdings in districts where there is no bank have to pay poundage charges for postal or money orders by which payment of their purchase instalments is made; and whether he will take steps to relieve them of this impost. THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): No application for the exemption suggested by the hon. Member has as yet come before me; and I do not see what valid reasons could be urged in support of it. if any could be urged I would be willing to listen to them. Relief Works for the Unemployed. MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): We will |
