said it would not, fortunately, be necessary for him to detain the House for more than a few moments. This Bill made provision for the repurchase by the City of London of Spitalfields Market. Many centuries back a market monopoly was granted to the City of London, long before the borough which he had the honour to represent came into existence. It was felt that the time had now arrived when that monopoly should be broken through. He fully concurred that this Bill was one which could not be properly discussed in the House. It required investigation by a Committee upstairs, and he was glad to know that the promoters took the same view, and were prepared to have that full inquiry. It was under- stood that the other Bill referring to the same subject should go to the same Committee, and he did not therefore intend to press tin; motion which stood in his name.

said he understood that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill acquiesced in the arrangement that the two Bills on this subject should go to the same Committee, and he, too, therefore did not press his opposition.

said he wished in a few words to state the position of the Government in regard to this measure. It would be within the recollection of many hon. Members that a very similar Bill passed the House in 1899, but was abandoned owing to inability to arrive at an agreement in regard to the Lords' Amendment. A similar Bill was also passed by the House last year, and he might mention en passant that the ratepayers had already expended £54,000 in seeking to achieve the object aimed at by this Bill. The Bill of last year was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses—a Committee of a very-representative character, which unanimously recommended that legislation should be pressed on Parliament following upon the lines of the Loudon Equalisation of Rates Bill. The Leader of the House, when that recommendation was pressed upon him, promised to give it careful consideration, and undertook to inform the promoters before November whether the Government would or would not be, in a position to lend its aid to carry such a Bill during the following session. But the General Election and the reconstruction of the Government rendered [it impossible for them to redeem that pledge. The Government had examined the present Bill, and had found that it was drawn in almost exact accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. But it must be borne in mind that the cases of London and Dublin were not exactly on all fours. London constituted an entity of local government, but in Dublin there were several entities, and there was a danger that some hardship or injustice might arise to the townships concerned from the purely automatic effect of such a measure. The question was to what extent they would benefit from the road lighting and sanitation. The Government would, therefore, feel bound to introduce Amendments to safeguard the townships in that matter. They would not oppose the Second Reading, but it must be perfectly understood that their Amendments must be embodied in the Bill.

on behalf of the promoters, undertook to accept the Government proposals, and MR. MOORE (Antrim, N.) also, under the circumstances, withdrew his opposition to the Second Reading.

said he did not propose to press his opposition to this Bill, although he considered that it was a very bad one. He was, however, confident that when it came to be considered by a Committee it would not be allowed to pass. It set forth statements which he, for one, could not accept, as to the right of the City Corporation to establish markets outside the City boundaries. This question of markets was a vital one to the people of London, and should the Bill pass through the Committee he proposed to reserve to himself the right a t a later stage to oppose it.

said he wished to make the same reservation. He understood, however, that the promoters were willing that the Bill should be subjected to careful investigation upstairs, and he, therefore, would reserve his opposition. Personally, he thought that the City of London ought not to have the right to prohibit the establishment of markets in great towns which had grown up since the time it was granted its monopoly.

in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it was intended to make further provision for navigating lighters and barges on the Thames and in the Port of London, and altering for that purpose Section 66 of the Watermen and Lightermen Act. It was claimed by the Watermen's Company that barges and lighters working in the Port of London and on the Thames between Teddington Lock and Gravesend should be navigated only by men whose qualification was a licence from the Watermen's Company. This Bill, therefore, destroyed a monopoly. If these lightermen went out on strike and refused to navigate barges, the owners had no remedy at all. It was quite true that they could get people in to do the work, as long as the lightermen were on strike, but supposing they had engaged a man to navigate a barge at eight o'clock in the morning, if any lighterman choose to present himself at one o'clock on the same day they were bound to get rid of the man first engaged and to take on the lighterman. Now, the foreign, trade of the Port at Loudon, represented something like 252 millions sterling, and much of it was dealt with by lightermen. It was of great importance that this matter should be looked into, especially when, as happened recently, the lightermen came out on strike for something like three months, with the result that the whole trade was disorganised and the Port of London greatly injured. The difficulty arose from the fact that the owners of barges were unable to navigate their own vessels, and were compelled to employ licensed watermen. He did not think anything could be said against the desirability of making it possible for lightermen to work their own barges. At present the greater part of the work was done by tugs, and the lighterman simply sat in the stern of the barge, which was tugged down the river by steam, and received his pay when he condescended to call for it. His hon. friend opposite had put down an, Amendment to the effect that this Bill ought not to be proceeded with while the Royal Commission on the Port of London was sitting. But in the opinion of the promoters of this Bill this was not a matter which was referred to the Royal Commission. Moreover, it was a matter of great urgency that the Port of London should be protected and enabled to do its own work. He therefore hoped that the Bill might be allowed to pass. But if his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade considered that this really was a, matter which was referred to the Royal Commission, and which, therefore, could not properly be proceeded with in this House, he could only say that he would urge very strongly upon him that he should do his best to induce the Royal Commission to take this particular work in hand, and to issue an interim Report. Of course if that were done he would withdraw the Bill.

said he had no doubt whatever that this subject was within the reference to the Royal Commission on the Port of London. The Royal Commissioners had themselves taken the same view, for a day or two ago he received a letter from the Watermen's Company, in which the following passage occurred—

"The Royal Commission on the Port of London have notified the Watermen's Company that their rights and privileges are to be inquired into by them, and have allowed the company to he represented by counsel before them."

Under the circumstances it would be very undesirable for this House to take into consideration a Bill dealing with the matter. As to the suggestion of his hon. friend that the Commissioners should be invited to make an interim Report, he was quite willing to bring that to their notice and to leave it for the Commissioners themselves to decide whether or not it was expedient to do so.

said it seemed to him, without going into the merits of the question, that it would not be right, under the particular circumstances which had been drawn attention to, to press the measure, and he was therefore very glad that it was to be withdrawn.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the case that communications have been passing between Lord Kitchener and General Botha, and whether he can inform the House of the nature of those communications.

There have been communications, but the Government are not in a position at the present time to make any statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an officer with eighteen men held a post during the attack on Helvetia against a greatly superior force of Boers after the main garrison had surrendered; and whether he can give the name of this officer, or state that lie has been commended.

No official communication to this effect has been forwarded by Lord Kitchener. I have invited Lord Kitchener to forward any such case for such prompt reward as he may think fitting.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of subaltern officers in embodied Militia battalions in South Africa, who are candidates for commissions in the line, and are placed at comparative disadvantage to those Militia officers who by staying in England are able to pass the, examinations for direct commissions, and thus gain a year or a year and a half seniority in the Army; and whether he will take steps to treat such officers who are on service in the field more generously by allowing them, on receiving their commissions in the line, to reckon the time served at the front for seniority and relative rank in the Army.

We have done all that was possible to prevent Militia candidates for commissions from being placed at a disadvantage by reason of their service in South Africa. On the occasion of each of the competitions held since Militia battalions went to South Africa, a liberal proportion of commissions has been allotted to units in South Africa, to compensate for inability to compete. These commissions bear the same date as those given to successful competitors at the examination. Lord Kitchener will grant fifty commissions in the pre-sent month. The hon. Members proposal to antedate commissions so as to cover the period of service in South Africa with Militia battalions would involve the supersession of many officers, and is, I fear, impracticable.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will direct that no officer shall be penalised through the decision of a court of inquiry or court martial without being given the opportunity of making his own defence.

Certainly, Sir. The military authorities inform me that they are not aware of any ease in which an officer has been penalised through a decision of a court martial or court of inquiry without his view of the case being before them, and I will take care that no such case occurs.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the effect of placing officers commissioned with the Imperial Yeomanry, now being recruited under the special Army Order of 18th January last, on the ordinary cavalry rates of pay, is that the lieutenants and second lieutenants receive less actual pay than the regimental sergeant-majors, staff sergeants, and sergeant-majors of such Yeomanry, and that the second lieutenants receive less actual pay than sergeants; whether, in view of such discrepancy, he will, under the circumstances, reconsider the rates of pay of the officers of such Imperial Yeomanry; and whether he will, at the same time, consider the advisability of raising the present grant to Imperial Yeomanry officers for personal equip- ment and saddlery to a larger amount, in view of the facts that the present grant does not nearly cover the lowest-estimate of cost of such equipment, and that officers of the Rhodesian Field Force forming part of the Imperial Yeomanry Force last year received for the same purpose nearly three times the amount of the present grant.

So far as actual pay is concerned, the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question. But it must be borne in mind that the officer receives a gratuity at the rate of £100 a year, and colonial allowance at 3s. a day while in South Africa, which the non-commissioned officer does not. I am not prepared to reconsider now the amount of the grant for personal equipment, which was fixed after very careful consideration, and has been in force throughout the raising of the Imperial Yeomanry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state upon what terms as to pay the Irish Yeomanry went to South Africa; whether the rate of pay was to be 5s. a day after twelve months service; and, if so, upon what date this rate begins.

The Irish Yeomanry received on enlistment the same rates of pay as the regular cavalry, as laid down by the Royal Warrant of the 24th December, 1899. The rate of pay for a private was raised by Royal Warrant of 13th February, 1901, to 5s. from the day following that on which they completed one year's service, or from the 1st February, 1901, whichever occurred first.

May I ask if the Irish Yeomanry proved themselves worth 4s. a day more than the poor Irish Fusiliers?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of a batch of Yeomanry recruits who, on leaving London at 11.30 a.m. on 5th February and arrivingly unexpectedly at Aldershot, were told they were, not expected and must come again at six o'clock; whether he is aware that forty-six of them were placed in a room which could only accommodate twenty; that no rations were served out for twenty-four hours, that for fourteen days and nights the majority of them had to live in the clothes they came in. and that the kits were not served out to all until 10th February, the men having to eat their rations with their fingers; that this arrangement lasted for one month; that there was no discipline in the room, and only one parade at nine o'clock; that not one of these men was ever put upon a horse; and that these men were described in official language as having undergone one month's official training in riding and shooting; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances, and take steps to prevent their recurrence.

The difficulties in accommodating and providing for so many Yeomanry at Aldershot have already been fully explained to the House. The general officer commanding has personally dealt with these questions, and informs me that very few complaints were received. I believe that every effort has been made to cope with the difficulties, and that they were successfully and promptly dealt with, allowing for the circumstances that some 10,000 men have had to be passed through Aldershot and equipped during the last six weeks.

Do I understand that my statements are correct?

Well, Sir, I cannot say. I have referred many cases to Sir Redvers Buller. A large number were found to be incorrect; and I think it is much better to leave the matter in the hands of the general officer commanding.

Will the attention of the Commander-in-Chief be called to this matter?

Yes, Sir. I have forwarded the letters, but it has been found that many emanate from one Yeoman.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this class of recruits are called Yeomen, which is precisely what they are not?

Yeomen are mounted troops, and that is exactly the class of troops that these recruits are intended to be.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if any new rifle ranges have been completed since last September; and, if so, how many: and if any old rifle ranges have been closed; and, if so, bow many since that date.

The ranges at Parkhurst, in the Isle of Wight, and at Kilbride, in Ireland, have been completed since the date named. The only War Department range closed in the same period is the Les Landes range in Jersey, which was only used for field firing, and of which the lease has expired.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state who are the purchasers of the Salford Barracks, sold under the provisions of the Barracks Act of 1890; what is the amount realised by the sale; and to what purposes will the site and the purchase money respectively be applied.

The Salford Barracks were sold to the Corporation of Salford for £38,500. The site is, I understand, to be used by the corporation for the erection of artisans' dwellings. The purchase money has been applied to the purposes of the Barracks Act and the issues from the Consolidated Fund reduced accordingly.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether on the 2nd of January last a number of West Indian troops now stationed in St. Helena raided the town with clubs and razors tied to sticks; whether a number of the people were injured, several women beaten, and some children cut with the razors, and twelve of His Majesty's sailors injured; whether the West Indian soldiers broke out of barracks, and set their officers at defiance; whether when they were ordered to leave the town they refused, and threatened to blow up the town; and, if so, will he state what punishments have been inflicted; and whether the West Indian troops have been removed from St. Helena.

There was a quarrel between the sailors and the West Indian detachment, some men of which created disturbances; several had razors tied to sticks, and one is said to have had a club. Some few of the inhabitants were injured, but no women are reported to have been beaten or children cut; five sailors were injured. Several West Indian soldiers broke out of barracks, though they are not reported to have set their officers at defiance. They hesitated to march next morning, but eventually did so. Nothing is known of any threat to blow up the town. In consequence of the disturbance the detachment was moved at once to Sierra Leone, where fifteen men were tried by court-martial, six men were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment varying from six weeks to six months, seven were acquitted, and two are still in hospital awaiting trial.

With this experience will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that these regiments of coloured troops will not be moved into the more civilised portions of the Empire?

No. Sir. I cannot give any such undertaking.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the War Office has been directed to the insanitary condition of the village of Ludgershall, close to which large barracks are to be erected, and in which the War Office owns much property; if so, what steps it is proposed to take to remedy the present state of affairs.

The War Department property does not include the village of Ludgershall, and the new barracks will be two miles from the village and separated from it by a range of hills. The question of the improvement of Ludgershall has, however, not been lost sight of, and is under consideration.

Is it not the fact that the War Office is the lord of the manor of this village?

I cannot say with out notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Militia non-commissioned officers and men will in future receive Army rates of pay and messing allowances when called out for preliminary drill or annual training.

I purpose to touch on this question in introducing the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can say when the Return, Navy (Fleets), is likely to be circulated.

It is now in the proof stage, and its issue will be pressed on as quickly as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any provision will be made for the time lost by the naval cadets on the "Britannia" by reason of their being sent home owing to the recent epidemic on board that ship: whether the fees paid for the term will be returned or accounted for; and whether he will take prompt measures to see that a suitable ship is provided for the naval cadets.

The time lost by the cadets on board H.M.S. "Britannia" will be made up later on, and there will, therefore, be no occasion for returning fees. The cadets have been sent home for three weeks, and efforts are being made to render the "Britannia" fit and healthy for continued use as a cadets' training ship until the new college now being erected on shore is available. In such case it will be unnecessary to provide other accommodation for them, but if the efforts to render the "Britannia" free from infection should fail in their effect special arrangements will, of course, be made.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if ho will state the reasons for the arrangement by which the Royal Navy furnished the deck complement of the steamship "Ophir," while the owners provide the engine-room complement instead of the Royal Navy. I beg at the same time to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether lie will explain the arrangement made with the owners of the steamship "Ophir" as regards wages, victuals, clothing, and discipline of that part of the complement provided by the owners dining Admiralty charter.

It was considered that as the engineers of the Orient Company, accustomed to working the engines of the "Ophir," remained in charge of her machinery during her forthcoming voyage, the company should provide the whole of the engine-room staff. A subsequent decision has been come to to limit the staff provided by the company to the engineers and a few special ratings, the remainder being supplied by men of the Royal Navy. The portion of the crew of the "Ophir" not belonging to the Royal Navy have been entered under special conditions approved by Order in Council, which places them under the Naval Discipline Act, and they are paid the rates of pay agreed upon with the owners of the "Ophir," who victual the entire complement of the ship, including these men. Uniform is supplied at the cost of the Crown.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, before Vote I of the Navy Estimates is proceeded with, he will cause to be issued to the House a Return showing the nature and number of officers, petty officers, and men, and their rates of pay respectively, of the engine-room staff' of the steamship "Ophir," provided by the owners during the Admiralty charter.

I shall be happy to cause such a Return to be issued if the hon. and gallant Member will move for it, or I will send him the statement direct, whichever he prefers.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty entered into contracts last November for the supply of coals over 1901 at prices ranging from 19s. to 21s. per ton; and, if so, how many tons were contracted for.

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The quantity contracted for was about 400.000 tons.

How is it that the hon. Gentleman the other night told me the Admiralty never made contracts

We were discussing the excess quantities required, and not the minimum.

I wish to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice—whether the figures quoted in The Times to-day as to the amount of the expenditure on new construction, short of the Votes, are figures for the current year, or for some previous year.

The figures are not in respect to the current financial year. They are figures relating to the year ended March, 1900, and have already been dealt with in the statement of the, First Lord.

† See page 483.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a Departmental Committee has been appointed at the Admiralty to investigate into and reorganise the affairs of the Naval Ordnance Store Department; and, if so, whether the Committee will be asked to report the advisability of officering the department by Naval officers, and whether the Committee's attention will be drawn to the many promises given to Secretary of State for India, but with the House of Commons by the Parliamentary Admiralty officials that the Admiralty would appoint Naval warrant officers to berths in this department as vacancies occurred.

Yes, a Committee has been appointed, and the matters referred to are being considered by them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the cause for the continued refusal by the India Office and the Bank of England to explain to the 15,000 shareholders of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company the details and methods recently employed: in calculating the average rate of interest received and paid on Indian Government Stock in London during the two-year period under consideration; whether he is aware that the amount of stock referred to in this contract and by the Bank of England is about £120,000,000, but that by an oversight the Bank of England has omitted from the calculation about £100.000,000 stock, and only dealt with that proportion which was invested in during the two-year period; whether he is aware that this intrusion of the key-word "invested," instead of "received" is contrary to all precedent; and what steps will be taken to satisfy the shareholders of the Great Indian, the Bombay, and the Madras Railway Companies that the India Office itself feels a direct responsibility for the due completion of their contracts.

(1) The letter from the Bank of England dated the 9th November, 1900, which gives all the information, in my possession as to the methods employed in calculating the rate of interest, Was immediately communica ed to the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company, and if the hon. Member likes to move for the correspondence in continuation of that already given to the House, I have no objection. (2, 3, and 4) The hon. Member is no doubt aware that, under the contract, the decision as to the rate of interest lay, not with the decision as to the Governor of the Bank of England; and that his decision, when challenged, was upheld by two courts of law. This appears to me to create a very strong presumption that it was a sound and proper decision; but, in any case, the Secretary of State is bound, like the company, to accept it and to act upon it. He has no option in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will explain why Sir Charles Bernard's recommendation not to reappoint a separate salaried President, to Cooper's Hill College was not adopted; and whether he can inform the House, if this recommendation had been adopted, what annual saving would have resulted therefrom since 1895.

The recommendation made by Sir Charles Bernard was not ignored. On the next vacancy, in 1896, Colonel Pennyquick was appointed to the Presidency on the understanding that he should in addition discharge the duties of professor of engineering. But after two years experience he strongly urged that he ought to be relieved of his professional duties, and to this the Secretary of State in Council, on the advice of the Board of Visitors, finally agreed. The saving which resulted from the combination of the two offices was about £600 a year. The salary of the President is £1,000 a year.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the Board of Visitors recommended the dismissal of Mr. Hurst, accounts instructor; and, if not, who did so; and whether his successor has yet been appointed.

The Board of Visitors recommended that the proposal of the President for a change in the system of tuition in accounts should be adopted; and this involved the retirement of Mr. Hurst and the appointment of a lecturer who should be conversant with the system of the Indian Public Works Department. Put as there is no course of lectures on accounts in the summer term no fresh appointment has vet been made.

Well, I cannot find it in the Report. Then, Sir, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state how many new teachers have been appointed to Cooper's Hill College, and how many more it is proposed to appoint under the Report of the Board of Visitors, dated 24th July, 1900; what will be the total sum of the salaries of all these new appointments; what was the total sum of the salaries of the teachers who have been dismissed; and what reduction in the yearly cost of the teaching staff will result therefrom.

The number of new teachers to be appointed is four, and their salaries will amount to £1,367 per annum. The salaries of the retiring professors and lecturers amounted to £3,087, showing a saving of £1,720. Against this must be set the proposed increases in the salaries of the remaining teachers, amounting to £300. The net saving in salaries is therefore £1,420 per annum.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence of 7th February before the Famine Commission of Mr. Lely, Commissioner in Gujarat, to the effect that, owing to the exhaustion of the soil, the fall in price of sugar and cotton, the disuse of the old custom of grain storage for home consumption, and the loss of 70 per cent, of their cattle, there has been a complete breakdown among the cultivators of Gujarat; and whether, seeing that Mr. Lely repeatedly urged a suspension of 15 per cent, of the revenues last year in Gujarat, he can state the grounds on which the Bombay Government refused to remit more than 20 per cent.; is he aware that owing to the force of circumstances only 28 per cent, could be collected; and can he explain why the proposed suspensions of revenue were nit earlier made known to the people. I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence before the Famine Commission of Mr. Dalai, Famine Commissioner in Baroda, showing the benefit to the suffering cultivators of the wells constructed by the Baroda State in the Kadi district; and whether, with reference to Mr. Dalal's statement that the people of Kadi are less poor than those of Ahmedabad, he will consider the desirability of extending the benefits of this system to the neighbouring British district of Ahmedabad.

As the circumstances to which the lion. Member's questions refer are now being inquired into by a Commission in India, I must await the arrival of their Report before I can express any opinion on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the area approximately, of that portion of the proposed new province situate beyond the present frontiers of His Majesty's Indian possessions, and stated to be as comprised in the political agencies of Dir, Swat, Chitral, the Khyber, the Kuram, Tochi, and Wano; and the estimated annual cost of the military occupation and political administration of these trans-frontier regions under the proposed scheme; and will the cost of maintenance be made an Imperial charge, this being a matter of Imperial defence.

The aggregate area of the present agencies will not be affected by the substitution for their control of the authority of the Government of India in the place of the authority of the Government of the Punjab. I have no estimate of their present extent. Until the details of the transfer are settled I cannot estimate the annual cost. The charges will continue to be borne, as they are at present, by the Government of India.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India will the subtraction from the Punjab of its four western districts and placing them under the Political Department at Simla or Calcutta withdraw them and their populations from the jurisdiction of the Chief Court at Lahore and from the ordinary revenue and public works administration of the Punjab Government; and can he say if any dissents or opinions have been recorded pursuant to the Act of 1858, Sections 25, 24, in course of the correspondence and proceedings of the Secretary of State in Council during the working up of the scheme for organisation for the proposed new province; and whether such dissents or opinions will be placed before Parliament at an early date in accordance with Sections 54, 55, of the Act of 1858.

No final decision has been arrived at on the matters mentioned in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and the Papers relating to the subject should be in the hands of the House in the course of a few hours.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any confirmation in writing of the promise given orally to the British Ambassador in St. Petersburg that the occupation of Manchuria by the Russians is to lie neither virtual nor actual; and, if not, whether he expects to receive such confirmation; and it so, at what time.

The despatch from His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg reporting his conversation with the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the Russian occupation of Manchuria to which the hon. Member refers will be presented to Parliament at once. The text of this despatch was seen and approved by Count Lamsdorff at the end of last month.

Has the written assurance been received or not?

My answer-to that is that the contents of the despatch were approved by Count Lamsdorff.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the negotiations with the Turkish Government concerning the Crimean Loan of 1855, to which he alluded in the debate on the Civil Service Estimates on 15th June of last year† have been concluded; and whether any arrangement has been arrived at for the conversion of the loan.

I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Warrington on the 14th of December last, which was to the effect that the negotiations were still suspended.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Consular Report for 1899 on the state of trade in Maceio and Pernambuco has now been received by the Foreign Office, and when will it he published, if that has not been done yet.

The Consul has explained that his Report has been delayed in consequence of the difficulty experienced in obtaining the requisite statistical details; but that he hopes shortly to be able to furnish it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office will take steps to stop the introduction into this country of any china or earthenware from other countries the glaze on which contains lead oxide in excess of the amount allowed to manufacturers in this country.

† See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxiv., page 246.

This question should not be addressed to my Department.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state what steps he proposes to take to prevent the sale of earthenware and china to the public described as leadless glazed, but the glaze upon which it is well known in many cases contains an appreciable quantity of lead oxide.

I understand my hon. friend to suggest fraudulent misdescription, and not danger to health. The ordinary law provides a remedy in such cases, and I do not feel called upon to take any steps in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie will explain on what grounds medical witnesses in England and Wales are allowed only one guinea, per diem, while in Scotland they are paid two guineas, with further sum added for each case, and in Ireland the fee of one guinea only requires an attendance in court of three hours in the town of residence, and is changed to two guineas with travelling allowance in case of other towns; and whether he will authorise an inquiry into the matters, with a view to remedy the inequality of remuneration referred to.

I do not think the fees of medical witnesses can be touched without dealing at the same time with those of other witnesses, and this I am not prepared to do in view of the largely increased cost of prosecutions which might be the result of such a revision of the present scale.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if lie can say (1) how many appeals under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1861), entered for hearing at the County of London? Quarter Sessions in the list of 1901 have been tried by the Court up to and in- cluding 23rd February, 1901; (2) how many of such appeals have been allowed and how many dismissed, and whether with or without costs in either case; (3) and whether the Court has reviewed its judgment in any of the above appeals; and, if so, with what result.

The figures arc, respectively (1) 82; (2) 76 allowed, 13 with, (63 without, costs; 6 dismissed, 5 with, I without, costs; (3) 1—original judgment affirmed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the public authorities have purchased an area now covered by cottage property in Shepherdess Walk. City Road, and that no provision has been made, or is proposed to be made, for the rehousing of the persons of the working class thus displaced; and whether he will take1 steps to compel the provision of houses for these persons.

I think my hon. friend is misinformed. Only five houses have been acquired by the Metropolitan Police in the neighbourhood of Shepherdess Walk, and under Section 5 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1886, from which the powers of purchase are derived, as under other Acts giving similar powers in London, the obligation, to rehouse does not arise unless twenty or more houses occupied by the labouring classes are taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Great Northern and City Railway Company have demolished, as a result of secret purchase by their contractors, dwelling-houses occupied by the poorer labouring classes in Poole Street, Wick-ham Street, and Wiltshire Row, Shore-ditch, and have thereby displaced about 250 persons of the working classes, whose work compels them to live in. the neigh- bourhood, without providing or proposing to provide any accommodation for the persons thus unhoused: and whether he proposes to take steps to compel the Great Northern and City Railway Company to rehouse persons of the working class whose dwellings the company purchases for the purpose of creating a depôt of the company.

I am informed by the Great Northern and City Railway Company that the facts are not as suggested in the first part of the question, but that the lands referred to have been openly acquired by the contractors working for the company for purposes of offices, yards, and so forth in connection with their works. If so, as the lands have not been acquired by the company, I have no such power to compel the provision of rehousing accommodation, as I might have, by statute if the houses were being purchased by the company under their Acts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Broad Street Buildings, Whitecross Place, Wilson Street, Finsbury, recently the property of the Land Security Company and occupied by 585 of the poorer labouring class, have now been transferred to the Chief Manager of the Estate Office of the London and North Western Railway Company, and the tenants given notice to quit; whether these buildings are in process of being cleared of tenants and demolished, and the land handed over vacant to the Railway Company to be used for the extension of that Railway Company's Broad Street Goods Station; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the acquisition of working class dwellings for this railway company's purposes through a secret agent enables the railway company to escape their statutory obligations in contravention of Standing Order 183A; and if he will give particulars of other purchases made by the London and North Western Railway Company in the same or a similar manner throughout the United Kingdom; and whether he will state the measures he has taken, if any to mitigate the hardships to the working class tenants concerned, and to prevent overcrowding in congested districts of the metropolis.

I am informed by the London and North Western Railway Company that the property referred to has not yet been transferred to them, but that they have entered into a conditional agreement to purchase it. The case appears to involve questions as to the rehousing of displaced labouring, class persons, with regard to which I am bound to say that I consider the attitude adopted generally by this company to be very unsatisfactory. Without answering the latter parts of the question in detail, I may say that the "whole matter is engaging my most serious consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if in the event of grievances arising in any police force, county or borough, whether caused by matters of preferment, dissatisfaction over pay and allowances, time of service., or other legitimate cause for complaint, to what responsible officer of the Crown can these difficulties be referred.

County and borough police forces are by statute under the control of local authorities. The Secretary of State for the Home Department is the Minister most closely concerned, but he has no responsibility except in cases where the efficiency of a force is impaired, or where there is unsatisfactory administration of the pension fund; nor has he any power of direct intervention in matters of dispute between individual constables and the authorities under whom they serve.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the fact of several convictions which have recently taken place for the illegal retail sale of tea upon a species of lottery system, notably at Coventry. Blackburn, Bury (Lanes.), Handsworth, and Hull; and, seeing that similar illegal forms of trading, have existed within the metropolitan area for some years past without prosecutions being brought by the police, whether he will direct the attention of the Metropolitan Police authorities to any case brought under his notice forthwith with a view to bringing the offenders to justice.

The convictions referred to in the first paragraph of the question have not been brought specially to my notice. Sale-of-tea lotteries were begun in the Metropolis in 1895, and proceedings were promptly instituted, with the result that the defendants entered into an undertaking to discontinue such practices. Since that date no case has been brought to the notice of the Metropolitan Police.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many prosecutions have been instituted by the vaccination officer of the borough of Bethnal Green since the passing of the Vaccination Act, 1898; (2) how many convictions were obtained; (3) and how many of the fines imposed remain unrecovered; (4) whether he is aware that most of the persons prosecuted were unable to defend themselves effectually owing to ignorance of the procedure provided under Section 2 of the aforementioned Act; and, if so (5), is he prepared to allow a remission of the fines imposed.

It would be impossible to give the information asked for in the first three queries without a search of the police court records or without reference to the guardians, and the work of obtaining the information would involve much time and labour. I have no reason to suppose that persons prosecuted under the Vaccination Acts in Bethnal Green have found any greater difficulty in defending themselves than persons similarly prosecuted in other places: but if the hon. Member will furnish me with full details of any case in which he thinks the defendant has suffered injustice I will inquire into it.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that vaccination prosecutions in Bethnal Green and adjacent boroughs are being rigorously pursued against persons who have a conscientious objection to vaccination, and have resulted in convictions owing to the difficulty encountered by the accused persons of proving that their objection is based on a conscientious belief; and, seeing that in this respect and owing to loss of time and wages which is occasioned by the process of asserting their objection under Section 2 of the Vaccination Act, 1898, that Act does not give full relief to objectors, whether he purposes adopting any steps by which the operation of that Act might be rendered more easy and effective in future.

I am not myself aware of difficulties of the kind referred to in the first paragraph, of the question, and I should regret if any such difficulties were experienced. The answer to the second part of the question must, however, be in the negative.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in several prosecutions recently against tradesmen for the alleged sale of adulterated articles, notably at Portsmouth and Hackney, it has been shown that the public analysts on whose statements action has been taken have been guilty of grave mistakes; and whether he can take any steps to prevent respectable tradesmen being unjustly summoned upon erroneous certificates.

I have communicated with the public analysts as regards the two instances referred to by my hon. friend. I find that certificates given by them in two cases were not upheld on reference to the Government Laboratory. The circumstances do not appear to show, however, that the analysts were open to blame-In one of the cases the analyst seems to have taken special care in the matter. I have no power to take any steps for the purpose mentioned in the last paragraph of the question, and I may say that, speaking generally, it appears to me that the tradesman is sufficiently protected by the power to have an analysis verified at Somerset House.

On behalf of the lion-Member for North Hackney, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House as to the amount of unclaimed dividends and other unclaimed moneys in the custody of the Bank of England; and whether there is any precedent for the application of such moneys to the public service, the Exchequer being liable to refund such moneys to proper claimants.

Various funds of the nature of unclaimed dividends in the hands of or under the control of Government have from time to time been applied to the public service, the Exchequer remaining liable to refund the money to any persons who may subsequently prove their claim. I am not aware of any-precedent for dealing in this manner with funds outside the purview of Government. At the present time unclaimed dividends on British Funds are under statute handed over by the Hank after ten years to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt. Unclaimed dividends on India Stocks are similarly surrendered to the Indian Government. The amounts at present in the possession of the Bank of England are: British Funds, £34,575: India Stocks, £41,496. The amount of other unclaimed dividends in the possession of the Bank is inconsiderable. With regard to unclaimed money of private customers, the Bank is, of course, in the same position as other banks.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the recent election to the London County Council of a schoolmaster who holds an appointment under the London School Board; whether it is permissible for a public official of the London School Board to use the time he should be devoting to his official duties for any other purpose than that for which he is paid by the ratepayers; and what steps he proposes to take.

No; my attention has not been called to the matter. The only regulation of the Board of Education bearing on the matter is to be found in Article 85 (e) of the Code.

But has he not ceased ipso facto to be an official of the London School Board?

My hon. friend must ask the London School Board.

The information has been asked for, and no reply was obtained.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the reported discovery in France of a cure for foot-and-mouth disease; and if he will cause inquiries to be made on a subject of such great importance to the agricultural community.

The attention of the veterinary officers of the Board of Agriculture has been directed to the statements to which my hon. friend refers, and they will keep themselves informed of any further developments of the matter. I may say, however, that in view of the special characteristics of foot-and-mouth disease, it is not likely that the discovery of a remedy for it will lie of much assistance to the Department in keeping this country entirely clear from it, a result which I trust may soon be once again secured, as it was from 1887 to 1891, and again from 1895 to 1899.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is prepared to advise that compensation be given owners in case of deaths resulting from swine fever when such deaths are occasioned by the carelessness or incompetence of the veterinary surgeon employed by the Board of Agriculture.

The power to pay compensation in cases of swine fever only extends to swine slaughtered by order of the Board of Agriculture in the exercise of their powers under the Diseases of Animals Acts. Any complaints with regard to the conduct of veterinary surgeons employed by the Board would always be fully investigated and such action taken as the circumstances might require.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to the misuse of the Election Petition Courts by persons, lawyers, and laymen, who to their own pecuniary advantage employ themselves in making serious but fictitious charges against Members of this House with impunity; and whether the law has any penalties for such conduct.

The procedure in the Election Petition Courts is no doubt capable of being abused, but I am not aware that this has been done for the sake of any pecuniary advantage. There is great difficulty in entirely obviating the danger of abuse without throwing obstacles in the way of recourse to the Courts in proper cases. I may refer my lion, friend to the Report of the recent Committee on Election Petitions in 1898.

Has the lion, and learned Gentleman considered the judgment of the judges in. the Cocker-mouth petition?

Yes, Sir; and I certainly agree with the conclusions arrived at.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has considered the; risk to the Albert Memorial and the Albert Hall which may be caused by the proposed electric railway at Kensington; and whether he proposes to institute inquiries and to take action should the reports be unfavourable.

Yes, Sir. The matter is under careful consideration as regards the Albert Memorial, but for the Albert Hall I am not responsible. The Government are in communication with the promoters of the Bill, and any necessary precautions for the safety of the Memorial beyond those provided in the Bill will be insisted upon. There will, of course, be other Government interests to be protected.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the fact that quantities of inferior Ceylon and other teas alleged to contain microbial products dangerous to health are being sold in bond in London at prices ranging below 4d. per pound; if the Customs officers have taken and analysed any samples of such teas, and with what results; and what amount has been seized and destroyed during the last twelve months; and if, in the interests of public health, he is willing to consent to an inquiry into the best methods of checking the sale of such unwholesome teas by determining some minimum standard of purity, and by securing a proper analysis of such teas before they are blended with other teas.

Since my hon. friend put his notice on the Paper, lie has been good enough to send me papers on the subject, and I should be obliged if he would postpone his question till Monday, to give me time for their consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the statement and table of figures printed on the back of the envelopes made to enclose registered packets, that, subject to the conditions published in the Post Office Guide as to registration, compensation for loss or damage is given in respect of inland registered packets of all kinds according to the following table which includes a fee of 2d. to secure compensation limited to £5; and seeing that this statement may lead the public to believe that by paying the "2d. registration fee they are ensuring repayment in full up to £5, of money which has been registered but which is lost in course of post, instead of the £2 limited by the above-mentioned conditions, whether he will give instructions that on all future issues of such envelopes a clearer statement shall be printed of the amount of specie recoverable through registration in the post.

In view of the distinct reference to the conditions published in the Post Office Guide the Postmaster General thinks that no misapprehension ought to arise as regards the amount of compensation payable; but after careful consideration of the subject he has come to the conclusion that it will be safer to discontinue the table of rates now printed on the backs of the official registered letter envelopes, and merely to notify that compensation for loss or damage is given in respect of inland registered letters and packets subject to the limitations and conditions printed, in the Post Office Guide under the head of "Registration and Compensation."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can say what is going to be done with regard to the female operators in the telephone department of the General Post Office, Manchester, who were transferred to the General Post Office from the National Telephone, Company in 1897, with regard to an advance in their wages; and whether, seeing that they are all senior operators of from eight to fifteen years experience in telephone work, but have had no advance for three years, though juniors of three years experience are said to be receiving higher wages, and that various applications have been met with the statement that the question is under consideration, he could, if these statements be correct, conic to a decision in favour of an increase of wages.

In reply to the hon. Member I have to state that the Postmaster General is in. communication with the Treasury on the subject of the position and pay of the telephone operators at Manchester and elsewhere; and he hopes to be in a position to announce a decision very shortly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that the secretary of the metropolitan branch of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association applied for leave of absence to attend the annual business meeting and conference at Manchester on the 7th March, and that the postal officials took fourteen days to consider the application, and in view of past difficulties, whether the Postmaster General will direct that no obstacles are to be placed in the way of officials of trades unions in the Post Office performing the legitimate business of their organisation.

All facilities, consistent with the proper performance of the work of the department and with the proper discipline of the service, are allowed to officers of the department who app y to attend the annual meetings of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association and similar bodies, on the legitimate business of those bodies. The delay in according leave, complained of in the present case, was in part due to the fact that the officer concerned did not in the first instance provide efficient substitutes on his duty.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that, although it is stated in the Fourth Annual Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland (1898), page xxiii., that the Commissioner for the Local Government Board made an exhaustive inquiry into an outbreak of infectious disease in South Uist, it is true that the Commissioner refused to take the evidence of the clerk to the Parish Council of South Uist, who was the first person officially most conversant with the facts at issue; and, seeing that the parish council complained to the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland as well as to the First Lord of the Treasury of the misstatement of facts and refusal by the Commissioner to take evidence, whether any steps have been taken to inquire into or to rectify the statements complained of as misrepresentations by the parish council.

I am informed by the Local Government Board that they are not aware that their Commissioner ever declined to receive the evidence of the clerk to the parish council. On the contrary, the clerk to the parish council was cited to Lochboisdale with other witnesses but was unable to be present, being stormstaid at Castlebay. Any books and documents which the clerk might have produced were produced by the inspector of poor. It is not the intention of the Local Government Board to reopen the inquiry which they consider sufficient.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board for Ireland have issued an order compelling boards of guardians in Ireland to supply out-nursed children with clothing; whether he is aware that there are boards of guardians who out-nurse children, and make arrangements with the foster parents to clothe and rear these workhouse children with their own children, with the view of removing the taint or appearance of pauperism; whether he can say if it is the intention of the Local Government Board, under the new rule, to compel out-nursed workhouse children to wear poorhouse suits when attending schools which they attend: and whether he will request this rule to be withdrawn by the Local Government Board.

The order referred to in the first paragraph requires guardians to provide suitable and sufficient clothing for orphan and deserted children placed outside the workhouse with foster parents. So far from it being the intention of the Local Government Board to compel these children to wear pauper uniform, the order expressly requires that the clothing shall not be of such shape or colour as may denote connection with the workhouse; and, moreover, with a view to avoid uniformity in the clothing, it was further pointed out that particular care should be taken that the materials, shape, and colour should not be alike in all cases. The Board are not aware of any case in which foster parents arrange with guardians to clothe the children. Any such arrangement involving payment to the foster parents by the guardians would be contrary to the regulations.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that there are several schools in Roscommon district the teachers of which have not yet been paid equivalent for results fees, although the annual examinations were held in those schools early in December; and, seeing that the said equivalent for results should have been paid with teachers' ordinary salaries on 15th January, whether he can state when this money will be paid the teachers, and what is the cause of delay.

Some delay was occasioned, I understand, by the necessity for correspondence; but the equivalent for results fees is in course of payment to schools which were examined in December in this and other districts, and in nearly all cases payment has been actually made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether lie is aware that the County Council of Monaghan, under The Technical and Agricultural Act, 1899, invited each district council in the county to formulate a scheme for the locality interested, that the Monaghan Rural and Urban District only allotted £130 for the improvement of live stock while Carrickmacross Rural District Council required £600 for this purpose, and that at a meeting of the Live Stock Committee, held in the town of Monaghan the scheme from Carrickmacross District Council was not considered, and that the Monaghan District scheme was made the basis for expenditure; whether he is aware that at the meeting of the Live Stock Committee in Monaghan, Mr. Cordon, of the Technical and Agricultural Department, stated that if £600 was carried instead of £260 the Department would not sanction it, which caused the members present to adopt the smaller sum; and will he say if Mr. Gordon had power to state the views of the Agricultural Department without consultation with that body, and if he will direct that a larger sum than £260 be spent on the improvement of live stock.

It was the Live Stock Committee of the Monaghan County Council who themeslves decided the amount to lie allocated from the local rates to the county live stock schemes. This amount, which the Department approved, makes, together with the grant from the. Department, a total of £520 applied to the improvement of live stock in the county Monaghan. Mr. Gordon, the Department's representative, did not interfere or advise the committee in fixing this amount, but he gave his opinion that the Department would not sanction a proposal which was made by the non-members that a sum of £600 should be applied from the local rates for the schemes in the Carrickmacross Rural District alone.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, although it was originally promised that the Ulster winter assizes should be held in Armagh every fourth year, they have been held there only once; and whether, seeing that Armagh is as central, and in possession of as good railway and other accommodation, as Derry, Omagh, or Belfast, he will see that this grievance is redressed by the holding of winter assizes in Armagh.

A question similar to this was addressed to my right hon. friend the Attorney General by the lion. Member for East Mayo on Tuesday last. †. I have nothing to add to the reply given to that question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a large part of the district surrounding Lough Neagh has been flooded to such an extent during the past winter that in many of the houses of the inhabitants water for several weeks covered the floors to a considerable depth; and whether, seeing that epidemics of fevers and other like diseases have usually followed that state of matters in the past, he will direct the Local Government Inspector to visit and report upon the sanitary state of the district with a view to the adoption of measures to prevent such diseases in the district during the summer; whether his information shows that the drainage scheme planned and carried out by the Irish Board of Works has failed to provide the relief from flooding promised for it by their engineer; whether he is aware that the chief cost of the complete scheme of drainage has been assessed on and paid for by the tenant farmers of the district; and whether he will take immediate steps to have the drainage of the district for which the people have paid conflicted at the public expense.

The Local Government Board have received resolutions from local bodies to the effect that part of this district is subject to floods, but they have no information that epidemics of fever have resulted from such flooding. The works of the drainage district, which were completed in 1859, were entirely successful for the purposes sought to be effected for a number of years. The cost of the works in 1859 was charged in the

† See page 583 of this volume.

usual way on the interests of the proprietors. I am not in a position, without further inquiry, to state to what extent increased rents have been imposed on the tenants consequent upon the improvements. I am not prepared to introduce in the present session legislation similar to that introduced and subsequently withdrawn in 1889.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the mayor of the city of Waterford is entitled, under charter of Charles I., to be included in the commission of assize for the city of Waterford; and whether he can give any explanation of the fact that the present mayor of the city has been excluded from the commission issued for the spring assizes this year.