I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can inform the House whether there will be an organisation in South Africa with its machinery in such order that, upon peace being declared, it will be in a position to promptly give help to needy loyalists who have suffered owing to the war, and to needy Boers; and, if so, whether such help will be a charge to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies; and whether he can state the basis upon which such help will be given.

The organisation of a suitable machinery is under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any further statement at present beyond saying that it is intended that the assistance should be a charge upon the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is willing to publish the I report sent by General Colvile to the Commander-in-Chief on the battle of Paardeberg, as he did the corresponding report of General Kelly-Kenny.

No report was received by Lord Roberts from General Colvile, who held only a divisional command at Paardeberg. By the King's Regulations reports describing the action taken by their respective commands are furnished to the senior officer present by officers commanding divisions or brigades, and by such other officers as he may specially call upon: these reports do not accompany the despatch, the senior officer being alone responsible for rendering to the Secretary of State for War an account of the operations. Under these circumstances this report cannot be laid.

Do I understand that no such report was sent to the Com-mander-in Chief?

NO, Sir; certainly no report was sent to the Commander-in-Chief. A report was sent to General Kelly-Kenny. It was not forwarded to the Commander-in-Chief.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Roberts's despatch of the 19th July, 1900, was before Lord Lansdowne when he reinstated General Colvile in the command at Gibraltar; also if he can state why Lord Roberts's despatch was not issued before instead of after the debate on General Colvile's case; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the finding of the Court of Inquiry into the Lindley disaster, which was the reason given for the recall of General Colvile.

Lord Roberts is despatch was received at the War Office before Lord Wolseley recommended the reinstatement of General Colvile at Gibraltar. It is not customary to lay Reports upon individual officers on the Table of the House unless they are quoted or specially moved for, and in this case I should not have thought it fair to General Colvile to depart from the rule in order to justify my action. I quoted from the Paper on Monday last and laid it at once. There is no objection to laving the finding of the Court of Inquiry which investigated the circumstances of the surrender at Lindley.

When will it be laid on the Table?

In a day or two.

On what ground, if this finding is laid on the Table, are the findings of other Courts not to be laid on the Table?

Order, order! That is a matter of argument.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table of the House all the communications, whether by correspondence, messenger, or heliogram, that passed between Sir Redvers Buller and Sir George White relative to the siege of Ladysmith.

No, Sir; it is not the custom to publish such communications.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what the conditions of training for Yeomanry regiments will be this yea?, whether specially under canvas or not, and of what duration it is likely to be, so that commanding officers may make their arrangements accordingly.

As I stated yesterday, an Army Order on this subject will shortly be issued.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the original Fife and Forfar Volunteer contingent of the Imperial Yeomanry, who went out 125 strong, have been reduced by death, disease, and physical weakness to under twenty men now in active service in South Africa; and whether there is a prospect of this remnant, who enlisted fifteen months ago, being enabled to return to their professions and occupations at an early date.

Some companies of the Yeomanry have, I know, been very much reduced, but we are not aware of the exact strength of the company referred to. It is not possible to state when the operations in South Africa will permit of the return home of these men, but Lord Kitchener is now endeavouring to spare the men whose eases are the hardest.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the nature of the defects in the German-made field guns; also how long will the repairs of the defects occupy; and if it is usual to find similar defects in guns made by British manufacturers.

I have already described to the House the nature of the defects found in the carriages of the field guns recently obtained from. Germany. The repairs are being carried out with all due, expedition. German firms are not unique in having trouble with the axles of gun carriages.

Is it not the fact that before these defects are remedied the total time occupied will have exceeded that which would have been taken had the orders been given to British firms?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the civilian veterinary surgeons at home stations during the war emergency are drawing pay at the rate of £250 per annum and allowances, which brings their pay to over £30 per month, and receive a gratuity of two months pay after twelve months employment, and an extra month's salary for each additional six months service, can he state what increase of salary and gratuity the Government propose paying those civilian medical practitioners who have been engaged at Home stations for the last twelve months and upwards at a salary of only £270 per annum; and, can he explain why the gratuity of £100 for the first year of service with troops at home and £50 for the succeeding years award to civilian medical practitioners holding commissions as medical officers to Volunteer corps and Militia regiments has been refused to the civilian medical practitioners who offered their services during the war, seeing that the rate of pay to the civil surgeons proceeding to South Africa has been increased from one guinea to one and a-half guineas per diem with same allowances and gratuity.

In regard to the first paragraph the civilian surgeons and veterinary surgeons employed at home stations are paid at army rates and there is no intention of making any alteration in their pay. In regard to the second paragraph, medical officers belonging to the Militia and Volunteers are treated as officers under Army rules, while private medical practitioners are treated according to the terms on which they engage.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that civil surgeons attached to the Field Force in South Africa do not receive Colonial allowance; and, in view of the fact that the cost of living at the seat of war entails heavy expense, will he consider the expediency of increasing the allowances of these officers.

I have nothing to add to the full reply given by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to a ques- tion on this subject put by my friend the Member for the Clapham Division on the 7th August, 1900.†

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether non-commissioned officers of Militia on active service in South Africa retain their Militia rank and the pay attaching to that rank; and, if not, will he state why these non-commissioned officers are degraded after volunteering to go on active service.

Non-commissioned officers of Militia regiments which volunteer to proceed to South Africa or elsewhere retain their Militia rank. The Militia Reservist who is called up under the Reserve Forces Act joins the Army in the rank of private unless he held the rank of non-commissioned officer on discharge from the Regular forces.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether the detachment of London Scottish Volunteers who sailed from Liverpool for the seat of war in South Africa on the 12th instant were enrolled on the understanding that they would relieve the London Scottish Volunteer detachment which has been on service in South Africa for upwards of a year; and, will this detachment return home so soon as the men now going out reach their destination.

The detachment mentioned sailed on the 12th instant. The company of Gordon Highlanders now in South Africa is intended to return when the new company arrives, but as I told the hon. Member before, it is not possible to say exactly when Lord Kitchener will be able, to spare them.

Will the noble Lord answer the latter part of the question?

I am not in a position to do so.

† See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series]. Vol. lxxxvii., p. 913.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of replacing the barrack forms without backs now used in the wards of military hospitals by chairs, so that each patient may have one chair.

The question has been under consideration, but is not finally settled.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state how much has been spent during the present financial year in purchasing foreign-made guns and munitions of war.

These figures can only be given when the accounts are made up.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can furnish the House with such information as the War Office possesses with regard to the military system of Switzer land as is not of a confidential character

The handbook of the Swiss Army published by the Intelligence Division of the War Office will give my hon. friend all the information he requires. The book can be obtained through any bookseller, and the price is sixpence.

In what year was the book published?

I cannot say, but I will show my hon. friend a copy.

Will the War Office issue it in a cheaper form, so that the general public may be able to study it?

No, Sir, I cannot undertake to do anything of the kind.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the case of a man named Henry Beatty, of the late 102nd Foot, who, after having been in the Army and Reserve for twenty-one years and six days, was discharged from the Reserve on 7th January, 1886, with a good conduct certificate; whether he is aware that the greater part of Beatty's period of service was spent in the East Indies, where he contracted fever and ague, the effect of which has been permanently to injure his health and render him incapable of any work requiring much physical exertion; and, will he state whether Beatty is entitled to a pension, and, if so, to what pension; and, if the man has not received it, will he explain on what ground it has been withheld.

This man served thirteen years 193 days with the colours, which, under the terms of his engagement, did not entitle him to a pension. As he was discharged on the termination of his period of engagement, and not on account of any disability contracted while in the service, there is no regulation under which any grant can be made to him.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office for what reason 4,500,000 Mark IV. bullets were recently broken up.

As no more Mark IV. ammunition was to be made the bullets were useless, and were therefore broken up.

By what firms were the bullets made?

I am afraid that does not arise from the question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that an outbreak of influenza followed by pneumonia occurred on board H.M.S. "St. Vincent," at Portsmouth, last year owing to the contamination of the site of her moorings, and that since the moorings have been dredged there has not been any similar outbreak on board the "St. Vincent"; can he state how long she was away from her moorings; and will he cause the "Britannia" to be removed to other moorings, and not to be again moored in the same position until the site has been thoroughly dredged and the accumulation of filth for years removed.

There was an outbreak of influenza, accompanied by lung and other affections, on board the "St. Vincent" in 1899. The ship was specially inspected at the time by the Medical Director General; the whole question of her sanitary condition was inquired into and the ship was thoroughly overhauled. There was no evidence that the outbreak was due to contamination at the site of the moorings, but the moorings were in fact dredged because it was found that the ship touched the ground at low water. There has been no outbreak of any importance since the date named. The "St. Vincent" left her moorings on the 6th July, 1900, and returned to them on the 20th October. A committee, composed of the following gentlemen: Sir Henry Norbury (Medical Director General), Professor Caulfield, Inspector General Fisher, Fleet Surgeon May, has been engaged during the last two days in examining H. M. S. "Britannia" and making inquiry into all the circumstances likely to affect the health of the cadets. The committee has now terminated its inquiry, and its report is expected immediately. Until that report is 7'eceived I should prefer to postpone answering the last part of the hon. Member's question; but I may say there is no reason to believe that there Is any accumulation of filth under the "Britannia."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can say on what day he hopes that the Return of Fleets will be circulated to Members.

The Return is very voluminous, and I fear it will not be possible to circulate it for another week or so.

I beg TO ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state how many of the twenty vessels which are in the course of construction for the Royal Navy are being built in Ireland; how many of the thirty-three new vessels that are to he built in the coming financial year will he built in Ireland; how much of the £30,875,500 which it is proposed to spend on the Navy in the coming year will be paid by the people of Ireland; and how much of this sum will be spent in Ireland; and can he say what reasons, if any, exist why the Government should not establish a dockyard at Cork or Dublin in which some of these vessels could be built, in order that some of the money raised in Ireland should be spent there.

None of the twenty vessels which are in course of construction for the Royal Navy are being built in Ireland, nor will any of the thirty-three new vessels, referred to in the question as being in course of construction in the coming financial year, be built in that country. No tender for the construction of ships for the Royal Navy has been received from any Irish firm. A tender has been received from an Irish firm for the construction of machinery. This tender has been accepted, and the engines are now being manufactured. It is impossible at present to state how much of the funds voted for the Navy will be spent in Ireland during the forthcoming year. The Admiralty are not aware what proportion of the sum which may be voted for the Navy will be paid by the people of Ireland. The interests of the Navy do not at present require the establishment of a dockyard at Cork or Dublin; but I may remind the hon. Member that there is a Government dockyard at I Haulbowline, and that the establishment of this dockyard, and the expenditure in connection with it, have both been greatly increased during the past year.

Is any Irish firm entitled to tender for Government work?

Any firm which sends a requisition to be placed on the list of Government contractors has the application considered on its merits, and, if found suitable, is invited to tender.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the First Lord of the Admiralty is aware that Gaya Bay, British North Borneo, affords excellent accommodation as a harbour and naval base; and, in view of the fact that coal is readily available, will he consider the expediency of having the district surveyed with a view to the establishment of a naval station.

The Admiralty are aware that Gaya Bay is a good anchorage, but it is not considered suitable as a naval base, and it is not proposed to utilise it for that purpose.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty receives, in addition to the capital and -income account of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation, annual reports on the administration of the hospital and foundation; and, if so, whether these can be published along with the statements of the Finances.

The affairs of the Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation are entirely under the management and control of the Admiralty, and an annual report on their administration is received. Such information as it is considered necessary to furnish is already published with the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received information, through the British South Africa Company, or from other sources, as to collisions at Salisbury last December between the British South Africa Police and natives imported from Somaliland for service in Rhodesia, and as to disturbances at Beira in January with other natives imported for similar service; and, if so, whether he will inform the House as to the facts; whether he will inform the House as to any arrangements now in progress for obtaining native labour for Rhodesia from outside areas, which are within the knowledge of His Majesty's Government, and have received or may be awaiting its approval; and whether any reports have been received by the High Commissioner for South Africa from the Resident Commissioner in Rhodesia as to the condition and treatment of natives in the British South Africa Company's territory; and, if so, whether they will be communicated to the House.

(1) I have seen an account of the collision at Salisbury on 31st December in the Rhodesia Herald, and I am expecting a reply from Sir A. Milner. As to the disturbance at Beira. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Northampton yesterday. (2) The Administration of Southern Rhodesia have applied to His Majesty's Government to obtain a removal of the prohibition against native labour being introduced from Portuguese East Africa, and His Majesty's Government are in communication with the Portuguese Government on the subject. The question of obtaining labour from the Northern Transvaal, which is not possible for the moment in the disturbed state of the country, is under consideration. (3) Such a report has been received by Sir A. Milner, who will no doubt send it on as soon as the pressure of work leaves him time to consider and comment upon it.

I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consent to a Return of the laws and regulations affecting labour in those parts of the West African dominions of His Majesty in which gold reefs are being worked.

The special laws affecting labour on the Gold Coast are the Master and Servant Ordinance, 1893, the Slave Dealing Abolition and the Emancipation Ordinance of 1874. A copy of the laws of the Gold Coast will be placed in the. Library. I cannot help thinking there must be some misconception of the answer I gave the other day, when I spoke of the ordinary law of the Gold Coast as seeming to me sufficient to deal with this case. I was not referring to any special law.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there are a great number of miners up and down the country, specially in Cornwall, who being out of work in consequence of the war in South Africa, are looking to West Africa for a fresh sphere of employment, and are consequently anxious to know what are the conditions of labour obtaining there? Would not a fuller statement on these laws be of value to them?

I do not think it is possible to furnish any such statement as to the special laws on the Gold Coast.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Government has been called to what took place in China recently when the Russians objected to the construction of a railway siding by the British; whether General Barrow, Chief of the Staff, met the Russian objection by ordering the construction of the siding to be completed, if necessary, by force of arms, and had troops placed along the line while the work was continued whether the Russian General protested against this action; and whether General Barrow acted under instructions received from His Majesty's Government.

I am informed that some land over which the North of China Administration have proprietary rights has been claimed by the Russian military authorities as belonging to them in virtue of a concession alleged to have been made to them by the Chinese Government when the disturbances commenced. I am informed that, consequently, some difficulties have arisen with regard to the construction of the sidings referred to in the question. The matter is being dealt with by the authorities on the spot, but not under any special instructions from His Majesty's Government.

Arising out of this matter, may I ask the noble Lord whether in cases of dispute between the allied Powers in China British officers are entitled to threaten to use force without consulting the Home Government?

In reply to that question, I may say that right throughout the Chinese operations British officers have shown conciliation in meeting every difficulty. I do not therefore consider it necessary to send any special instructions.

Will the noble Lord kindly answer the latter part of the question and say whether General Barrow did threaten to use force of arms, and whether in so doing he acted on his own authority or on the authority of the Home Government?

I do not know on what authority the hon. Member makes the statement.

Reuter.

I think if he looks at the telegram he will see that all General Barrow has done has been to ensure the protection of people working in territory belonging to a British company.

But—

Order, order! The question on the Paper has been fully answered.

I will call attention to this matter on an early day.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the estimated total cost up to the present date of the recent military and naval operations in China.

I will do my best to answer this question, but I cannot be at all certain as to the accuracy of the answer. The estimated total cost of the military operations in China to the present date is three and a half millions in round figures. I am informed that at the present stage it is impossible to give an estimate of the total cost of the naval operations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will grant the Return entitled East India (Petitions of Officers of Public Works Department).

I have no objection to granting the Return, but a reference to India will be necessary to render it complete.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what military outposts were maintained at the close of 1898 beyond the frontiers of His Majesty's Indian possessions; whether he can give the aggregate strength of the garrisons by which these posts were held and the class of troops occupying them, and what was the estimated annual cost of the occupation of these positions; and whether he will state what is the present position as to the number, cost, and disposition of troops holding these military outposts.

There were in 1898 no military outposts maintained on the North-West Frontier outside the boundary of the Durand delimitation, and since the ratification of that Agree- ment the line so defined is held to be the external frontier of British India.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give further information as to the condition of the winter crops in the Bombay Presidency and parts of Madras: and whether he will state what steps are being taken to deal with a renewal of the distress.

In Bombay the autumn harvest was poor, and the area sown below the average; the spring crop prospects are bad throughout a large portion of the Presidency. In Madras the harvest is below the average to the extent of about 20 per cent. In Burma, Bengal, and Upper India the prospects are such that these provinces will have surplus food with which to supply the wants of those localities where the crops are poor. It is only in the Bombay Presidency that the circumstances are such as to make special relief measures necessary. The Government have provided funds for this purpose, and are taking steps, according to the provisions of the Famine Codes, for carrying on and extending any relief operations which may be necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what amount has been subscribed in India for a memorial to Her late Majesty Queen Victoria; and whether he can suggest to the Viceroy that this memorial should be such as to confer some permanent benefit upon the suffering masses in India.

I have received no information as to the amount subscribed in India to celebrate by memorials the memory of Her late Majesty. The matter is not an official one, and I could not interfere with the discretion of the subscribers as to the purpose to which their subscriptions should be put.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, owing to the mortality in the Bombay Presidency from famine and disease, numbers of orphans have been left entirely dependent upon charity; and whether he will state what has been done to provide for these children, and what public funds have been allotted to the support of public and private orphanages.

Unhappily, orphans are left after every serious Indian famine. After the 1897 famine about six lakhs of rupees were set apart for the maintenance of orphans. Volumes I. and II. of the Charitable Relief Fund Report describe at more length what was done. Briefly, it may be said that a yearly sum was provided from Government or charitable funds for the support of every really destitute orphan, whether the child was in the keeping of co-religionists or of mission orphanages. I have no doubt similar arrangements will be made by the Government this year. But I have not received and have not asked for a special report upon the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the Surat District, out of a total of 95 per cent. of land revenue collected last year, 85 per cent. was received from the money-lenders and only 10 per cent. from the cultivators; can he state under what authority the land revenue was received from money-lenders who are not in possession of the land, and what interest is exacted by the money-lenders from the cultivators for these advances; and whether, looking to the existing indebtedness of the cultivators, he will direct this practice to be abandoned.

The matters to which this question refers are being investigated by the Famine Commission. Until I receive the Report of the Commission and the opinion of the Government of India, I do not propose to take any action.

I bug to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proposed new rules for the china and earthenware trades were adopted on the advice of Professors Oliver and Thorpe; and whether either of these gentlemen has had any practical experience of these trades, or have ever been personally engaged in the production of china or earthenware.

The rules were based on Reports made by Doctors Oliver and Thorpe. Dr. Thorpe has been specially consulted on the chemical questions which have arisen in drafting the rules. These gentlemen are not pottery manufacturers; but they are experts in the scientific questions on which they were consulted.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state when he proposes to introduce the Bill to amend the Factory and Workshop Acts of which he has given notice.

I am afraid not.

Will it be before Easter?

Probably it will be, but I cannot say absolutely.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the New Code of Railway Bye-laws, which was submitted to the Board of Trade upwards of three years ago, and remitted to the railway companies with certain modifications and suggestions, has again been submitted to the Board for confirmation; and, if not, will he state the general tenor of the replies given by the railway companies to the Board's repeated requests for the adoption of a satisfactory code of railway bye-laws.

As the House is aware, railway bye-laws are submitted to the Board of Trade by individual companies desiring to adopt them, and any confirmation by the Board is a confirmation of a particular system of bye-laws so submitted. It is obviously desirable, however, that the bye-laws of the railway companies should be, as far as it is possible to make them, uniform; and the Board of Trade have been using their best efforts to procure that there shall be submitted to them a system of bye-laws, which may be discussed and accepted as a model code. Up to the present the Board of Trade have not succeeded in these negotiations. I am assured that there is no indisposition on the part of the companies to bring the matter to a conclusion, and I venture to hope that they will succeed in agreeing among themselves as to a system of bye-laws submitted either by an individual company or by the Railway Association, and which may be discussed with the representatives of the companies and other persons interested, with a view to their adoption as a model code.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what is the value of German-made brushes imported into this country during the year 1900: and whether he can say what quantity has been stopped or confiscated on the ground of being made by convict labour.

Brushes are included with brooms in the official trade accounts, and no separate particulars as to brushes are available. The total value of the imports of brooms and brushes from Germany in 1900 was £45,968. German-made brooms and brushes may reach this country via other countries, such as Holland and Belgium, and these would consequently be returned as importations from such countries. No imported German-made brushes appear to have been stopped or confiscated on the ground of being made by convict labour during the year 1900.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the engine 676, which exploded on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway on the 11th instant, was reported on 28th January last as being defective, with tubes badly leaking, and that in consequence the driver had to give up the train of coal he was then working, for which he has been degraded to a fireman's place, at a reduction of 1s. per day in wages; and will he direct an inquiry to be held in this case.

No, Sir. I am not aware of any such report. If the hon. Member refers to a report made to the company by one of its officers, it would not come under my notice. I will, however, see that the inspecting officer who holds the inquiry into the accident shall have his attention directed to the allegation contained in the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state who are the members of the Board of Trade, excluding the Advisory or Consultative Committee, and irrespective of permanent officials; whether those Members of the Board attend meetings, and how many such meetings have been held since he became president; and whether he can state what functions those Members are called upon to exercise.

The "Board of Trade" means the Lords of the Committee for the time being of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of matters relating to trade and foreign plantations. Under an Order in Council of 1786 these Lords include:—The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the First Lord of the Treasury, the First Lord of the Admiralty, His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and such Lords as hold the following offices, namely: the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Paymaster General of His Majesty's Forces. It is not customary to summon a meeting of all these members.

Does the Board of Trade ever meet? If so, how many attend?

The Board of Trade does meet. The quorum consists of one—myself.^*

I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the annual meeting of Associated Chambers of Commerce yesterday passed a resolution unanimously resolving that the constitution of Lighthouse Boards, particularly those of Ireland and Scotland, is unsatisfactory; and whether he will support a private Bill or introduce a measure to reconstitute the Irish and Scotch Lighthouse Boards.

No copy of such a resolution has yet reached me. As I have more than once informed the hon. Member, His Majesty's Government do not, as at present advised, contemplate legislation dealing with the constitution of the Irish and Scottish Lighthouse authorities.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the declaration of his predecessor in this House on the 20th of July, 1898, that the administration of a compulsory vaccination law would be neither necessary nor desirable, and the tacit promise of the same Minister on the same date that the Local Government Board would not do anything to interfere

*Reference may be made to The Parliamentary History, Vol. xxi., page 233, for the discussions on Burke's abortive "Establishment Bill" of 1780. The clause for abolishing the old Board of Trade was vigorously opposed, and passed through Committee by a majority of only eight. On page 241 one of Burke's opponents traces the institution of councils or commissions of trade to very early times.

As the question of the hon. Member contains two distinct statements referring to myself, perhaps before it is answered I may be allowed to make a personal explanation. The hon. Member is new to the House, and is probably not aware that I have repeatedly explained that the first statement alluded to refers solely to the concession made by the Government at that time. As to the second statement, I have repeatedly shown that both the statement and the inferences which are drawn from it are equally erroneous.

My right hon. friend has dealt with the allegations contained in the question, and it only remains for me to say that I must decline to withdraw the circular.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can say when the contract for twine supplied to the Post Office was last renewed, and the name of the present contractor; whether he is a manufacturer of twine; whether the contract is for hemp twine, and whether that article is being supplied; and when he again proposes to submit the contract for tender.

There are ten kinds of twine, string, and cord used by the Post Office, and supplies are obtained partly from the Prison Commissioners and partly from two contractors, Messrs. Ullathorne and Co. and Mr. I. N. Lyons, the contracts with whom were made in 1895 and are terminable by six months notice. Both are manufacturers of twine. The materials specified for the various kinds of twine, &c., are hemp, flax, and jute, and the supplies are carefully tested on delivery to see that they con form to specification. It is not con sidered desirable to invite fresh tenders at present.

Are the contracts of any other Department subject to similar conditions as to termination?

Yes' Sir, many contracts are so determined.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the inconvenience long felt by the residents of Denbigh and Ruthin, and other places in the Vale of Clwyd, owing to the system by which the mail postal service is worked; whether he is aware that the town of Den big his served by a mail cart, which is drive, I all the way from Den bigh to Rhyl, carling en route at Trefnant, St. Asaph, and Rhuddlan, and travelling along a road which most of the distance runs alongside the line of the London and North. Western Kailway Company from Denbigh to Rhyl; whether he is further aware that letters from Ruthin are similarly driven in a mail cart from Ruthin over the mountain to Mold, and from Mold on to Flint, although there is a railway connection from Ruthin to Chester either via Rhyl or via Mold; whether he can state the reason why this system, in vogue previous to the opening of the railway connections between the London and North Western Railway main line and the Vale of Clwyd, is perpetuated; and whether, seeing that these railway facilities for the carrying of the mails from these towns are, and have long been, available, he will, in the public interest, take steps for securing a more expeditious transference of the mails in the district referred to.

The night mails for and from Ruthin and Denbigh are conveyed by mail cart in the manner described by the hon. Member ber. There are no trains at present running which could be used for that service, and when the railway company were last communicated with on the subject they were not willing to put on trains at suitable hours except for a payment considerably greater than the service warranted. As, however, some years have elapsed since the matter was last inquired into, the Postmaster General has given instructions for renewed inquiry to be made, and he will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Has the hon. Gentleman received information that since this question was put down there has, owing to an accident, been another delay of one and a half hours?

Yes, Sir. But it is not merely to mail carts that accidents happen.

But is not the hon. Gentleman aware that these accidents and delays frequently occur?

I am not aware of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the promise made by his predecessor on 31st July last, that the outdoor officers promoted to the grade of Assistants of Customs, who did practically the same work in their former posts, would have that fact recognised by being placed at a higher point in the scale of salary assigned to Assistants of Customs, has not been fulfilled, and that these officers have been informed that no further recognition must be looked for; and if he will state why this promise has not been fulfilled, and whether he will take measures to see that it is carried out.

Yes, Sir, I am aware of the promise made by my right hon. friend that the men who, before they were appointed to the new class of Assistants of Customs, had as outdoor officers been doing work equal to that of the new class, should count the time during which they had done such work and take their position in future in the scale of the new class accordingly. Steps were at once taken to carry out this promise. After careful consideration it was decided to allow them to count all time in excess of three years served as outdoor officers as if it were time spent on duties equal to that of the new class, and that to give effect to the promise made each of the officers affected should be placed at the point which he would have reached if he had become an assistant on the completion of three years service as outdoor officer. On applying this rule to the individual-cases it was found that owing to a special concession made to this class of officer in March, 1897, the benefit of the concession promised by my right hon. friend' was already enjoyed in practice by the whole of the staff concerned with some few very slight and temporary exceptions, not amounting in most cases to more than a few shillings. I have directed that in all these cases the difference, whatever it is, shall be paid to the officers concerned; and when this has been done the promise of my right hon. friend will, have been completely fulfilled.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Mr. Careless, a post office sorter, has recently been dismissed, after sixteen years good conduct service, on a charge of stealing and cashing a postal order value 8s. 6d.; that Mr. Careless denies the charge and demands to be prosecuted so that he may prove his innocence; that the post office, though they have deducted the 8s. 6d. from his pay, refuse to prosecute him; and whether it is in accordance with the rules of the public service to dismiss an old official for stealing, deduct the loss from his wages, and yet refuse to prosecute him when he demands to be tried to prove his innocence.

In reply to the hon. Member I have to state that Mr. Alfred Charles Careless, late a sorter attached to the Circulation Branch at the chief office was recently dismissed by the Postmaster General, as he was of opinion that Mr. Careless was not a fit person to be retained in the service. The Postmaster General is unable to admit the principle that he is bound to prosecute a post office servant for an alleged irregularity before dismissing him. The Postmaster General must in the interest of the public service exercise a discretion in such matters.

May I ask whether this sorter was dismissed not for irregularity and unsuitability, but for absolute stealing? Was not the money said to have been stolen deducted from his wages, and has he not asked to be prosecuted for stealing in order to be may have an opportunity of proving his innocence?

There was a deduction made as stated in the question. The reply given to me by the Postmaster General is that which I have read. It says that Mr. Careless was dismissed because the Postmaster General did not think him a fit person to be retained in the service. If Mr. Careless considers himself aggrieved he has his remedy against the Postmaster General, who cannot undertake to order a prosecution in every case in which he feels it necessary to dispense with anyone's service.

Will the Postmaster General defend the action if one is brought?

I must ask for notice of that.

In view of precedents recently set by another Department, cannot this man, who is unfit for service at home, be sent to Gibraltar?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the objections, if any, to assimilating the age fixed for the compulsory retirement of officials from the Post Office, and Inland Revenue, and Customs Departments respectively; and will he take steps for the assimilation in future of the practice of these Departments.

The Orders in Council while making retire- ment compulsory at the age of sixty-five, leave it to the discretion of heads of departments to call upon their officers to retire at sixty if they see fit. The Treasury think it important to maintain the discretion and responsibility thus vested in the heads of Departments, and they are not prepared to interfere with the existing practice.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that one side of the harbour of Avoch, Ross-shire, has been entirely swept away, and that apart from this the harbour is in a bad state of repair; is he aware that during a storm a year ago several boats inside the harbour belonging to fishermen of the district were completely wrecked; and will he state who is responsible for the maintenance of the harbour, and what steps he proposes to take in order to secure the repair of the harbour.

I am informed by the Fishery Board that the answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the negative, and to the second in the affirmative, and in reply to the third I may point out that the Secretary for Scotland has no source of information not equally open to the hon. Member himself, and no means of securing the repair of the harbour as seems to be suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the difficulty experienced in securing suitable hospital accommodation in the poorer districts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, he will consider the expediency of introducing legislation such as will provide for the establishment and maintenance of hospitals in congested areas.

The Secretary for Scotland would not be disinclined, should a favourable opportunity present itself, to amend the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, in one or two respects, and in this event he will consider whether the point mentioned in the hon. Member's question can be provided for.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a petition from the Landward Committee of the Stornoway Parish Council calling attention to the congested condition of the Island of Lewis and the consequent evils arising therefrom; and will he state whether the Congested Districts Board have made any efforts to secure land in Lewis, at places other than in the Point District, suitable for new holdings; and if so, will he give particulars.

The answer to the first portion of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second portion is also in the affirmative, namely at Aignish, Cress and Croir.

What is the acreage of land sought to be secured?

I cannot answer that without notice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain why the further Return of rides or orders made or issued under or in consequence of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, which was promised on the 20th July last year by his predecessor, has not since been laid upon the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the rules and orders of the Local Government Board (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 360, of Session 1899), promised last year, will be issued.

The Return was laid on the Table and ordered to be printed in August last. The rules and orders are ready for press, but there has been unavoidable delay in the preparation of the index. This has now been completed, and the Return will be distributed at an early date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Department of Agriculture is aware that all dairies must be registered, and that all preservatives except common salt are prohibited for butter in Denmark; and further that in the same country pasteurisation of milk has recently been made compulsory in all dairies with the objects of preventing the spread of contagious disease, of improving the flavour of butter, and of increasing keeping qualities of same; and whether he contemplates introducing legislation dealing with any of these matters in Ireland.

The facts are as stated in the question. In Ireland all dailies from which milk is sold to the public, as well as all co-operative dairies in which butter is manufactured, are registered. With regard to preservatives, the Department of Agriculture thinks it advisable to await the report of the Committee appointed by the English Local Government Board to inquire into the use of preservatives in food, before expressing an opinion on the question of special legislation on the subject. As regards the pasteurisation, the Department is prepared to make advances upon favourable terms to enable owners of dairies to erect pasteurising plant, but it does not, at present, consider that legislation making pasteurisation compulsory is required.