said that, in the unavoidable absence of his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) it fell to him to move "That this Bill be now read a Second time." He knew that the Motion would be met with vigorous opposition—[Ministerial cheers]—and that that opposition would come mainly from those with whom he generally had the pleasure of working. As he believed that a great deal of the opposition of his hon. Friends arose out of vague and general prejudices, and as he was certain their opposition to this particular proposal had been inflamed by statements which were misleading and estimates which were exaggerated, he hoped he would be pardoned if he, at no excessive length, stated the case of the London County Council. The proposal in the Bill was that the County Council should have power to acquire a site to the east of their present buildings which would run over that area of land which was bounded by Cockspur Street, Charing Cross, and the Mall, and which would in future be bounded by the extended Mall, assuming that the Government carried out the plan to extend the Mall into Charing Cross. The necessity of a great extension of the site for the County Council buildings was no new question. From the first it had been generally admitted that the present offices were quite insufficient for the satisfactory discharge of the duties which had been delegated to that Council. In 1890 a special committee of the Council carefully viewed 11 different sites which were then available for new offices; but now every one of those sites had ceased to be available. At the present moment, as he was instructed, there was only one site available, and that was the one which it was the object of this Bill to enable the Council to acquire. The staff of the Council numbered 500 persons, and two-fifths of that staff were housed away from the central offices. The cost of housing those who were away amounted to £6,000 a year. To give an idea of the necessity for new buildings he might state that there were 24 standing committees of the Council, and it was not unusual for the committees and sub-committees to hold as many as 50 meetings a week. Yet there were only five rooms in the present buildings available for their accommodation, including the so-called library, and there was no sort of separate room in which a deputation could be received. The necessity for new buildings being admitted, the main question left to be considered was whether the proposed site was an extravagantly expensive one. ["Hear, hear!"] He contended that it was not, and expressed surprise that certain irresponsible statements of an exaggerated character as to the cost should have been put forward publicly. The figures which he should give to the House, on the other hand, were based on estimates made by experts responsible to the County Council. It was calculated that the cost of acquiring the site would be £813,000. It was intended that the ground floor of the buildings should be utilised for bank offices, insurance offices, and other business premises, and the value of letting those premises would amount to the capital sum of £300,000, as against the £813,000 for the site; and the annual interest would be £20,000, which meant an addition to the rates of one-seventh of a penny in the pound. The probable cost of the buildings would be £500,000, which meant another one-seventh of a penny in the pound. The freehold would be acquired in 60 years. What the ratepayers had to consider was whether it was worth their while, in order to obtain new buildings in a central and convenient position, to sacrifice the difference in rates between two-sevenths of a penny in the pound and one-fourteenth of a penny in the pound now paid for leasehold interest.

Does that include compensation in respect of the new street contemplated?

Yes, I think so.

I do not think so. ["Hear, hear!"]

At any rate, the making of the new street has nothing to do with this Bill nor the County Council. That matter rested entirely with the Government, and he hoped the Government would carry out the scheme. ["Hear, hear!"] He wished to impress upon the House that this scheme was not promoted by one party or the other in the County Council—it was neither a Progressive nor a Moderate scheme. [Cheers.] And the composition of the majority of the Council who voted for the present proposal was very significant, and bore out his statement that the scheme was not at all one of a party character. In that majority there voted 10 present chairmen of committees of the Council, equally divided between Moderates and Progressives; 15 ex-chairmen of committees, and two ex-chairmen of the Council. So that it might fairly be said that the proposal was backed up by the authoritative voice of those in the Council who had most experience and responsibility. [''Hear, hear!"] It was dictated by absolute administrative necessity. The site proposed was not only a good one, but it was really the only available site, and the price was not an extravagantly expensive one. [Ironical cheers.] He knew it would be stated and reiterated that the object of the Bill was to erect a palace for the pleasure and pride of the Progressives of the County Council. ["Hear, hear!"] No such idea had entered into the minds of those who were supporting the proposal. What they wanted was simply to meet the absolute administrative necessities of the Council. He did not think it would be necessary to rebuild the present Council Chamber; the new buildings would be strictly allocated to the staff and proper housing of the several committees of the Council. It would also be said by the opponents of the Bill that any extension of buildings for the County Council at the present moment was premature—["hear, hear!"]—that there was likely to be a reconstruction of the system of London local government, and that there was likely to be a great devolution of authority and powers from the County Council to local authorities. ["Hear, hear!"] There was no good mincing words on this matter, no good in cherishing false hopes and indulging in vain dreams. He was perfectly convinced himself that they never would be able to make any very large or very material subtraction from the powers the County Council now had. There were many small powers, no doubt, which could be transferred from the County Council to local authorities, and for his part he thought the sooner those powers were transferred the better it would be for the local authorities and for the London County Council. But it was vain to suppose that the settlement which was arrived at by the great Act of 1888 could be fundamentally or essentially varied. The County Council must remain the central administrative authority for London. [Opposition cheers.] Even when these smaller duties were transferred to the local authorities they must not suppose that the volume of the work of the Council would not continue to increase. The natural growth of the population and the tendency of all modern legislation must very quickly redress the balance. Therefore, be said that any hopes that might be raised on the plea that it was premature now to erect buildings of this kind were false hopes, founded on expectations which never could be realised. In the last place, no doubt the opponents of the Bill would rest their opposition on a feeling which, though they might not express it, was deeply felt, of, "Oh, bother the Council and all its works." It was not for him to eulogise the County Council, but he did say that all of them, Radical and Conservative, Progressive and Moderate, were interested in making that body as good an administrative body as they could make it. ["Hear, hear!"] The way to attract good Londoners to its service was not by constantly depreciating it, by constantly carping at everything it did, was not by harassing it, and not by preventing the further progress of any Measure which it thought was necessary at the Second Reading stage. After all this was not a matter of politics. It was not a matter even of municipal politics. It seemed to him to be esentially a question of cost, which ought primarily to be decided between the ratepayers and their duly-constituted representatives. This Bill came before the House with a respectable majority, irrespective of party, of the Council at its back, and he asked the House to look at the real merits of this particular Bill and not lightly or hurriedly to arrest its further progress. [Cheers.]

said he rose to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months." [Cheers.] He claimed on this occasion to represent a large minority on the London County Council, and also the vast body of the ratepayers of London, who were opposed to this scheme. Unfortunately in a Bill of this kind, if it went to a committee, the ratepayers per se had no locus, and the opinions of London could not be expressed before an ordinary Select Committee of that House. The only opportunity the ratepayers had of being heard was in that Chamber itself. The Bill was introduced by his right hon. Friend the Member for the London University, his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea, and the hon. Member for Batter-sea. It was rather significant that the first two Gentlemen were Aldermen of the County Council—["hear, hear!"]—and, though he desired to speak with every respect of the Aldermen, he ventured to suggest that they represented no one but themselves. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the hon. Member for Battersea, it could hardly be maintained that he represented the whole of the ratepayers of London. ["Hear, hear!"] Then he objected to the title of the Bill. The title, the London County Buildings Bill, had misled members of the County Council, the public, and, he said without hesitation, a certain number of Members of that House. The Bill was originally called the London County Hall Bill, but at the instigation of the right hon. Member for the London University it was altered to its present title, and it thus secured the support of some weak-kneed members of the Council, who, he understood, had since become rather lukewarm in their praise of the scheme. The scheme was hastily considered, and it was ill judged. The site, in the first place, was a great deal larger than was really required for the purposes of the Council. He supposed the House could hardly conceive the fact, but he was told that the site was as large as that upon which the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the India Office, the Colonial Office, and the Local Government Board Office altogether stood. [Laughter.] His next objection was that it was probably the most expensive site that could be chosen in London. He imagined that, with the exception of the Bank of England, they would not find a more expensive site than that on the south side of Trafalgar Square. It was said there was no other site; but, in the opinion of those who had taken a deep interest in this matter, there were several very available sites for this purpose. The Council let slip the very good site that was offered to them in the Hotel Cecil, and the equally good site in the Haymarket where Her Majesty's Theatre stood. But there were still available the site of Christ's Hospital in the City; of Clare Market—a site which the Council had in its own hands practically; of the Aquarium; the site now occupied by Morley's Hotel and the Golden Cross Hotel; and, there was also a site on the Thames Embankment. ["Hear, hear!"] In addition to these it was quite clear that, sooner or later, the County Council would have to make a wide street from Holborn to the Strand, where they might get any number of sites. He maintained that no proper inquiry had been made as to sites, those who supported this scheme having set their minds upon Trafalgar Square. It was necessary to say a word on the cost, because his hon. Friend had stated he had mentioned figures which were not accurate. In the statement circulated the cost was set down at 1½ millions. This figure was taken from the London County Council statement. In their Bill they named the sum of £851,000 for the site alone.

explained that the cost of acquisition of site was £850,000, but it was practically concluded that there should be a transfer of part of the land to the Government, which accounted for the difference between £850,000 and £830,000.

said in addition to the sum for the acquisition of land there was an estimate of £500,000 for building, so that taking the £500,000 and the £851,000 named in the Bill the total was not very far short of 1½ millions. This total, his hon. Friend said, would be greatly reduced by shops and business offices; which would be placed on the ground floor of the contemplated building. But the Council had not pledged themselves to build shops, they only mentioned that this could be done, but they went on to say it, would be premature to suggest any conclusion as to this part of the scheme, and as a matter of fact this had never been agreed to by the Council. The amount of £500,000 for the building was admitted to be simply a loose estimate on the part of the architect, not based on plans, elevations and details, the architect was simply asked "What do you think the building would cost?" and he named the sum of £500,000. But did any hon. Gentleman imagine for an instant that a building could be put on a site of 84,000 square feet for £500,000? He would undertake to say that anyone with experience in such matters would estimate the cost at at least a million of money. On the question of site and building he would like to allude to the much abused London "School Board. That body was not usually credited by the people with any strong disposition in favour of economy, but they had a very line and suitable building on the Embankment good enough for any municipality, including even the London County Council, and he found that the total sum expended upon the site, building, and all charges was £201,024. The building accommodated 300 clerks, and his hon. Friend said the Council required accommodation for 500, say double the number of the London School Board, or treble or quadruple it, and it did not come to anything like the sum the London County Council proposed to spend in Trafalgar Square. ["Hear, hear!"] But the London School Board did not go there, they were content with a modest, site on the Thames Embankment which the London County Council could have if they chose. The ratepayers had never been consulted in this matter. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend said two or three times, what the ratepayers had to decide was this or that, but if the Bill passed the ratepayers would have no voice in the matter, and certainly they could not decide. This was essentially a ratepayers' question which had never been put before the ratepayers in any shape. He challenged the hon. Member for Battersea or any Member of the London County Council to say if there was any allusion made to this gigantic proposal at the last, Council election in addresses or speeches of candidates. There were plenty of matters that did engage attention, water supply, tramways and matters of that sort, which, of course, they might very well deal with, but the idea of spending 1½ millions of money on a magnificent Hôtel de Ville was never presented to the ratepayers. ["Hear, hear!"] Until the ratepayers were consulted on this matter it was not right that Parliament or the Council should give assent, to such a scheme. He admitted that there was a, necessity for more accommodation, and larger premises for the London County Council, and no doubt the House would be told by the hon. Member for Battersea that the Council were "cabined, cribbed, confined," but it was not quite so bad as that. There was a necessity for larger premises, but this did not justify the London County Council in going to the most expensive site they could find in London, and spending 1½ millions of money. ["Hear, hear!"] He appealed to the House on behalf of the ratepayers, who were unable to protect themselves. There was no urgency in the matter, the delay of another year, what was all the throwing out of the Bill would mean, would not seriously hurt the Council, and for 25 years their predecessors, the Metropolitan Board of Works, had managed to get on pretty well in their building, and with the utmost confidence he asked the House to reject this costly, ambitious, and unnecessary scheme. [Cheers.] He formally moved that the Bill be Read a Second time this day six months.

said be begged to second the Amendment. The House would agree that it, had been treated to an interesting and edifying spectacle, two hon. Members who sat on the same side, both in the House and in the London County Council Chamber, being diametrically opposed in their views upon this Bill. As an independent London Member having nothing to do with the County Council, he would briefly give his reasons for supporting the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who had moved the Second Reading told the House very plainly, and in no, hesitating language, of the feelings that animated those who were going to oppose the Bill, they were actuated, he said, by a vague and general prejudice and deep disgust, of the London County Council, which he summed up in the expression "Bother the London Comity Council and all its works." He objected to have his feelings represented in that way by one who could know very little of those feelings. He acted on this occasion out of no spirit of general opposition to the London County Council, and he was not aware that he had ever said a word against the Council. As a Londoner, he recognised the immense good the County Council had done in a great many directions, more especially in relation to parks and open spaces, a subject in which he took great interest. Having put himself right with his hon. Friend he would first justify his action in the interest of the London County Council itself, and he was not without hope that the promoters of the Bill would even yet see that they had been rather premature in bringing this Bill forward. In the interest of the London County Council he was sorry to sec the unpopularity of the Council in some parts of London. He would like to see the Council thoroughly popular among all London people, and ventured to suggest that this move of the Council would not add to its popularity. He had been in conversation with a good many ratepayers in the last few days, and had found amongst them nothing but a feeling of absolute horror at this scheme in the Bill. He earnestly hoped the Council would reconsider its position. It was a young and vigorous body and its parent sitting below (Mr. Ritchie) must be surprised to find what a lusty young Council it had become, and how far it had exceeded the hopes with which it started on its career. Its position, however, was not yet clearly defined, and the Council might well wait before embarking upon expenditure of this kind. There was a great want of space it was said, and Members of the Conservative Party had every sympathy with overcrowding, seeing how they were crowded in the House and its precincts. Still, overcrowded as they were, they went diligently on striving to do their duty to the State without murmur or complaint. The County Councillors might well do the same. The ratepayers looked with great anxiety on the ever-increasing debt of the Loudon County Council. The debt of the County Council amounted to £19,250,000 and was constantly increasing. In face of these facts he did not wonder that many thoughtful citizens and ratepayers of the great Metropolis were seriously pondering in their mind how much further this ever-growing expenditure of the London County Council was to be allowed to go. ["Hear, hear!"] As one of the representatives of a division of poor parishes in Lambeth, where great suffering was entailed owing to the rates, he hoped the House would not pass a Bill which would considerably increase the local burdens. ["Hear, hear!"] There were many improvements which they earnestly desired to see carried out, but which, for want of money, could not be pushed forward, and whilst that was the case, the London County Council were not justified in asking for £1,500,000 for the purpose of the erection of a new county hall. They wanted in the Metropolis more street improvements, the removal of insanitary spots, and better dwellings for the toiling masses, rather than such a building as the London County Council proposed to erect for themselves, and of which the ratepayers had hitherto heard little. ["Hear, hear!"]

desired to say that a large minority of men who shared the views of the hon. Member for Marylebone in the County Council disagreed very strongly indeed with the views he had expressed that afternoon. As to the ratepayers, there had not been an election since 1889 at which the necessity for this new building had not been dwelt upon, the opponents of the Council's policy using the county hall argument as a reason why the Progressives should be defeated. From the point of view of the cost, he submitted that was not a matter for the House of Commons, but for the ratepayers electing the Council, who only wanted that opportunity of doing for the London ratepayers what Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds, and Bradford had done in relation to similar schemes for their municipalities. ["Hear, hear!"] He denied that this was a hasty project, for the sub-committees of the Council, in consequence of the present lack of accommodation, had often been compelled to meet in rooms which, if they had done their duty as a sanitary authority, they ought to have scheduled as insanitary areas. The question had been before the Council for eight years. The hon. Member for Marylebone had said the site proposed was too large. Its measurement was 84,000ft., or about two-thirds of the area occupied by the two adjoining Admiralty buildings together. Then it was said that sites could be obtained elsewhere. He would ask where? Take the Victoria Embankment site. The hon. Member knew that the bulk of the site opposite the Thames Conservancy offices had already been acquired for newspaper offices, and he ventured to say if it had been offered at one-fourth of the price that had been paid for it by the two newspapers that were erecting buildings upon it, such was the character of the ground that they could not have put upon it any building which they expected to last 200 or 300 years. On account of the nature of the subsoil it had been found necessary to put down a blanket of concrete 8ft. thick before building operations could be commenced. As to the Hotel Cecil, which had been spoken of, that building was unsuitable for the work of the London County Council. Then they were told about the Hay-market site. It was not the fault of the London County Council that they could not get it, and when it was mentioned it was met with the same kind of opposition that was offered to the present proposal. It was suggested that they should pull down Christ's Hospital. That was the suggestion of a vandal and a Philistine. [Laughter.] He objected to either the House of Commons or the County Council, or Progressives or Moderates, identifying themselves with the cheap and nasty policy of getting rid of old buildings that made up the history and traditions of their great city. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] That was a worthy Conservative sentiment. [Laughter.]

wished to point out, that the site of Christ's Hospital had been condemned and a new site bought in the country, so that the present building had to be pulled down. The building was a comparatively modern one, so that it was not necessary it should be kept by reason of its antiquity.

said that the condemnation of the site of Christ's Hospital came long after it was possible for the County Council to consider the question.

It is now open. ["Hear, hear!"]

But it is too late, and it is unsuitable for us even if it had not been condemned.

It is not too late.

in continuation, traversed the argument that the building could not be erected on the proposed site for £500,000, expressing his conviction that it could be entirely constructed for from £350,000 to £400,000. The County Council did not want a palace, or Hôtel de Ville, but what they did want was a workshop in which they could do their municipal work. ["Hear, hear!"] Above all, if they were to have such a building it must be of either brick or stone, sufficiently solid to justify the intended outlay upon it, and architecturally and artistically blend with the splendid Government offices which were to be built in close proximity. The County Council were green with envy of the London School Board's offices. The tea room of the London School Board office has a floor space equal to that of three of the five Committee rooms that the County Council were imprisoned in. The hon. Member for Norwood wanted the County Council to trouble less about the overcrowding of its own members and more about overcrowding in the dwellings of the poor. The Council had eleven rehousing schemes, on which alone it was spending £400,000, in the East End of London. It was not to be expected that men of all shades of politics, who devotedly gave their time to the service of the ratepayers would spend six, eight, or ten hours a day, live days a week, in offices lit only for a slum and in an atmosphere not so good as that of the stable in which hon. Members put their horses. [Ministerial crien of "Oh!"] Eleven sites had been suggested and abandoned, either because they were too dear or inappropriate. The conditions on which they held them tied them to their present offices. There was a 62 years' lease to run, for one thing. Several of the Council's officials' offices were scattered about the neighbourhood—as in Craven Street and Cranbourne Street, a quarter of a mile away. When the Main Drainage Committee, that had purified the river and done excellent work the last eight years, were sitting, and they wanted the engineer and the chemist, the engineer would be in the building at Charing Cross and the chemist half-a-mile away. Frequently they had to delay or postpone work for want of time to find their officials. The Council had fourteen departments and a staff or 500 persons. The Technical Education and Metropolitan Asylums Boards held their meetings at the Council's offices, and other similar bodies would be able to do so if they had more room. The hon. Member for Chelsea said the scheme would only represent a rate of one-seventh—he believed it would only be one-twelfth or one fourteenth of a penny in the pound. He himself believed that, even if it represented one fourth of a penny, the London ratepayers would grant it, and the Council would have a right to demand it. Glasgow, with a population one eighth that of London, spent £700,000 on its town hall; Manchester spent £400,000 on the site, and £600,000 more on the building. Leeds and Bradford also had fine town halls, and what great provincial towns like these had, should not be denied to London. The Pall Mall Gazette, which had been heading the agitation against the Bill, urged that the site proposed would be costly, the plan extravagant, and the hall ought not to be located where it was proposed to place it. The Pall Mall had persistently attacked the project, and asked hon. Members to rally, not on the side of economy, efficiency, or the appropriateness of site, but to rescue the dustbin of the proprietor of the Pall Mall, whose residence was next door to the offices of the County Council, from having its ventilation and access to light and air interfered with. Let the House contrast this niggardly petty policy with the splendid behaviour of the hon. Member for Greenwich, their next door neighbour. The Council were prepared to deal with him in a neighbourly spirit. It was an abuse of London hospitality, it was not fair or gentlemanly for a new millionaire from America to dump his city offices next those of the London School Board and prevent their extension, and his own house next to the offices of the London County Council, and to complain because the Council came "between the wind and his ability." His appeals to hon. Members were based on selfish, personal reasons, by which he himself hoped they would not be deceived. He could stand a decent duke—[loud laughter]—or a militant marquess—[renewed laughter]—but here was a new millionaire enjoying the hospitality of London, in whose ground rents he was investing heavily, and whose sanitation he was partaking of —[laayhter]—sanitation which he could not get in Fifth Avenue or Broadway. Why did not his public spirit rise to the level of that of the city of which he was a citizen, and propitiate those who scorned delights and lived laborious days in the service of the people of London. Why should they be herded together in rooms that the House of Commons would not kennel a dog in? ["Hear, hear! "and cries of "Question!"] The Council did not want a palatial building, but one in which they could meet and do their work properly. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that on that side of the House they were not opposed to the idea that London should have a proper Hall in which to carry on municipal affairs. He had been approached in regard to this matter, however, by numerous ratepayers of the Strand, whom he represented, and at least one of the public bodies in the Strand borough, who believed that there was, at any rate, a good case for the postponement of this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] It had been objected that the scheme was for a site larger and more valuable than was needed, and he thought that the admission that the London County Council intended to use the lower floor for shops was proof that the site was too big. He did not know whether that use of a part of the buildings would add to the dignity of the new County Hall. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought it would give the Hall a rather similar appearance to that of the hotel on, the opposite side of the square. Something had been said with regard to the cost of the site, and he could not help fearing that the estimated price for the site was lower than the County Council could reasonably expect to get it for. The offices there were particularly valuable to those who used them. He knew certainly of one case of a large firm which had been disturbed no less than three times within a comparatively short period. He thought they would agree that in such a case there would be a strong case for considerable compensation. There were some exceptionally hard cases of that sort. He did not think either that it would be found that the premises on the lowest floor, which it was proposed to let, would be useful to such firms as those he referred to. He thought therefore that the estimated revenue which was expected from the letting of the premises on the ground-floor had been very considerably exaggerated. They did not think that there was no case to be made out for the County Council, but they thought that this was a site which the County Council need not acquire.

said that the opposition to this Bill was founded very much on a misapprehension, and the expense contemplated had been much exaggerated. Hon. Members who opposed this Bill did not seem to appreciate the great difficulties under which the business of the Council was carried on. It was no question of the Council Chamber. That was simple but convenient. The staff, however, were scattered in 14 different houses. Some were working in attics and rooms intended for bedrooms. It was impossible, however, to rearrange them, because the tenancies were so short, in some cases only yearly tenancies. Under these circumstances the heads of departments could not exercise any proper supervision. Moreover, the houses were much scattered, in one case half a mile away. This was very inconvenient. Sometimes a committee telephoned for a particular officer, and when he came a paper was wanted, which had to be sent for, involving great loss of time. There were 24 committees, and eight to ten meetings a day, but there were only five committee rooms. There was only one waiting-room, and, when deputations came from Vestries and other bodies, there was no proper room for them, and they had to stand about waiting in passages. The Committee had been considering sites for some years, and were of opinion that this was the best, and, everything considered, the most economical. They had a sixty years' lease of their main building, and if they went elsewhere it would be unsuited for other purposes. He had been Chairman for two years, and could assure the House that additional space was urgently required. When the Bill was before the Council it was supported by sixteen Chairmen of Committees, and not one voted against it. The Bill did not raise the question of the building, it merely enabled the Council to acquire a proper site. If it were thought necessary, the expense might be greatly reduced by letting off the frontage towards Trafalgar Square. The present was an opportunity which ought not to be lost. If the Motion were passed the Bill would be rejected. If the Second Reading was passed the Council would still have to satisfy the Committee upstairs. The Bill was supported by all those who knew most of the work of the Council—by the Chairman, Vice Chairman, Deputy Chairman, and sixteen Chairmen of Committees. He hoped, therefore, that it would not be summarily rejected on ex parte and exaggerated statements, but that the House would at least give them the opportunity of proving their case before a Committee upstairs. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that, as a member of the London County Council since it was originally instituted, and as the representative on the Council of South West Bethnal Green, one of the poorest districts of East London, he ventured to make some remarks on the Bill. Parliament had protected the ratepayer in London over and beyond ratepayers in all other municipalities. It had placed the control of all capital expenditure and finance under the absolute veto of the Treasury, who control the public finance. They were also further protected by the Standing Order of this House, which required all Bills relating to the finance of the London County Council to be introduced as public Bills, so as to give the whole House control over capital expenditure. But in assuming control and giving this protection in regard to capital expenditure it had not hitherto been suggested that Parliament should extend its control beyond capital expenditure and exercise it as regards rate. On all measures the Council was left answerable to the electors, the ratepayers, and the question was whether Parliament should now extend the doctrine of control, and apply it to rate. This particular scheme was adopted by the Council, upon the report of a special committee. That report dealt with the rejected proposals for acquiring eight different sites. Amongst them that of Christ's Hospital, alluded to in this Debate, and the Victoria Embankment site; as to Christ's Hospital site the report stated that

"inasmuch as the land had only a small frontage to Newgate Street, the remainder being back land over which there were several rights of light, it was considered that the site would be worthless, unless valuable property, including valuable property fronting Newgate Street, were included."

As to the Embankment site the report found that only 53,043 square feet were available, of which 7,300 were over the Metropolitan District Railway. Under these circumstances the present site was recommended and adopted, and in favour of that scheme on the division there voted the three City representatives on the Council. They knew what was wanted. There was a staff required to be housed of 500, but the Council administered and had a staff of 2,097 yearly contract men, and 5,795 weekly wages men. A point had been raised that the powers of the Council were likely to be affected by the transfer to local bodies of some of those bodies, and that, in consequence, the requirements of the Council would not necessitate such a large scheme as that proposed by the Bill. But there was now a common consensus between the Council and the local authorities that any powers which might be transferred would be of a limited nature, and would not affect the staff and organisation. It was never suggested that the administration of the 12,000 or 13,000 pauper lunatics in the different asylums, the 830 men of the Fire Brigade, the 1,040 acres of parks and gardens, the 2,626 acres of open spaces, all distributed in every conceivable part of London, north, south, east and west; the powers over the action of local authorities in reference to health, the licensing in reference to the storage of petroleum, the licensing of slaughter houses, and of infant reception houses, should be transferred to local authorities. It was admitted on all hands these would have to be retained, and, if so, the Council required the scheme put forward, which involved a cost on rate of less than ¼d. in the pound, and after the most careful examination by the Council was approved of by members representing both parties as being necessary and the only reasonable plan to carry out.

said he desired to speak on behalf of those who would be dispossessed of their places of business if the scheme of the London County Council was carried out. In the opinion of those most qualified to give a decision on the point, the estimate of the cost of acquiring this site at which the County Council had arrived was greatly underrated. Those who had seen the plans would notice the enormous frontage on Trafalgar Square—a frontage entirely disproportionate to the size of the whole area. That frontage was occupied by some of the most expensively constructed and highly rented buildings in England. He might mention that amongst the buildings were one of the leading banks, four of the leading insurance offices, the offices of four or five of the principal steamship companies, and a great many shops well known to many Members of the House, especially the shop of Messrs. Stanford, the map sellers, in which they all took an interest. To acquire all these premises would cost the London County Council an enormous amount of money. His right hon. Friend the Member for the London University seemed to throw upon those who opposed the Bill the onus of trying to prevent the London County Council from erecting such offices as they required. He was sure they had no wish to do anything of the kind. All they wanted was that when the County Council decided upon having new offices they should not expend an unnecessary amount in taking an immense frontage on one of the most expensive sites in London. A question of this kind in which the expenditure of an enormous sum of money was concerned ought to be laid for decision before the ratepayers who elected the London County Council. It was idle for his right hon. Friend the Member for the London University to say that the ratepayers could appear before the Committee of the House. He was not aware that the ratepayers would have any locus standi before the Committee; but even if they could appear it would be a very expensive business for them; and, what was more, they could not arrive by such a process at the opinion of more than a fraction of the electorate. He did not believe that there was a strong feeling against the London County Council in the House. On the contrary there was a great wish that the London County Council should be able to do its work properly. He was sure also that the ratepayers would not object to the County Council being properly housed. But the ratepayer should have a voice in the decision of the question. If the Bill were passed the control of the ratepayers was gone for ever, the expenditure would have been sanctioned, and the ratepayers could have nothing further to do with the matter. There was no doubt that other sites might be procured by the London County Council. Indeed, he would have thought that the County Council instead of attempting to get one of the most expensive sites in the Metropolis would have cleared away some slum, erected houses for the working classes, and put up their offices there.

said he approached the question solely from the point of view of the interests of the London ratepayers. The question was not whether the London County Council was properly housed, but whether the House was going to sanction an enormous expenditure which would place a heavy burden on the ratepayers of the poor districts of London. It was said that the buildings would cost about £1,300,000. That estimate was quite inadequate. He believed the cost would be at least £2,000,000 sterling. Anyone who knew the site and was acquainted with the value of property would know that the scheme would at least cost that amount. The House was told that the London County Council had 500 clerks to house. That meant that each clerk would cost about £4,000, capital sum. That capital sum at 4 per cent. would produce about £120 a year. The cost was absurdly extravagant. An office could be built for all the necessary purposes for a sum immensely less. London ought to know that an estimate had been prepared by the London County Council and sent to that House for an outlay of something like £3,000 or £4,000 per clerk. The expenditure of £2,000,000 upon the site and buildings would involve every constituency in London in an expenditure of almost £25,000. He invited metropolitan Members to go to their constituents and ask them whether they were prepared to provide £25,000 for a house for the London County Council. He felt certain that scarcely a single constituency would give an affirmative answer. In Islington they would have to pay considerably over £100,000. If the London County Council wanted a site let it go to the East End or the South of London, where the cost would be a mere fraction of the sum now contemplated, and where a building could be built which would be an improvement to the district. He should resist in every pos- sible way this project to burden the ratepayers with an extravagant expenditure.

did not think that the details of this scheme could be considered properly in the House. On more than one occasion he had protested, without much effect unfortunately, against the practice of discussing the details of private Bills at the stage of Second Heading. He intended to vote for the Second Reading of the Measure on broad grounds. Here was a body which governed the metropolis, and which had made up its mind that it was not adequately housed. The representatives of the ratepayers accordingly came to that House with a scheme for providing the accommodation which they wanted. If that scheme involved too large an expenditure out of the rates, that was a matter in which that House was not primarily concerned. Those who were chiefly concerned were the electors of the County Council, and their representatives who were responsible for this scheme must answer to their constituents for any large increase of expenditure that it involved. Then the question of an alternative site was one which the House at the present stage could not properly go into. Statements were made on the one side and contradicted on the other; sites were suggested only to be dismissed from consideration at once. Those were questions which could be raised with advantage when the Bill came before a Committee upstairs. The House was not the proper place in which to discuss them. The present occasion was the time for taking objection to the general principle of the proposal. If hon Members objected to a majority of the representatives of a municipality coming to the House and asking for leave to purchase a site on which to erect buildings for their official purposes, let them vote against and reject the Measure. But he would point out that in the case of no other municipality in the Kingdom would the House think for a moment of taking such a course. [Opposition cheers.] If Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, or any other big municipality were to come to the House with a similar scheme, no matter how extravagant it might be considered, no matter how large the area proposed to be purchased—that House on the Second Reading of the Bill would not venture to reject it. The scheme would be sent to a Committee. He asked the House to do now in the case of London what it would do in the case of any other great municipality. Whether the scheme was a very extravagant one; whether it was proposed to acquire too costly a site; whether the area to be occupied was too large—were questions which could only be decided upon evidence taken before a Select Committee. ["Hear, hear!"] He urged the House to come to a decision now and to hesitate before it rejected the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

was surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have spoken in such a decided way in depreciation of the opposition to this Bill. What were they sent to Parliament for if it was not to express their opinions. ["Hear, hear!"] This Bill was supported in the London County Council by a very small majority, and some Members of that majority had voted in error, whilst others had since changed their views upon this subject. The Bill was only carried in the County Council by 54 against 46. The proposed site was in his opinion one of the worst in London for the purpose, in addition to being most expensive. The noise in the neighbourhood would be great. It had been said that there could be shops on the ground floor of the building. That certainly would not be convenient. The building would not cost less than £2,000,000, possibly £2,500,000. As to the construction of the new street to which the introducer of the Bill had referred, it ought to be clearly understood that the Government had not consented to allow the street to be made except on the condition of payment by the ratepayers, the burden on whom would be enormous. Just over Westminster Bridge there were many sites available. They could be purchased for less than £200,000, and the neighbourhood was quieter. The proposed new street, he was told by the police, would increase the dangers attending the traffic in the locality. He objected to the hon. Gentleman's addressing hon. Members as if they were a lot of schoolboys, and he hoped that the result of the Division would show that the House disapproved of these plans of the extravagant Members of the London County Council. ["Hear, hear!"]

observed that the Chairman of Committees had said that this Bill ought to be sent to a Committee upstairs, because what was done by the representatives of ratepayers did not concern that House. There would be something in that argument if the ratepayers had had an opportunity of pronouncing upon this scheme. He asked the House not to allow this Bill to pass until the ratepayers should have had an opportunity of pronouncing upon the issue which was now sought to be raised prematurely. There would be an election next year, when County Councillors would be able to advocate this scheme before their constituents, if they were courageous enough to do so. The hon. Member for Battersea had said that he had put this issue before his constituents at the time of the last election. Perhaps that accounted for the enormous reduction of his majority. ["Hear, hear!"] The necessity for larger offices, and the urgency for them, could not be disputed by anyone who had served on the County Council; but that was not a reason why a site should be selected in the most expensive, instead of the most economical, part of London. He had never attacked the County Council, but he said that the worst enemy of that body was the County Council itself. ["Hear, hear!"] If it wished to become popular and to impress the ratepayers with the good work it had done, the County Council should show Londoners that it went about its work in an economical, businesslike, regular fashion.

protested against the doctrine which had been laid down for the guidance of London Members by the Chairman of Committees. London Members looked upon the Second Reading stage of Bills intended to lay a burden on the ratepayers as a very important period. [Cheers.] It should be remembered, also, in considering the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman that there were other Bills before the House introduced by the London County Council. There were the Water Bills. Were the London Members not to debate those Bills on the Second Reading? [Cheers.] Were they to be told that, because the ratepayers elected the London County Council, and that if this body by a majority of one, two, three, or half-a-dozen, should bring in any number of Bills, the House was obediently and humbly to read them a second time, and that then the Council might instruct counsel and adopt expensive methods before the Select Committees, whereas they had ready to their hands the opinion of those who were also interested in the ratepayers of London, and who were capable of scotching the evil at a very early period?

What I said was, that if any hon. Member dissented from the principle of the Bill this is the proper time to deal with it; but surely this is not the proper time to consider the details? When the Water Bills come on I shall say the same thing. This is not the proper stage to consider details.

said that the principle here was that the ratepayers had not been consulted. When it was proposed in the County Council that the matter should be deferred for a year it would have come before the newly elected Council; and this proposal was only carried by a majority of six. Was it not a principle, moreover, that when they were proposing to spend the money of the ratepayers, and when they asked on what it was to be spent, or what necessity there was for spending it? was it not a principle to urge in opposition to the Trafalgar Square site that there were other sites equally good and cheaper? If the House passed the Second Reading of this Bill it would authorise the acquisition of the Trafalgar Square site. [Cheers.] His belief was, that the site had not been fixed upon because it was convenient for those who came from the cast or the south of London; it, was fixed upon for political motives. ["No, no!"] There was another question of principle involved. If they authorised the building of this hall for the London County Council who was going to build it? ft was one of the rooted principles of the County Council that they would not employ anyone to build for them. Were they to sanction the expenditure of a million or a million and a half of the ratepayers' money, and then hand the work over to be dealt with by the Works Committee of the London County Council? [Cheers.] Surely when the Council's Building Department was on its trial, almost on a criminal charge, they were entitled to ask whether the ratepayers were prepared to entrust the building of this new palace to those who had shown so little regard for the money of the ratepayers and to the keeping of their accounts. [Cheers.] They believed that the ratepayers had a right to be consulted, and the London Members thought that they were acting in their best interests in postponing this question. The Bill should not be sent to a Committee, but should be thrown out, in order that the ratepayers might express their opinion whether the County Council really needed a house like that proposed.

as an independent ratepayer of London, heartily supported and approved this proposal. In his judgment the Debate had been carried on in a pettifogging spirit, and it was absurd that a large Municipal Council like that of London should be housed in a back slum. In Manchester they had placed the Town Hall in the finest and best site that could be found in the city; in Birmingham and Glasgow it was the same; and they ought to be ashamed in London to descend to the mean arguments that had been used in respect to the Council proposal. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member for the Strand, and the hon. Member for the Dulwich Division were interested in huge industrial undertakings. Did the House find these hon. Gentlemen housing their workpeople in 15 or 16 small buildings? No; they had concentrated their business undertakings under one roof. It was unworthy to attempt to limit the Municipal Council of the metropolis so as to prevent it from having all the employees within reach, and to show a desire to relegate that body to some mean portion of the metropolis. They had equalised the rates throughout the metropolis, so that they did not rest on one special division. It would be a good piece of economy, as well as an act of justice to London, to provide a proper building for transacting the business of the County Council. In his opinion, therefore, the Bill should be read a Second time, and sent to a Committee upstairs.

said the hon. Member, who called himself a "free and independent" ratepayer, was "free" with other people's money and "independent" of the arguments addressed to him.

I am a ratepayer of London.

Yes, but the hon. Member docs not pay all the rates of London.

No, but I pay my share.

went on to say that those who meant to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill must have derived great encouragement from the speech of the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland. The hon. Gentleman was one of the Members of the Front Bench, one of those secondary pillars of the Government, who had not yet appointed themselves Ministers of the Crown. [Laughter.] When those Gentlemen recommended the House to take a certain course the House was apt to take the contrary one—[Opposition cheers]—and the speech in question might be regarded as a good omen for the division which was to follow. He was surprised, considering the position of the hon. Gentleman, that he should have said this matter had been too fully discussed. Why, what was the Second Reading stage for? Did he wish them to swallow the Bill whole without any discussion at all? What did the First Lord of the Admiralty think of this precious scheme? And, still more, what was the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade about it? For he was the inventor of this new system, full of new rates and new debts. He submitted that the proper course for the promoters of this stupendous undertaking to have pursued was, first of all, to consult the ratepayers as to whether they desired it; and, secondly, to put prepared plans and detailed estimates before the House. The hon. Member for Battersea put it quite properly when he said the County Council wanted workshops in order to do their business. But Trafalgar Square was the last place in the world where workshops should be set up. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Workshops should be in a quiet place; Trafalgar Square was one of the least quiet places in London, as the hon. Member must well know. [Laughter.] Did the House realise what the frontage was? The whole of the south side of Trafalgar Square was to be taken, a frontage of 183 yards, or as long as many a rifle range. [Laughter.] For aught he knew, the next thing they might be asked to do might be to establish a rifle range in front of the County Council palace.[Laughter.] There was another conclusive argument against this scheme at the present time. They could not tell how long the County Council was going to last in its present situation and condition—how long it might be before a considerable change took place in the government of this great metropolis; and if, in the meantime, they allowed the County Council to blossom out into a "palace lifting to eternal summer," the result might be that the County Council palace would be tenanted by the owl and the bittern. [Laughter.] In an adjoining country, as everybody knew, the Hôtel de Ville had been the centre of every kind of revolutionary idea, and in every time of disorder there had been conflict between the Hôtel de Ville and the Chamber of Deputies, often coming to fighting. If the House of Commons allowed a County Council palace to be built close to this House they might one day have great reason to regret it.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put "; but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question:—Debate resumed.

said he voted for this Measure in the County Council, but he proposed to vote against it in this House, because he had since then come to the conclusion that the alternative sites had not been as exhaustively inquired into as was represented at the time. At the same time, he entirely dissociated himself from the suggestion that the Charing Cross site had been selected from any political or sinister motive, a suggestion which was at once unwise, impolitic, and unjust. He considered this simply as a business matter, and, as a business man, he had been much struck during the two years he had been a member of the Council with the practical value of the work done there. No doubt as a young body it had a tendency towards recklessness and extravagance, but its members generally showed a zeal for the public service and a devotion to hard work which he had seldom seen equalled in any other assembly. But it appeared to him that the Charing Cross site was an unnecessarily costly one, and, while he recognised that an extension of premises was absolutely necessary, no harm would be done by delaying the Mea-sure for a year and giving the ratepayers an opportunity of pronouncing upon it at the next elections.

said that it would not be dealing with the subject in the pettifogging spirit mentioned by an hon. Gentleman opposite if he expressed his strong dissent from the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench, and who said that if great Corporations like Manchester and Liverpool were to send up a Bill like this to the House of Commons, no. Member would think of opposing its principle. The deduction from that argument was clear—that London Members had no right to oppose a principle decided upon by a majority of the London County Council. He, for one, a d, he believed, every one of his Friends on that side of the House at least, indignantly rejected a doctrine which would exclude them from the consideration of any proposal, be it of principle or detail, which came before that House, and which affected the interests of the London ratepayers whom they represented. He opposed the Bill also because there was in the municipal atmosphere a very strong movement towards the decentralisation of London government, and he thought it would be extremely foolish for this House or for London Members to assent to an expenditure, which, once assented to, could not be recalled, before they knew how the respective relations and the different functions of the County Council and the separate municipalities, which, no doubt, would come into being, were to be settled and established. His own constituency had taken a leading part in the movement referred to, and he thought that it was premature and wasteful to erect, as was proposed by that Bill, an enormous framework before they knew the proportions or the functions of the machinery which would be placed in it.

declared his entire concurrence in the opinion expressed by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The right hon. Member for London University and the hon. Member for Chelsea put before the House the opinion of the greatest municipality in the country as to what was proper to be done for the convenient administration of the municipality's affairs. Thereupon the hon. Member who moved the Amendment called upon the House to consider whether the site chosen was the best, and suggested a number of other sites. The members of the County Council were responsible to their constituents, and they represented them just as much as hon. Members represented the constituents by whom they were elected. Of course, the House of Commons would not think of treating the proposals of Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham as they were asked to treat those of the London County Council. What would the Colonial Secretary say if the House attempted to decide what site the municipality of Birmingham should choose, or what the expenditure should be? The spirit of this extraordinary attempt had been condensed into a single sentence; it was the spirit of "Bother the London County Council." It was well known that among certain people there was a dislike of the County Council; but the proper course for such persons was to alter the Council's constitution by an appeal to the ratepayers. The present question was of such purely domestic interest that the House could not possibly decide it; the House could not judge as to the accommodation necessary for transacting the business of 5,000,000 people; and the House ought not to set aside the opinion of a municipality invested with proper authority and created by hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Cheers.] If the Bill were read a Second time all the objections which had been urged by the Mover of the Amendment could be considered in Committee.

My objection is that the ratepayer cannot be heard before a Select Committee. He has no locus standi. [Cheers.]

asked what would be said if the House were dealing with the site of a public office and objection were raised to the Bill going to a Committee because the constituencies had not been consulted on the subject. If ever there were a question which a municipal authority had a right to determine it was that before the House. No Party

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can say when the Departmental Committee of Inquiry on the Health of the Army in India will produce their Report; and whether it will be placed in the hands of Members when printed?

It is hoped that the Re-port will be complete in a few days. I propose, after I have had time to consider it, to make it public.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any objection to state the names of the Members of the Departmental Committee which has been appointed to inquire into the health of the Army in India; and, whether he can state when it is probable that the Report of the Committee will be completed?

The Members of the Departmental Committee appointed to report on the health of the Army in India are: Lord Onslow, President; Sir James Peile, Member of the Council of India; Surgeon-Major-General W. Taylor, Army Medical Department; and Surgeon-Colonel J. Richardson, Indian Medical Service (retired). It is hoped that the Report may be ready in a few days for consideration by the Secretary of State.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Banffshire (Sir WILLIAM WEDDERBURN), I beg-to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, pending the receipt of the complete statistics of mortality which have been called for, he will give the House an approximate estimate (based upon the reports of the local officials) of the number of deaths, up to the present date, believed to be due to famine in the various affected districts?

asked whether the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India would consider the desirability of not disturbing officers in their beneficent labours in looking after distressed people by calling upon them to prepare returns of unnecessary statistics? [Cheers.]

As I stated in reply to a previous Question by the hon. Member for Banffshire, I shall include in the famine papers to be laid on the Table from time to time all the information received from India regarding mortality in the famine districts; and I have called for monthly mortality returns for all famine tracts in which the mortality was considerably above the normal. The second set of famine papers, which I hope to lay on the Table by Monday, will contain partial information on the matter. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Manchester, I must say that I do not think it right to present to the House conjectural estimates in anticipation of correct information, or to ask the Government of India, whoso time is more than filled up by urgent practical work, to transfer any portion of their attention from such work to the framing of speculative estimates of mortality.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the remanded children, who are one of the classes for whom it is proposed to establish the new Metropolitan Children's Asylums' Board, under the Local Government Board, are already under the Home Office and the London School Board; and whether, seeing that it is through the action of the School Board that many of them are first apprehended, and that they are subsequently placed under the Home Office, he will consider the advisability of leaving the temporary provision for them in the hands of one or other of the authorities which already have to deal with them?

Under the existing law the Guardians, and the Guardians alone, are responsible for the care and maintenance of children who, prior to the question of an order being made for removal to an industrial school being determined, are remanded to the workhouse. In many workhouses there is no suitable accommodation for these children, or only accommodation which does not properly provide for their being kept separate from other inmates. The provision of such accommodation for children of cither sex in each of the 30 Unions in the Metropolis, with the necessary staff for supervision, will entail a very considerable expenditure—an expenditure greatly in excess of what would be entailed by separate provision for children of the class referred to. The total number of such children for which provision would be required would probably be not more than 100 or 120.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a conference of Guardians of the various Unions and parishes of the Metropolis, and the managers of the District Schools in the same area, to consider the proposed order for the formation of a new Board for the management of various classes of children chargeable to the rates, which has been announced to take place on Friday 26th inst.; and, whether he will give an assurance that he will take no final action in the matter until it has been fully considered by the representative bodies of London?

I am aware of the proposed conference of Guardians on the 26th inst., and I do not contemplate issuing the Order before that date.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether his attention has been given to the regulations under which sub-lieutenants, midshipmen, and naval cadets are required to pay to the Naval Instructor 3d. a day each for tuition; and (2) whether the Admiralty will relieve sub-lieutenants, midshipmen, and naval cadets from the obligation to provide from their very small pay so large a proportionate contribution to the much greater pay of the Naval Instructors?

My answer to the first question of the hon. Member is in the negative. The payment of £5 a year by young officers to their instructors is of very long standing, but I have no objection to the question being considered by the Committee which I propose to appoint.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the allegation that on Thursday, 4th February, in Portsmouth Harbour, H.M.S. Inflexible parted her bridles, and would have drifted, broadside on, on to the ram of H.M.S. Hero, which was only prevented by the promptitude and presence of mind displayed by the officers and crews of both ships; and whether the Admiralty will make further inquiry into the occurrences of narrow escapes of ramming one of Her Majesty's ships by another?

Our information says nothing about the ram of the Hero. Whenever any accident happens, or any occurrence takes place which seems to demand inquiry, inquiry is forthwith made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that two prisoners, George Thompson and Thomas Pope, were tried and acquitted at the Maidstone Assizes on 19th November last, and that the former had been in prison five months and two weeks, and the latter in prison also awaiting trial over six months; what compensation are Pope and Thompson to receive for their incarceration; whether he is aware that at the Maidstone Assizes in November 1894 four prisoners were found not guilty; of these two were found to be not guilty by the Grand Jury and two after trial, and that one of the four prisoners had been in prison 5½ months, and each of the other three for over three months awaiting trial; also that at the Maidstone Assizes in November 1895 five prisoners had been found not guilty, two by the Grand Jury and three after trial, and two were in prison over four months, the other three for three months, awaiting trial; and whether he has any objection to granting a Return showing the number of prisoners sent for trial to assizes last year and acquitted, and the period elapsing between the committal and acquittal?

Yes, sir; I am aware of the long detention in prison before trial of the two prisoners named. It is a matter of great regret that the present Circuit arrangements necessitated this; but I am afraid a claim for compensation could not be entertained. I have not the means of verifying the statements in the third paragraph of the Question, but have no reason to suppose they are inaccurate. Returns for 1895, giving the particulars suggested by the hon. Member, will appear in the forthcoming volume of the Judicial Statistics, which will be presented within a few weeks.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General will arrange to have tested letter weights on sale at all post offices?

The Postmaster General is not prepared to make arrangements for keeping letter weights on sale at post offices. Such a course would involve competition with the ordinary trade, and would, it is considered, be altogether outside the scope of the functions of the Department.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the case of James Bate, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death at Liverpool Assizes on the 20th November last, and left for execution on Tuesday morning, the 8th December, whether he communicated to the Governor of Walton Gaol his decision that the law must take its course in Bate's case; and, if so, on what day was this communication made; on what day did he order the respite of the execution of Bate; between these two dates did any new facts in the case come to his knowledge; and, if so, what were they; on what day and at what hour was the fact of the respite communicated to Bate; and, upon what grounds did he advise the Crown to commute the capital penalty in this case?

I should be departing from the course which has been taken uniformly by all my predecessors in similar circumstances if I were to answer in detail the series of questions which the hon. Member has asked me. At the same time I have no desire to keep anything back which I can properly lay before the House. The murder, though committed in a moment of drunken fury and in circumstances of considerable provocation, was in other respects of such a, nature that I felt that the circumstances as a whole, and regarded in themselves, did not justify reprieve, and that the recommendation of the jury to that effect must be disregarded. After my decision was made public, I received such clear evidence by numerous and weighty representations from all quarters of the existence of a genuine and unanimous sentiment in favour of mercy that I was forced to the belief that the execution of the extreme penalty would change indignation at an atrocious crime into compassion for the criminal, and, giving weight, as my predecessors have done in exceptional cases to this consideration, advised Her Majesty to commute the sentence.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a company of West India troops has been sent to garrison Akassa during the absence at Bida of the forces of the Niger Company; and, whether the grievances of the Brass men, stated in Sir J. Kirk's Report to be such as no Government would wish to see continued, have been redressed?

100 men of the 2nd West India Regiment have been sent to assist in holding the Delta of the Niger, including Akassa, during the operations north of Lokoja. A modus vivendi with reference to the Brass men was proposed last year. But the matter has not been finally settled, and must be again taken in hand after the return of the Company's expedition.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state by whom the Inquiry into the circumstances connected with the loss of the lightship Puffin will be held; whether arrangements will be made for the presence of a nautical assessor, and whether the Court will have authority to compel the attendance of witnesses and to examine them on oath; and, whether the Inquiry will be open to the Press and the public?

The Inquiry into the circumstances attending the loss of the Puffin will be held by the Chief Magistrate at Dublin with Nautical Assessors appointed by the Secretary of State. The Court will have authority to compel the attendance of witnesses and to examine them on oath; and the Inquiry will be open to the Press and to the public according to the usual practice.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of transferring the venue to Queenstown or Cork.

said he had not considered that point, but if the hon. Gentleman chose to make any representation on the subject he would consider it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a petition for the remission of a sum of £87 18s. demanded of the Listowel Board of Guardians as one month's interest on an overdue instalment of a seed loan at the rate of 60 per cent. per annum; whether, if the instalment due on the 1st August were paid on or before the 31st August no interest would be demanded, and whether the Guardians sent payment in full on 1st October, but the cheque was returned and £87 18s. additional demanded; and, in view of the fact that the Lord Lieutenant has power under Section 7 of the Seed Act to extend the time of repayment, if he will advise the Treasury not to press for this additional sum?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is a fact that the Treasury demanded interest at the rate of 60 per cent. per annum from the Listowel Board of Guardians on a balance of an instalment under the Seed Loan Act of 1895, although the amount in question was tendered in full by the guardians one month after it became overdue; and, if so, whether he will use his influence with the Treasury to withdraw this demand?

It appears that the Listowel Board of Guardians obtained an advance of £3,517 14s. 9d. under the Seed Potatoes Supply Act of 1895, and that the first instalment amounting to £1,758 17s. 4d. became due on the 1st August, 1896. A Receivable Order for the lodgment of the latter sum was forwarded by the Board of Works to the Guardians on the 31st July, and their attention was called on the face of the document to the liability to poundage if the instalments were not paid within 31 days from that date. Poundage charge is in the nature of a penalty, and is not to be confused with interest. The Treasury have, I understand, fully considered the question raised in this and similar oases, and I see no advantage to be gained in asking them to reopen it.

said the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there was only a month's delay. How could there be any question of impounding when there was no receiver appointed?

believed that what was done was strictly in accordance with the law.

said he would repeat his Question on another day.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the great distress prevalent in the Union of Listowel, county Kerry, owing to the partial failure of the potato crop, and the almost total failure of the oat crop; and, whether the Government will consider the necessity of instituting relief works in the Union, and supplying the people with seed oats for the present year?

On the 8th inst. I informed the hon. Member for West Limerick that careful inquiries had been made as to the condition of the poorer classes in the Listowel Union, but that the result of these inquiries did not point to the conclusion that it would become necessary to supplement the re-sources of the Poor Law by the opening of relief works. I see no reason to alter the opinion so recently expressed by me regarding the opening of such works. With regard, however, to the question of the supply of seed oats to the small occupiers in this Union, I believe it is a fact that the oat crop of last season in the Union was a bad one, but except in one or two instances Boards of Guardians have not signified a desire for legislation enabling them to be provided with a supply of fresh seed by means of loans. Should such a desire be generally expressed, I should be prepared to consider the matter; but I may observe the time is now running short.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the defective system of transit and delivery of the mails between Skibbereen and Crookhaven; and whether, in view of the fact that Schull and Crookhaven are important fishing stations, he will give improved postal arrangements in the districts referred to?

Schull and Crookhaven are served by mail car from Skibbereen. The mails reach Schull at 8.33 a.m. and Crookhaven at 10.35 a.m., and leave Crookhaven at 1.40 p.m. and Schull at 3.43 p.m. Up to the present this is the best arrangement of which the circumstances have admitted. The question of using the Skibbereen and Schull Tramway for the conveyance of mails Las recently been pressed upon the Department, and the matter is now under inquiry. When a report is received the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the acute distress which prevails in the Nephin Mountain electoral divisions of the Castlebar Union owing to the failure of the potato crop and the low price of agricultural produce; and what steps he proposes to take to mitigate such distress, and to enable the people to crop their holdings during the coming spring?

Representations have been made alleging the existence of distress in the locality mentioned in the Question, but the official Reports received do not indicate anything in the nature of abnormal destitution which the Poor Law will be unable to cope with, or which calls for the opening of relief works as suggested in the memorials addressed to Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any objection to give the name of the person who supplied the information relative to the cairn at Finner, County Donegal; whether he is aware that the Royal Society of Antiquarians of Ireland hold that the formation is properly described as a cairn; that human remains, believed to be those of Irish chieftains who died in battle, were discovered 20 years ago in the chamber, and are now in a vault adjoining the cairn; that there is no such place known as Muldoon's grave; and that the Society has taken up the matter with a view to disproving the statements made and protecting the place from further interference by the contractor for the rifle range; whether he is aware that the officer in charge of the construction of the rifle range, Mr. Hogg, was conducted over the place on the 11th instant by some local antiquarians and was given the fullest information concerning the cairn; and whether, as material for the construction of the rifle range is easily obtainable in other parts of the district, he will see that no more stones are removed from the immediate neighbourhood of the cairn?

It is not usual to give the names of officers by whom reports of this character are made in the course of their duty. I have no doubt that in this case the officer reported according to the best information which was open to him at the time he wrote. The matter seems, however, to be one on which even antiquarians are not agreed. Whether there is a cairn or a grave or not no further removal of materials will take place.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether attendants at present in charge of lunatics in Irish workhouses would be eligible for service in the auxiliary asylums to be established under the proposed Poor Law Relief Bill?

Competent attendants will, of course, be eligible for service in the central auxiliaries proposed to be established under the Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why nothing has yet been done in respect of a representation under the Labourers' Acts lodged six months ago by Charles M'Daid, Neal M'Namee, and John M'Geehan, of Aughygault, near Stranorlar, in County Donegal?

The Local Government Board have already authorised the erection of three cottages in this townland, and, pending the receipt of representations from other districts, the consideration of the applications from the labourers named was deferred, as the expense of proceeding with a scheme for a few houses would be out of proportion to the result. The three applications in question will not be lost sight of, however, but will be taken into consideration as soon as a reasonable number of other similar applications have been received.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the dangerous nature to fishermen of the rock known as the "South Shoal" off Hoy Head, Orkney; and whether a buoy or bell-buoy could be fixed there?

I have communicated with the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses on the subject of the hon. Member's Question; but I am informed that they are not aware of a danger to navigation known as the "South Shoal" off Hoy Head, Orkney. Perhaps the hon. Member will supply some information which will enable me to identify the rock to which he refers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will ascertain if the Lord Chamberlain has had his attention called to the performance of a play at the Avenue Theatre last week called "Nelson's Enchantress," in which the greatest Naval commander of the century, who died in the service of his country, is held up to public contempt; whether the Lord Chamberlain will call upon the manager of the said theatre to withdraw the play in question, under a distinct notice that otherwise the licence to perform stage plays will be suspended or withdrawn; and whether, seeing that a former Lord Chamberlain prohibited a certain performance in a London theatre which lampooned the Members of the Government of that day (1870–74), similar protection will be afforded to the memory of the honoured dead?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that the public performance of the play named under the shadow of Nelson's monument has caused considerable indignation and pain in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, where the memory of Lord Nelson is especially cherished. [Laughter and ironical cheers.]

I am not aware of any feeling of indignation in the counties mentioned. I had no knowledge of the play referred to until my attention was called to it by the Question on the Paper. I am informed by the Lord Chamberlain that the play was duly submitted to him for licence, and that, as the play contained nothing which in his Lordship's judgment would justify a refusal, the licence was granted, and it is not proposed to withdraw it.

Am I to understand from that answer that the Lord Chamberlain will sanction dragging up the Duke of Wellington and other heroes—

Order, order!

Then, Sir, I beg to give notice that, in consequence of the answer that has been given, I will draw attention to the matter when the salary of the Lord Chamberlain comes up to be voted. [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the cause of the delay in the publication of the correspondence with foreign countries on the subject of prison-made goods?

The correspondence has been presented, and will be delivered to hon. Members on, application to the Vote Office.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the remaining piles and stumps of the Old Chain Pier at Brighton are a serious cause of danger to pleasure boats and fishing smacks; and whether he can take steps to have them removed without delay?

I am aware that the piles and stumps of the Old Chain Pier at Brighton have not been removed, and that they may become a cause of danger to shore navigation. The removal of this Pier is provided for by the Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Acts, 1888, 1893, and 1896, the effect of which is to impose the duty upon the Pier Company of removing the piles and materials within 12 months after notice in writing from the Brighton Corporation, and further to empower the Board of Trade to remove them if the Company abandon the removal after it has been commenced. I have been in communication with the Company as to their statutory duties, and have been informed by them that they have entered into a contract for the removal of the remaining piles and stumps, which will be effected as soon as the weather permits. The attention of the company has been directed to the requirements of the Act as to providing buoys and lights, under the direction of the Trinity House, to obviate danger to navigation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if in Ireland it is customary for the Lord Chancellor when appointing magistrates to assign certain districts of a county in which they are to adjudicate; if so, why in their deed of commission are they nominated county magistrates; should they insist on adjudicating in districts of their county outside those mentioned in their deed of commission, what punishment would be inflicted; and when did the custom begin to exist of Lord Chancellors limiting the exercise of judicial functions to particular districts in the case of the appointment of county magistrates?

It is the practice of the Lord Chancellor, as it was of his predecessor, to notify each person about to be appointed to the county magistracy the district or districts in which only he is to attend at Petty Sessions, and that the commission will be issued to him on the understanding that without the sanction of the Lord Chancellor he shall only attend the Petty Sessions of the district or districts assigned to him. The Lord Chancellor cannot anticipate what course he would deem it his duty to adopt in the event of a magistrate disregarding this regulation, as each case must depend upon its own circumstances.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of 28th August 1896 a riot took place in Tempo, county Fermanagh, in which 17 houses tenanted by Roman Catholics were wrecked by Orangemen, that the residence of the parish priest was smashed, and the church attacked; has his attention been drawn to the fact that John Breen, Tempo, in his statutory declaration forwarded to the Attorney General, deposed that an attempt was made by the Orangemen to burn his house, and that his child was twice struck by stones in its cradle; is he also aware that the police were frequently attacked with stones during the night by the Orange crowd, and that two women in their houses were seriously assaulted; and, in view of the fact that the police gave sworn testimony that between 150 and 200 Orangemen took part in the riot, will he state how many of these alleged rioters have been brought to justice?

The facts are generally as stated in the question, though very slight injury was done, I am informed, to the Roman Catholic Church, and no serious injury was sustained by any person on the occasion. Five of the most prominent rioters of each party were prosecuted and tried at the Belfast Winter Assizes, the trials resulting in nine convictions, carrying terms of imprisonment varying from 14 days to four months, and one acquittal. The decision of the Government to proceed against five of the principal rioters of each party was arrived at after a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case. I may mention that in the earlier stages of the rioting both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant parties were nearly evenly matched, and were equally to blame; the Protestant party, it is true, was afterwards reinforced, and got the upper hand. By the course followed by the Government peace and good order have been happily restored at Tempo.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the documents and information and correspondence in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, with reference to the execution of Mr. Stokes and the confiscation of his property, and the proceedings in Boma and Brussels, which were promised on the 10th August, will be circulated; whether the Congo Government has complied with the request of Her Majesty's Government to restore the property of Mr. Stokes, or has refused to comply; and whether Her Majesty's Government will insist on their requirements in relation thereto?

The Papers relating to the Stokes case have been delayed in order that they may include the result of the negotiations with the Congo Government concerning Mr. Stokes's property. These have now been completed, and have resulted in an offer from the Congo Government to hand over the sum of 147,550 francs as representing the total value of all the goods belonging to the estate. This offer has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and the Papers will be circulated as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total number of European gunboats at present stationed at Constantinople; and whether, in view of the possibility of a fanatical outbreak, the Ambassadors have requested or advised the adoption of further precautions?

The ships of Her Majesty's Navy now at Constantinople are the Cockatrice, which is on her way to the Danube; the Melita, and the Imogene. We do not know the total number of gunboats there, but it is believed that Austria, France, and Italy have each two, and Germany and Russia one each, making a total in all of 11. Her Majesty's Ambassador reported on the 3rd instant that precautions were being taken by the authorities, in view of the possibility of disturbances occurring during the month of Ramazan.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Scheme passed by the Privy Council relating to Limerick, Killaloe, and Kilfe-nora Diocesan School Endowment will be laid upon the Table for consideration by the House; and, whether Canon Gregg's petition, and that of 34 ratepayers of Limerick City, will at the same time be submitted to the House?

The supplemental scheme for the government and management of this Endowment was laid on the Table of the House on the 11th inst. Copies of the two petitions referred to were attached to the Scheme, and all three documents have been ordered to be printed for circulation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds the Irish Land Commission have refused to allow Mr. Harvey, who gave evidence of value before the Sub-Commission Court in certain cases of Mr. Collum in Fermanagh and has since been appointed a Sub-Commissioner, to give evidence upon an appeal brought by Mr. R. Collum; and whether the Land Commission have power to prevent Mr. Harvey from attending to give evidence if served with a subpoena ad test?

It has been found necessary to refer this Question to the Land Commissioners, who are at present on Circuit, and I am not in a position to reply to-day. I hope, however, to have the information necessary to enable me to reply to-morrow, but, if not, I will be able to do so on Monday next.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the very defective arrangements for ventilating the Committee Room in which the British South African Committee now meet; and whether it is possible to arrange for an improvement on this condition of things?

The ventilating arrangements of the room in question are not all that could be desired when so large a number of persons as occupied the room on Tuesday last are present. I am doing my best to improve the ventilation, and to this end I have given directions that an electric fan shall be erected to increase the circulation of air in the room.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that the meeting of the Justices of Tipperary called in connection with the pending election of a coroner was held on the 11th instant, and decided not to change the places of polling used at previous elections of a coroner for the south division of Tipperary; and, has the writ for the election yet been issued; if not, why; and when will it be issued?

A meeting of the Justices of the County of Tipperary was held on the 11th inst., for the purpose of dividing the South Riding of the county into coroners' districts, but the Justices, under a misapprehension as to what was necessary, failed to comply with the requirements of the Act of Parliament, inasmuch as they neither fixed a place for the holding of the election nor did they make any order as to polling places. To remedy this defect the Lord Lieutenant has been advised that the proceedings for a re-division must be gone over de novo, and he has intimated his readiness to grant a new Warrant for that purpose at the earliest convenient date. The Writ for the new election of a coroner will at once be issued when the re-division of the Riding has been carried into effect.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that that the police of Kilcooney and Ballyvaughan, County Clare, are in the habit of patrolling farms belonging to Thomas Markham, and at times, in the absence of the herdsmen, counting the cattle and sheep on the lands; and (2) whether this is within the duties of the police; if not, will the police be instructed to confine themselves to protection duty?

The facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph. Markham is under police protection, and the police, in the discharge of their duties and as a, precautionary measure, occasionally examine and count his cattle and sheep.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that the good conduct medal is greatly prized by Warrant Officers, who find its possession of great value to them when seeking civil employment, and the further fact that members of the Army who attain Warrant rank before 18 years' service are under present regulations debarred from receiving this particular medal, the Government would place them on the same footing as those who become Warrant Officers after having served 18 years in the Army?

I would refer my hon. Friend to a, reply made in this House in 1894 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling District on this subject, in which the Secretary of State fully concurs. The point of that answer was that Warrant rank is in itself a better testimony of good conduct than any medal could afford. The wish of the military authorities is to make the status of a Warrant Officer approach more nearly to that of a Commissioned Officer than to the conditions which hold in the ranks, and they consider that to reward a Warrant Officer for ordinary good conduct by the grant of a medal would be a step in the opposite direction.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that large quantities of carbide of calcium are being imported to this country; and whether, having regard to its dangerous nature when exposed to air, any steps are being taken to regulate its storage; and, if not, whether Clause 14 of the Petroleum Act can be made to extend to its inclusion?

The dangers attending the storage and conveyance of carbide of calcium have been occupying the attention of the inspectors of explosives for some months, and steps are being taken to apply to this substance by an Order in Council the provisions of the Petroleum Acts. A memorandum will eventually be issued to local authorities suggesting the precautions to be adopted for preventing risk.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the objection taken by the Local Government Board to the practice of including "Church Ley" in the demand notes of the township of Manchester for poor and other rates, a paper headed "due on demand" is still issued with the item "Church Ley at 1d. in the pound for the year—(optional)"; and, whether the Board will take steps to prevent the inclusion of a voluntary church rate in a demand for rates which are compulsory?

I was not aware that the practice referred to had been continued. Although in the form of demand note it is stated that the payment of the "Church Ley" is optional, the inclusion of this item in the demand note which is headed with the words "due on demand" is, I think, reasonably open to objection. I am advised that it is not clear that the Local Government Board have any power which would enable them to prevent the inclusion of the "Church Ley" in the demand note, but the Board will communicate with the overseers on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have confirmation of the reports that 300 Mussulmans have been massacred by the Cretan insurgents in Sitia, that 13 Mussulman villages have been there destroyed, and that Mussulman women and children have been killed and mutilated at Kisanmo Kasteli; whether there has been a general massacre of the Mussulman inhabitants of Sitia; and, whether he will direct special inquiry as to the fate of the Mussulman inhabitants of the interior of Crete?

Her Majesty's Consul telegraphed on the 12th instant that the Commander of Her Majesty's ship Dragon had been informed by the Governor of Sitia that 300 Turks had been killed there, and that he feared the massacre of the Christians in the towns in revenge. We have received no confirmation of this report, nor have we heard that there has been a general massacre of the Mussulman inhabitants of Sitia. On the 9th instant the Turkish authorities informed Her Majesty's Consul that 23 Mussulmans had been murdered at Kissamo Castelli, but of this report also no later confirmation has yet been received. I am afraid that in the present condition of affairs, Her Majesty's Consul has few opportunities of communicating with the interior of the island; but I have no objection to telegraphing to him for any information that he may be able to give on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman include in his telegram an inquiry as to the truth of a report that six Christians were put into a bakery and roasted alive?

I think that allegation applies to Canea, where the Consul is, and I doubt not that he will inform us of any such occurrences.

But will the right hon. Gentleman mind asking him; it is a very horrible allegation?

I will do so.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) what is the approximate number of blue-jackets, Marine Artillery, and Marine Infantry, respectively, engaged in active operations at Benin; and (2) what is the rank of the senior officer of Marines present, and is he under the control and command of naval officers during these purely military operations?

The telegrams which we have received give no details which enable me to answer the first question of the hon. and gallant Member. We have also no knowledge of the particular officers landed, beyond those mentioned in the telegram which has been published. The whole force is under the control and command of Admiral Rawson.

asked whether it was in accordance with Admiralty rules that in active operations on shore officers specially trained in military operations on land should be under the command of officers specially trained in naval operations on water?

I believe it is a question of seniority to a great extent.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether as life was taken by Warders Rogers and Coulton at Dartmoor Prison on the 24th December last, and with a view both to do justice to the warders and to satisfy the public mind, he will, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, consent to lay upon the Table a copy of the report which he has received from the visiting director of the prison, together with notes of the sworn evidence taken by him?

For the reasons which I have already given to the hon. Member I am afraid I cannot consent to lay these papers on the Table.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Standing Order or Instruction in force in convict prisons requires that convicts convicted of felony shall be kept apart from convicts convicted of misdemeanour; and, what is the date of such Order or Instruction?

There is no Standing Order on the subject. The separation while at labour of these two classes is a long-existent practice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has been received by the Foreign Office to the effect that considerable bodies of Turkish troops have been recently landed at or near Alexandretta, and that great alarm exists among the Christian inhabitants of the adjacent parts of Northern Syria and Asia Minor lest fresh massacres should be perpetrated?

We have received no official information of any recent landing of Turkish troops at or near Alexandretta. Her Majesty's Vice Consul reported on January 15th that the state of Payas, a sub-district in that Province, was far from satisfactory, and representations on the subject were made to the Turkish Government by Her Majesty's Ambassador.

asked whether any information had been received to the effect that great alarm existed among the Christian inhabitants of the adjacent parts of Northern Syria and Asia Minor lest fresh massacres should be perpetrated?

My recollection of the reports does not confirm that statement, but I will look at them again and inform the right hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can confirm the statement contained in the lately-issued French Yellow Book, and purporting to have been made by the French Ambassador to M. Hanotaux on the 22nd of December last, to the effect that Great Britain had given her adhesion to the following preliminary agreement of the Great Powers, namely, the maintenance of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, no Condominium, and no action on any point?

In reply to my hon. Friend I beg to refer him to the collection of Papers Turkey No. 2, 1897, recently laid before Parliament. He will find in Nos. 27, 28, and 29, that these points were mentioned in the instructions sent by the French Government to their Ambassador at Constantinople, and that Lord Salisbury stated that the instructions appeared to be in harmony with the proposals of Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the increase of pay announced by him for the Army Medical Service is to be paid by the Indian or by the British Exchequer; and whether the proposal for this increase of pay originated with the Government of India; or, if not, whether their consent was obtained before this extra charge was laid on Indian finances?

Service in India is paid for by the Government of India. The Secretary of State for India has granted this increase of pay after full consideration, and the new regulations promulgating it will be issued by the Indian Government.

inquired whether the proposal for this increase of pay originated with the Government of India, or, if not, whether their consent was obtained before this extra charge was laid on Indian finances?

I believe in the first instance it was suggested by the War Office, then correspondence ensued and the India Office agreed to the proposal.

Were the Government of India consulted?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the South African Republic has yet presented to Her Majesty's Government or Her representative at Pretoria their claim for an indemnity for the late raid; if so, whether he is prepared to state the amount of such claim and from whom it is demanded.

I have received the following telegram from the High Commissioner:

"17 February No. 2. Following telegram received from British Agent in the South African Republic. (Begins.) 16 February. I have just received note from this Government asking to send to your Excellency enclosed bill of indemnity to be paid by Her Majesty's Government or to be caused to be paid by them for raid by Dr. Jameson and British South Africa Company's troops. The amount claimed falls under two heads—first, material damage, total of claim £677,938 3s. 3d.—[laughter]—second, moral or intellectual damage, total of claim, £1,000,000. Government desires to observe that above claim does not include legitimate claims which may be demanded by private persons on account of proceeding of Dr. Jameson and his troops. I am sending you note by post."

Is the last an additional or separate claim?

Yes; I believe it is. There is a little ambiguity in the telegram. I am not quite certain. Yes, I think the moral and intellectual damage is valued at a million separately. But it might be that it is only £322,061 16s. 9d.—[laughter]—in order to make up the round million when coupled with the material damage. I am not quite certain, but I believe it is the first of these interpretations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to lay upon the Table the correspondence respecting the British political prisoners at Pretoria?

said correspondence, so far as available up to date, in reference to the British political prisoners at Pretoria, would shortly be laid on the Table.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the payments to the Local Taxation Account will be made, under the Agricultural Bating Act, 1896?

Payments to the Local Taxation Account for the purpose of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, have been commenced. The payments of the grant to the spending authorities in respect of the half year commencing on April 1st next will be paid either next month or early in the half-year referred to.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the appointment of a new Royal Commission to inquire into the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, he will propose, for the information of Members of this House, the reprinting of the Parliamentary Return (No. 366 of Session 1869), ordered by the House on 24th July 1866, giving a detailed account of the public income and expenditure of Great Britain and Ireland separately from 1688, or will consent to the issue of a further Return bringing the figures to the close of the present financial year.

I have made inquiry and have ascertained that there are considerable numbers of copies of this Return still in print—310 of Part I. and 370 of Part IL, and these are on sale in the usual manner. The Return has proved of very great value, but there is a later Return issued on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, giving the required facts of expenditure in a form more convenient for discussion.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates will be presented and considered in the House?

I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Member when the Supplementary Civil Service Estimates will be taken. They will not be taken on Friday. I may state to the House that the Estimates to be taken on Friday will be the Army Estimates, not the Civil Service Estimates on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. It had been arranged to take the Civil Service Estimates, a course which the authorities of the House were of opinion would be in order, although it is a fact that the whole of the Estimates have not been circulated. Mr. Speaker has since informed me that on further consideration of the point raised now, for the first time, such a course would, in his judgment, be irregular, so the Army Estimates will be taken.

The right hon. Gentleman has hardly answered my question when the Supplementary Estimates for Civil Service will be circulated and discussed?

I have given all the information in my power; they will not be taken on Friday.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware they have not been circulated yet?

I am as anxious as the hon. Member, and indeed more anxious, to have all the Estimates printed and circulated, but this does not rest with me, but with the Departments concerned. I will do my best.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Motions on the Order for the Speaker to leave the Chair will not be taken until the whole of the Civil Service Estimates are printed and circulated?

Had the hon. Gentleman done me the honour to listen to my answer, his question would have been unnecessary. What has happened is this. The authorities of the House were consulted as to whether the discussions on the Motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair would be regular, and it was the opinion of the authorities that they would be. Upon further consideration, however, it was decided they would not be in order. We shall, therefore, defer putting down the Civil Service Estimates until they are printed, and we should be directly contravening the ruling of the Chair if we did take them.