laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and Referred on the First Beading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto (have been complied with, namely—

reported the Royal Assent to— Societies' Borrowing Powers Act, 1898; Canals Protection (London) Act, 1898; Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners) Act, 1898; Post Office (Guarantee) Act, 1898; Poor Law Unions Association (Expenses) Act, 1898; Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1898; Ex-Officio Justices of the Peace (Scotland) Act, 1898; Statute Law Revision Act, 1898; Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1898; Pharmacy Acts Amendment Act, 1898; Greenwich Hospital Act, 1898; Union of Benefices Act, 1898; Land Drainage Supplemental Act, 1898; Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 12) Act, 1898; Education Department Provisional Orders Confirmation (Barnes, etc.) Act, 1898; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1898; Commons Regulation (Runcorn) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898; Edinburgh Improvement Scheme Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898; Military Lands Provisional Orders Confirmation Act, 1898; Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1898; Leith Burgh Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898; Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1898; Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 10) Act, 1898; Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 11) Act, 1898; Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 14) Act, 1898; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Gas) Act, 1898; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Housing of Working Classes) Act, 1898; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders, Confirmation (Poor Law) Act, 1898; Tramways Order in Council (Ireland) (Londonderry and Lough Swilly (Letterkenny to Burtonport Extension) Railway) Confirmation Act, 1898; Aberdeen Corporation (Tramways) Act, 1898; South Western Railway Act, 1898; Staines Reservoirs Act, 1898; Belfast Harbour Act, 1898; Blackpool Improvement Act, 1898; Sheringham Gas and Water Act, 1898; Carmarthen Improvement Act, 1898; Northam Urban District Water Act, 1898; North Warwickshire Water Act, 1898; London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Act, 1898; Gainsborough Gas Act, 1898; Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway Act, 1898; Southend Waterworks Act 1898; Southwark and Vauxhall Water Act, 1898; Saint Thomas, Southwark, and Saint Saviour, Southwark, Act, 1898; Yeovil Corporation Act, 1898; Bideford and Clovelly Railway Act, 1898; Ilford Improvement Act, 1898; Great Eastern Railway Company and Midland and Great Northern Railways Joint Committee Act, 1898; Great Eastern Railway (Pensions) Act, 1898; Cranbrook District Water Act, 1898; Crawley and District Water Act, 1898; East Ham Improvement Act, 1898; Wishaw Water (Additional Supply) Act, 1898; Liskeard Corporation Act, 1898; Norwich Electric Tramways Act, 1898; Cardiff Corporation Act, 1898; Dundee Corporation (Tramways) Act, 1898; Buenos Ayres Northern Railway Company's Act, 1898; Colonial Bank Act, 1898; Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Act, 1898; Cromer Gas Act, 1898; Drogheda (Corporation) Gas Act, 1898; Wigan Corporation Act, 1898; Dover Harbour Act, 1898; London Building Act, 1894 (Amendment) Act, 1898; Crystal Palace Company's Act, 1898; Plymouth Corporation Act, 1898; Turnchapel Quays and Wharves Act, 1898; Stirling Gas Act, 1898; Barry Railway Act, 1898; London County Council (Acton Sewage) Act, 1898; Mumbles Railway and Pier Act, 1898; London, Chatham and Dover Railway Act, 1898; Halifax Corporation Act, 1898; Folkestone Water Act, 1898; City of Norwich Waterworks Act, 1898; Corporation of Foreign Bondholders Act, 1898; Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Act, 1898; Hamilton Water Act, 1898; Hull, Barnsley and West Riding Junction Railway and Dock Act, 1898; Kettering Water Act, 1898; Clergy Mutual Assurance Society Act, 1898; Kew Bridge Act, 1898; Bacup Corporation Water Act, 1898; Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water (Amendment) Act, 1898; Dublin Southern District Tramways Act, 1898; Glasgow and South Western Railway Act, 1898; Matlock Urban District Council Act, 1898; Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Act, 1898; Felixstowe and Walton Water Act, 1898; Midland Railway (West Riding Lines) Act, 1898; Newtown Water Act, 1898; Great Northern Railway Act, 1898; Blackburn Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Act, 1898; Bristol Tramways (Electrical Power, etc.) Act, 1898; Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Act, 1898; Neath, Pontardawe and Brynaman Railway Act, 1898; Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Act, 1898; Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences Act, 1898; Walker's Estate Act, 1898.

I beg, Sir, to move the Amendment standing in my name.

I wish to offer a few remarks before this Bill is accorded a Third Reading, although I may say that I do not intend to oppose the Third Reading. This is the second of two Bills introduced for the purpose of widening a portion of the Chester and Holyhead line, and relieving the congestion of traffic. In itself that is a most desirable undertaking, and if carried out with due consideration for the interests of the traders of North Wales and those of the local authorities in the districts where the widening of the line interferes with public rights no one could raise any objection to it. The Bill in its original form lacks several necessary provisions to secure the rights of the road and other authorities whose interests are affected. Prolonged negotiations have taken place between those bodies and the railway company, with the result that fairly satisfactory arrangements have been arrived at. The Flintshire County Council has, however, had an immense amount of trouble to secure free and unimpaired access to Mostyn Quay, one of the most important ports on the river. It is essential that nothing should be done to prevent free and fair competition between the sea and the railway, and had it not been for the action of the county council the facilities of access to that port might have been very seriously curtailed. But there still remains unredressed an undoubted grievance on the part of the general body of traders on the Chester and Holyhead section of the London and North Western Railway. In 1896 an attempt was made by the county councils of Flintshire and Carnarvonshire to obtain a reduction of the maximum rates charged on this section. There can be no doubt that the rates that prevailed were more appropriate to a branch line than to one of the main lines of the London and North Western Railway Company, and a number of witnesses were brought to London to give evidence as to the high rates charged on this section of the railway. It is a remarkable and significant fact that, rather than face that inquiry or the action that might follow that inquiry, the railway company decided to withdraw their Bill for that year, and the evidence was therefore never published. The Bill was reintroduced in 1897, and in the meantime the company, having made concessions to individual traders, although not to the general body of traders, and the local authorities being unable to undertake the great cost of a fight on rates, and a great and powerful company has an enormous advantage over a small community in this respect, did not raise the question, nor has it been raised in connection with the Bill introduced this Session. But before the present Bill passes into law I think it right that a protest should be made against the existence of higher maximum charges for the carriage of goods under Table A than are charged on other portions of the main line, up to North Western Company's system. Here is a company whose traffic on a section of its line is so heavy that it is obliged to lay down two extra pains of rails, insisting upon maximum charges which up to 20 miles are 25 per cent, higher than on other portions of the main line up to 50 miles, 32 per cent, higher, and beyond 50 miles, 60 per cent, above the charges on many other parts of the main line. The Chester and Holyhead section is the most profitable line of the company. It carries the enormous Irish traffic of the company, and if there were neither goods nor passenger trainee on this railway, it would be well worth their while to maintain it for the sake of the Irish trade alone. In the early history of this railway it was right and proper that it should be allowed to charge exceptional rates; but the justification for such an imposition upon traders and the public has long ago ceased to exist. I have listened very carefully to the reasons given by the counsel who appeared for the company in 1896, why these exceptional rates should be maintained, and to every statement made on behalf of the company since then, but they have entirely failed to establish a case for special rates. The first reason assigned for their maintenance was that the question had been settled by the Joint Committee of both Houses which sat in 1891. Unfortunately the North Wales traders were not separately represented in a collective capacity before that Committee; only one trader appeared, and his interests were chiefly those of a branch line in Carnarvonshire. The traders on the Chester and Holyhead Railway were not represented, and a perusal of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee of 1891 will show that there was no adequate presentation of their case before that Committee. The next argument was that the gathering ground of the Chester and Holyhead Railway was on one side of the line only, and that the sea prevented the company from having that amount of traffic which it would receive if it passed through the interior of the country. I will deal with that reason, and very briefly. ["Hear, hear" from the Ministerial benches.] Yes, but this is an important matter to North Wales, and I am trying to deal with it with every possible consideration to the London and North Western Railway. There are reasons which, in the case of the Chester and Holyhead Railway, make this argument absurdly inapplicable. The fact that the railway runs along the coast line has induced manufacturers to establish large concerns which would never have been started but for the convenience of water carriage, and those concerns have added very largely to the land traffic of the London and North Western Railway. Moreover, it is the presence of the sea which has caused the rapid rise of watering places on the North Wales Coast, which contributed largely to both the local and the through traffic of the line, and the very ruggedness of the coast lime, which the company put forward as a reason for exceptional rates on account of the increased cost of construction and maintenance, is an inducement to tens of thousands of holiday seekers to use their railway. But the question of exceptional cost of construction does not really arise, because the line has been bought by the company at a low price, and because the company has been allowed to charge very high rates for a very long period. Owing to the construction of the line along the coast the North Western has obtained all the positions of vantage, and it has become difficult for any other company to construct a parallel line along the sea front. Moreover, this line forms the chief connecting link between England and Ireland. It confers upon the North Western. Company the largest and most lucrative share of the Irish traffic. The fact that the company has come to Parliament for powers to widen their line shows that the volume of traffic has increased enormously; it also indicates that they are determined, if possible, to preserve their monopoly in North Wales. It is too expensive an undertaking for any public body in North Wales to fight the question of rates with a powerful and wealthy monopoly like the London and North Western. It is quite evident that the public are helpless in the matter, and that the only hope of removing a grievance from which the public of North Wales will continue to suffer is the entrance of a competing company into this very promising field. That event may not, perhaps, be very far distant, and it will probably be very considerably hastened by the determination of the company to maintain the maximum rates under Table A in the present unfair position. A conference of representatives of North Wales county councils has taken place, at which other great railway companies have been urged to extend their systems into North Wales, and that is only one of many indications of public opinion in the same direction. I speak without any feeling against the company, from whose officers in the country I have invariably received every consideration. It is simply a matter of business between the company and the public, who through Parliament have granted the company an extremely valuable and lucrative monopoly. I do not intend to vote against the Third Beading of the Bill, because the widening of the line is necessary to relieve the congestion of traffic. My only object in speaking is to protest against the continued existence of excessive maximum rates on the most profitable section of the main line of the London and North Western Railway.

I shall not call upon the honourable Member for Carnarvon to move his Instruction, as I understand that the Committee has already reported the Bill to the House. Neither can I, for the same reason, call upon the honourable Member for Bolton.

I rise, Sir, to a point of' order. I understood when I came down to-day that this Bill had been passed through the Committee stage on Friday last. II submit to you, Sir, that that is a very unusual proceeding—even if it is not against the rules of the House; but I should like to get your ruling upon that point. There were two Instructions down which were placed on the Paper on Wednesday. They were on the Paper on Thursday, and the promoters of the Bill knew perfectly well that they were on the Paper. An appeal was then made to the honourable Member for Marylebone, who is in charge of the Bill, as to whether he would postpone the discussion upon the two Instructions until Monday—that is to-day. He very readily assented to do so, and he exhibited the utmost courtesy in the matter. In the meantime—and I trust without the knowledge or consent of the honourable Member for Maryiebone—the promoters of the Bill have passed it through Committee; in the face of the fact that these Instructions were down for discussion, they passed it through Committee as an unopposed Bill. I submit, Sir, that the action is contrary to precedent, that it is against the rules of the House, and, in any event, I venture to characterise it as a thoroughly disreputable trick which is only possible to, and is generally associated with, ecclesiastical proceedings in this House.

I desire to say that I have had nothing whatever to do with the Bill since it was read a second time in this House. Of course I have no control over the forms of the House, nor, indeed, should I have attempted to have done anything to hurry the Bill through out of the ordinary course. I must confess, however, that I am surprised at the language of the honourable Member with regard to the course the Bill has taken, which I understand to be the usual and natural course.

I should mention that I quite understood that the honourable Member for Carnarvon was not referring to any Member of this House.

Certainly, Sir. I expressly disclaim any intention whatever of referring to the honourable Member.

I must remind the honourable Member that the Instruction was put down on Thursday's Paper, but not having been on the Paper before, it could not, of course, be taken on that day. In the ordinary course it would have been taken on Friday, and it was by the desire of the honourable Member himself that the Instruction was deferred from Friday till to-day. I can only say that, so far as I am personally concerned, I look upon it as simply deplorable that this Bill should be obstructed in the manner in which it is being obstructed at almost every stage, and I should like to ask the House to allow the Bill to proceed in as rapid a manner as is possible, having regard to the rules of the House.

I entirely acquit my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone of having had anything to do with this proceeding.

That is a matter of private arrangement, and has nothing whatever to do with the question as to whether these Instructions can be moved now. It is quite clear that they cannot be moved now, because the Committee has reported on the Bill. As regards the alleged private arrangement made between the honourable Member for Carnarvon and the honourable Member for Marylebone, I can only say that if there has been any misunderstanding it is unfortunate, and if the honourable Member considers that he has a grievance in this respect there is no other way of bringing the matter again before the House except by moving to re-commit the Bill on the Third Reading. He may have that opportunity, if he chooses to avail himself of it.

I have already given notice of that.

Is the Instruction standing in the name of the honourable Member for Bolton in order?

The proper time to decide that will be when the Instruction is called on.

I shall give notice myself to move to re-commit the Bill on that Instruction.

In connection with this Bill there is a Motion in my name on the Paper which I desire to call attention to, because there seems to me to have been rather a flagrant breach of what we understand to be the Rules of the House. I have endeavoured to get some explanation of the circumstances which I am about to explain to the House, but I can get no information at all, and therefore I am forced to make the Motion which stands on the Paper in my name. The Bill is a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order moved by the London School Board, and approved by the Education Department, for the acquisition of 30 sites for new schools in the neighbourhood of London. It was introduced into the House of Lords on

This site No. 10 was struck out of the Bill by the Government, who were in charge of the Bill. I do not know whether the honourable Member is satisfied with that statement.

Certainly not.

The School Board knew perfectly well what was done, and it was done. This is not the first year in which this particular site has appeared on the School Board Papers. It was put into a Bill in a previous year, and at that time a very great deal of discussion and consideration was given to this particular site, which was proposed and supported by the London School Board. The matter was very fully considered and discussed, and then the Education Department decided that the site must be struck out of the Bill, and that the School Board for London should open a temporary school in the neighbourhood, and that the temporary school should be carried on for a year or two, and then we could see whether there was any necessity for a school on the site that was struck out of the Bill.

Who by?

It was struck out by the Government who had charge of the Bill. The London School Board did open a temporary school at this place, but they also inserted this particular site which had been struck out in the previous year. In their Bill last year there was no opposition of any kind to it, although, the parties received notice in accordance with the law; but they were told that they might rely with perfect confidence on the word of the Education Department that they would be allowed to remain quiescent. There being no' opposition to the Bill this year, the fact of the site having been re-inserted was never brought to the cognisance of the heads of the Education Department; they came to the conclusion that they were bound by their decision of the previous year not to allow this site to be acquired by the London School Board until the temporary school that had been established had been there a sufficiently long time to satisfy the Education Department that a permanent school was wanted or not; accordingly, as soon as ever the heads of the Education Department were aware that this site had been put into the Bill they directed it to be struck out.

I do not think that the explanation given by the right honourable Gentleman is very satisfactory. What we complain of is not so much of this particular site being struck out of the Bill, but that this House has never had an opportunity of discussing the question as to whether or not this site should be struck out. The explanation given by my right honourable Friend is this: that this Bill, up to the very last stage, was treated as an unopposed Bill. As a matter of fact, I am informed that it actually passed as an unopposed Bill, and I am also informed that the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means actually signed the Bill as an unopposed Bill before this Amendment was made. What we object to is, not so much that the Education Department, who are entitled to have a voice in these matters, should have struck out the site after consideration and discussion of the matter with the London School Board, but that without acknowledge of the School Board them- selves, without any opportunity of allowing this House to have any voice in the matter, the site is struck out. I am bound to say that on the merits of this case it seems to me that the Education Department has not behaved very well to the London School Board. The right honourable Gentleman said that the School Board knew perfectly well why the site was struck out. I have here a copy of a letter written to the Education Department by the School Board under their authority, stating that they have no knowledge as to why this site had been struck out, and that they were surprised to find at the last moment that this site to which they attached some importance should be struck, by the Government, out of a Provisional Order Bill. I must say that" whatever may be the merits of this particular case, whether the site ought to be included or not, I for one strongly object to the system which-is being used as a precedent, under which the Education Department, acting on their own initiative and without any control of any sort or kind, strike a site out of a Bill. After all, the Education Department have themselves sanctioned this site. 'The London School Board is an elective body, and apparently the electors of London are to be treated in this hole-and-corner way. I cannot accept the explanation of the Vice-President as in any way satisfactory. I very much regret that the Education Department, either through ignorance, through mismanagement, or through some other reason, should have got themselves into such a position as they have by striking this site out of the Bill. I repeat that the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President is not at all satisfactory, and I very much regret to find the right honourable Gentleman placed in the position in which he is.

I submit, Sir, that what has been done on this Bill not only should not be done, but cannot be done. It contravenes the rules of the House. First of all, as I understand, the Bill passes through Committee as an unopposed (Bill. After it has passed through Committee,' an Amendment is effected in it by some authority, I don't know who, but not by the Committee. The Bill has been reported as an unamended Bill to the House after it has left the Committee.

No! That is not so.

I submit that, as a matter of order, it is not competent for any authorities afterwards to amend the Bill in any sense.

May I say that the honourable Member is completely mistaken. The Bill did not pass through the Committee as an unamended Bill, but it passed through Committee with an Amendment, and it was reported to the House. The honourable Member will see, if he looks at it, that it is reported to the House with Amendment.

Not this Amendment.

Yes, with this Amendment.

The point taken by the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Committees is the same point as that taken by the Vice-President. Some representative of the School Board was before the Committee last Tuesday, and no opposition was made at all.

The point is whether this Bill was reported with Amendments; that is all I can look at.

Is not this the question, if I may be allowed to say so, is it not a question as to what was the origin of this Amendment? At any rate, that is what I want to get your ruling upon.

The honourable Member must see that I cannot give a ruling upon a disputed account of an occurrence.

The fact is not disputed that the Bill passed without Amendments through the Unopposed Bills Committee on Tuesday last.

I will not detain the House on the merits of the question, but I understand that the honourable Member, in the course of his speech, seemed to think or to suggest that there was something suspicious about the Motion which I put down with regard to two of these sites. But if he had read it he would have seen that it was a proposal to re-commit the Bill on the Third Reading, and in consequence it has not been brought, and could not be brought, till the Third Reading came on. Practically, the Government in Committee struck out one of the plans to which my objection was directed, and I, naturally, in the ordinary course, withdrew my Motion for the re-committal of the Bill, which was not to have arisen until the Third Reading. I must ask the honourable Member for Poplar, was this done in a hole-and-corner way, and did it prevent the House from having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it? On the contrary, I say that it was literally and strictly the only way by which the House could have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon, the matter. If it had been struck out before the Bill was presented to us, nothing more would have been heard about the matter at all, and the only way by which the House could have been able to put the site into the Bill is by its having appeared in the Bill and been struck out in the Committee stage, and thus having the attention of honourable Members directed to it. So far from the Government having adopted any hole-and-corner method, they have adopted the only method by which the matter could be brought to the notice of the House. I desire to acknowledge very fully the very great fairness and justice which the Government have shown in striking out this plan, against which a very strong case could, I believe, be made out, and to say that I feel sure that the friends of Voluntary schools all over London will recognise that they have exercised a fair and impartial judgment.

After the statement of the right honourable Gentleman we do not seem to be in a position to say what has happened. I understood that this Bill had actually passed through Committee without any Amendment, and that this Amendment was inserted afterwards, if I understand the Vice-President of the Council aright, by the Education Department.

The Amendment was struck out in Committee on the Bill on application to the officials of the House.

The defence of the right honourable Gentleman is that this is a Government Bill. Technically, of course, every Provisional Order is a Government Bill, but really it is not. Provisional Orders are promoted by municipal corporations, by local authorities, by boards, and so on. Nominally, they are promoted by the Local Government Board or the Education Department, but really they are promoted by the persons who are responsible for them and not by a Government Department. It is not the Education Department which retains counsel in order to defend them; it is not the Education Department upon whom the expense falls. In this case that will fall upon the London School Board. Supposing this Provisional Order were being opposed by some landowner, by the lessees, or by the owners of property which he has proposed to take. In that case it would not be the Vice President of the Council that would defend the Provisional Order, it would be the School Board for London, who would instruct their solicitor, who would retain counsel and get together the evidence. Substantially, the parties who are responsible for the promotion of these Orders are not the Government at all, but the local authorities, and the Vice-President, when he gives that answer, is not giving an answer which is perfectly sincere, because he knows perfectly well that these local authorities are responsible; and yet, without consulting the School Board for London, and whilst that body were under the impression that the Provisional Order was unopposed, without communicating with them in any way, the Vice-President takes it upon himself to withdraw this clause from the Bill Why? The noble Lord has let the cat out of the bag. This is done in the interests of the Voluntary schools. I say it is a very serious thing indeed for a. Government Department to allow themselves to be nobbled, bullied, and terrified by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich is doing things which I venture to say no Government Department has ever done before in a private case of this kind. I say that neither the Local Government Board, nor the Board of Trade, nor the Education Department has a right to insert provisions of this kind, or to omit them without giving notice to the promoters of the Bill. It is done in the interests of the Voluntary schools, and is another little ecclesiastical trick.

I am afraid that the honourable Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Last year or the year before a large number of people in Camberwell, the constituency which I have the honour to represent, objected to the site in question being taken, and it was cut out of the Bill. It was scheduled again this year, but my constituency knew nothing about it. As soon as they knew that the site had been reinserted in the Bill, they approached me on the matter, and I pointed out to the Vice-President that this very site had been struck out two years ago, and that therefore it was an irregularity to reintroduce it without some strong reason being shown for so doing. The striking out of this site has nothing whatever to do with the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Voluntary schools.

A curious point was raised by the last speaker. I should like to ask the Chairman of Committees whether or not the usual notices were given in this case; otherwise I do not see how it could have been brought forward.

I presume that the Bill went before the Examiners in the ordinary course.

The honourable Member has made a statement that no notice was given.

This is a most important point in the proceedings of this House, and I think we are entitled to a fair statement upon the matter now in question. Here is a Provisional Order. Who is the promoter of that Provisional Order? I understand it is alleged that, practically speaking, the School Board for London are the promoters of this Provisional Order. If that be so, it undoubtedly is a thing that requires explanation, more especially if it be also a thing, as alleged, that this Bill has been altered in a material particular without any notice to the promoters. That is a point upon which I should like to have information, because in it the whole procedure of the House is involved. I should like to hear from the right honourable Gentlemen the Chairman of Committees and from the Vice President of the Council whether that is or is not a correct statement of the facts; because, when promoters of a Bill in the responsible position of the School Board for London have a clause in a Bill which affects their pecuniary interests, and those whom they represent, altered in a material particular, without notice, in order, as the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich says, to oblige the Voluntary schools, that is not a proper proceeding; and if those are the facts we ought to know why this irregularity has been committed. We ought also to know if they are not the facts; but we certainly ought to have some authoritative explanation which will clear up the Parliamentary situation.

I will not deny that there may be some difficulty in always being certain as to who the promoter of a Bill is. But it has always been the custom to treat the party which introduces the Bill, and whose officer comes before the Unopposed Committee, as the promoter of that Bill. In that way all the Local Government Board Provisional Orders are brought before me by an officer of the Local Government Board, and I make Amendments in those Bills at his request. In the same way, in regard to the Board of Trade, the Home Office, and the Education Department. The officer of the Education Department appears before the Unopposed Committee, and at his instance Amendments are made, if they are made, in the Education Department Provisional Orders.

Then I must address my question to the Vice-President of the Council. If the Education Department is to be treated as the pro-

It is always understood that the Provisional Order Bills are entirely in the power of the Education Department. In this case the alterations were made in the Bill at the instance of the Education Department, and no notice was given to the London School Board.

I am not rising to prolong the discussion, but I should like to ask the Vice-President, as a matter of Parliamentary procedure, in reference to what he has just said, who pays the fee in the cases to which the right honourable Gentleman refers? I understand the right honourable Gentleman to say that his, Department technically is the promoter of this Bill, but, as I understand the practice, it would be the School Board for London, whom the matter concerns, for it is the School Board for London which pays the fee. Are we to understand from the answer of the Vice-President that, because he is technically the promoter, he may, without any consultation whatsoever with the solicitors to the London School Board, and their Parliamentary agents, alter the Bill to such an extent as the alteration has been made in this Bill?

I cannot, answer that question without notice; but I understand that the Education Department has the power to alter a Bill.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether public vaccinators, as such, are entitled to superannuation on pension terms, under the present law; and, if not, whether they will be entitled to it if the Vaccination Bill becomes law; what is the number of public vaccinators in England and Wales; and, in the event of them becoming entitled to a superannuation allowance under the Vaccination Bill, would their previous service be taken into consideration in fixing the amount; how is it intended that the public vaccinators shall be remunerated, whether by fee per visit, or by salary, or by each vaccination and will such remuneration be payable by the local authorities; and, if so, what powers will they have to fix and alter the remuneration; whether the obligation to satisfy two magistrates as conscientious objection to vaccination, as set forth in the Bill, means that this obligation must be undertaken by the father, or that it may be fulfilled either by father or mother; and whether, if by the father alone, a child, whose father is absent from his home during the period allowed for this formality, could be contracted out of the obligation to be vaccinated by the mother appearing before two magistrates and stating her conscientious objection?

The reply to the first paragraph is in the negative. The number of public vaccinators in England and Wales is about 3,000. With respect to the third paragraph, no matured decision has been at present arrived at, nor is it necessary, for the Act is not drawn to come into operation until 1st January nest. What is contemplated, however, is some arrangement like this: Remuneration by two methods—first, by a payment based on the number of births to cover the general duties; and, secondly, by a payment in each case of successful vaccination; the amount of these payments to be a matter for arrangement in the first instance between the public vaccinator and the guardians by whom the payments will be made, subject, as in the case of all the principal officers of boards of guardians, to the approval of the Local Government Board. In answer to the last two paragraphs, the obligation should be undertaken by the person in custody of the child, whether father or mother. If the father is prevented by absence or other unavoidable cause, then the duty would naturally fall on the mother.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Brentford Board of Guardians refused Mr. Parsons, the late relieving officer of the union, the superannuation allowance claimed by him under the Act of 1896, on the ground of alleged misconduct; and whether the Local Government Board has overruled this decision; and, if so, on what grounds?

Mr. Parsons held the office of collector of poor rates for certain parishes in the Brentford Union, and not that of relieving officer. He recently resigned his office, and at the time of his resignation was in his 70th year, and had filled the office of collector for 30 years. The guardians having refused to entertain an application from him for a superannuation allowance, he appealed to the Local Government Board under the provisions of section 18 of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896. The Board fully considered the matter, and were of opinion that the circumstances under which he had resigned were not such that he should forfeit his claim to a superannuation allowance under the Act.

On behalf of the honourable Member for Galway, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Board of Works refused to sanction a letting of premises by the Galway Harbour Commissioners to Mr. James Behan, and assigned as their reason for so doing that the premises had not been advertised; if the Board of Works in any case of letting previously had ever suggested or insisted upon due advertisement; if yards were let without advertisement, with the approval of the Board of Works, to the Congested Districts Board, Messrs. Hutchison, the Galway Bay Steamship Company, Mr. Worthington, Mr. John Lynch, Mr. John O'Donnell, and Mr. Holland; whether he is aware that Mr. Behan's yard was vacant, without even a gate, when he got possession; and that he is paying the same rent as the previous tenant, £20 a year, while the Congested Districts Board have theirs for £5; if he is aware that this decision of the Board of Works tends in the direction of creating a monopoly of the coal trade of Galway; and whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table a copy of the correspondence between Messrs. Hutchison and the Board of Works?

The Galway harbour undertaking is in the hands of a receiver for the Board of Works. The Board refused to sanction the letting of a portion of the premises to Mr. Behan, because they were informed that other persons were willing to tender, and they considered it desirable, in the interests of the harbour revenue, that tenders should be invited as the best means of ascertaining the true value of the premises. The Board have not previously had occasion to insist upon tenders being invited; in some cases the Harbour Commissioners have taken that course spontaneously, and in other cases there have been special circumstances which rendered it unnecessary. Of the cases cited in the third paragraph, the leases to the Limerick Steamship Company (not the Galway Bay Company) and to Mr. Holland were granted after tenders had been advertised for; Messrs. Hutchison's was not a new lease, but a sub-lease under an existing tenant; and the lettings to the Congested Districts Board and to Mr. Worthington were in connection with works of public benefit to the locality. The circumstances of the other two cases cannot be stated without further inquiry. It is true that Mr. Behan's predecessor paid the same rent, £20 a year, and that the Congested Districts Board pay only £5 a year for their premises; but these facts afford no proof that £20 is the full letting value in the present instance. I cannot regard insistence upon open competitive tender as being the way to create a monopoly. Messrs. Hutchison are creditors of the harbour undertaking under a judgment summons, which they cannot enforce while the Board's receiver is in possession. Consequently, that firm have a distinct interest in the financial working of the harbour, and they were quite within their rights in protesting against the course which the Harbour Commissioners proposed to take. If, as appears to be alleged, they have also a private interest in opposition to Mr. Behan, that merely shows how ill-advised the Commissioners have been in their action. The only objection to publishing the correspondence which has passed is that it is not of sufficient importance or general interest.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the prison system of Japan; and whether any steps can be taken to ensure the treatment, in concurrence with European customs, of British subjects who may, after the coming into operation of the revised Treaty, be arrested in Japan?

Yes, Sir; the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been especially called to the question. More than a year ago the Japanese Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the mutter, and there is no doubt that they are alive to the necessity of providing suitable accommodation for European prisoners when the new treaties come into force.

On behalf of the honourable Member for North Tip-perary, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any arrangement has been come to by the Local Government Board with regard to altering the boundary between King's County and the county of Tipperary in relation to the poor law divisions of Carrig, Clohaskin, Rathcabbin, Redwood, and Riverston, situated in the county Tipperary and at present attached to the Birr Union in King's County; whether he is aware that the guardians of these divisions, both elected and ex officio, have expressed themselves in favour of their being attached to the union of Borrisokane, in their own county, as being more convenient for them and also in accordance with the wishes of the ratepayers concerned; and if he will have inquiry made with the object of having such an arrangement carried out, in accordance with the provisions of clause 44 of the Local Government Bill?

No change is proposed in the Parsons-town Union, the portion in King's County and the portion in county Tipperary, each forming a rural district. This arrangement, which has the advantage of leaving existing boundaries unaltered, is subject under the Bill to an appeal by parties interested.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if it is intended to propose legislation to extend to Scotland any part of the provisions of the Vaccination Bill now before Parliament?

The system in regard to vaccination carried out in Scotland has hitherto worked successfully, and the Secretary for Scotland cannot at present come under any obligation to propose legislation on the subject.

Are there not many now imprisoned in Scotland whose case would be met by the conscientious objection clause?

I must ask for notice.

Is it not the case that the defaulters in Scotland represent 3 per cent.?

I am not aware of the number, but there is no practical difficulty in working the Act, and that being so, there is no necessity to make any change.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether for the last six years there has been a single case of infectious or contagious cattle disease in the Dominion of Canada; and, if not, whether he will now consent to remove the restriction upon the importation of store cattle from that country into Great Britain and Ireland?

I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of saying whether the facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. With regard to the second, the law leaves me no option but to secure that all animals brought to this country from abroad are slaughtered at a foreign animals wharf at the port of landing.

On behalf of the honourable Member for North Leitrim I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, is he aware that up to the present no civil bill sessions have been held in Tubbereurry, county Slige, although more than a year ago the Privy Council made an Order that such Sessions should be held in that place; can he explain the cause of the delay; and will he see that effect is given at the earliest possible date to the Order of the Privy Council?

The fact is as stated) in the first paragraph. Representations, however, were made as to the inadequacy of the accommodation in the existing petty sessions court-house. The matter was brought under the notice of the grand jury by the Government, but the grand jury have declined to make a presentment for the building of a new court-house, being of opinion that the expenditure involved was not a matter for them to engage, in, and that the question should be deferred for the consideration of the county council to be created under the Local Government Bill. In the absence of adequate accommodation, and having regard to the representations received by the county court judge, a further Order in Council has been passed postponing the holding of a civil bill court at Tubber-curry until the Hilary Sessions, 1899.

On behalf of the honourable Member for North Leitrim I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether fee is aware that some troopers of the Suffolk Hussars were recently severely censured for taking part in uniform in a procession in connection with St. Benet's Roman Catholic church at Beccles; whether his attention has been directed to the fact that on Monday, the 18th instant, at Southwold, in the same county, a procession of Freemasons to the Protestant church was headed by the band of the Volunteer Artillery corps; and whether the regulations will in this case also be enforced?

Some troopers of the Suffolk Hussars were reprimanded for taking part in uniform in the proceedings referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. In the other ease permission to attend the demonstration in uniform was given under a misapprehension of the regulations. The matter has been properly noticed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if, when the medal for "distinguished conduct in the field" was first granted, it carried with it a gratuity of £15 to a sergeant, £10 to a corporal, and £5 to a private soldier; whether the gratuity has since been reduced to £5 for all ranks; and, if so, from what date this change took place; and how many of these medals have been issued during the past five years?

By a Royal Warrant of 1854 this medal was instituted for, and only for, service in the then war with Russia, with the gratuities mentioned in the first paragraph of the Question. By a warrant of 1862 the medal was made (applicable to service generally, but without any gratuity. The warrant of 1887 attached to the medal the issue of a gratuity of £5, which arrangement still holds. Thirteen such medals have been issued during the last five years.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in reply to a request from the urban district council, the postal authorities undertook in May, 1897, to establish a telegraph office at Billinge, and if he can state when this will be effected?

It is the case that the Postmaster General, in May, 1897, arranged to establish a telegraph office at Billinge. There is a difficulty with regard to way leave in connection with the extension. As soon as this is adjusted instructions will be given for the work to be proceeded with as quickly as possible.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any and what means have been employed by Her Majesty's Government to induce the Argentine Government to make regulations to ensure the better treatment of cattle and sheep shipped from Argentina to Great Britain; and whether, in view of the fact that the loss of cattle shipped to this country from the River Plate during 1897 amounted to 80 per 1,000, and of sheep to 36 per 1,000, whilst the loss on shipments of cattle and sheep from Canada was only about 8 per 1,000, he will insist on more efficient inspection and more stringent regulations as to fittings and ventilation of ships, and to the abolition of covered or between deck cargoes of animals, with the object of lessening the sufferings of these beasts on the voyage from the Argentine provinces, which, owing to heat and length of voyage, must always be fairly large?

We have for some time past been in semi-official communication with the representatives of the Argentine Government on this subject, and I believe that they fully realise that it would be to the interest of all concerned that the trade should be placed on a more satisfactory footing. It should, however, be remembered that the character of the cattle carried and the nature of the voyage differ very materially in the case of Canada and the Argentine, and too much weight must, therefore, not be attached to the comparison drawn in, the Question. I am in full sympathy with the object which the honourable Member has in view, and we shall spare no pains to bring about a diminution of the losses referred to. But I do not think that the solution of the matter lies in any of the directions which he is good enough to indicate.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there can be circulated to Members before Friday the Report of the distinguished expert, Dr. Oliver, on the chief match factories of France, alluded to by him on 15th July?

I will see if this can be done.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that the provisions of the Lunacy Act, 1890, for the boarding out of pauper lunatics have been largely availed of in England and Scotland, to the great advantage of both the lunatics themselves and the ratepayers, the Government will, when the Irish Local Government Bill is passing through the House of Lords, cause to be inserted the fifty-seventh section of that Act among the Acts the provisions of which may be made applicable to Ireland by an Order in Council?

I am afraid the Government cannot undertake to introduce Amendments of the general law affecting lunatics into the Local Government Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a man named Richard Southey, who was received into the Armagh County Infirmary a, few days ago, suffering from a wound in the hand, caused by a shot from a revolver which he had been brandishing to the public danger; and can he state whether this man had a licence to carry firearms; and, if not, what steps does he propose to take in the matter?

It is true that the person named in the Question was under treatment for a couple of days at the infirmary in consequence of an injury to his hand caused by the accidental discharge of a revolver, but there is no foundation for the statement that he brandished the weapon to the public danger. The place where the occurrence took place is some 200 yards from a public road, and is moreover surrounded by a wall. The man did not require an Arms Act licence, as the locality is not proclaimed under the provisions of the Act, nor did he require the ordinary gun licence, as the spot where the occurrence took place is within the curtilage of the dwelling where he was lodging.

On behalf of the honourable Member for Walsall I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction has been expressed by cycle manufacturers who were not asked or allowed to tender for the supply of the 300 bicycles recently ordered by the-Post Office; and will care be, taken in future either to make the competition entirely open or at least to allow to all well-recommended manufacturers the opportunity of tendering?

The machines required by the Post Office are not ordinary stock machines, but have to be made to a specially prepared specification, and the Postmaster General does not think it desirable that a contract of this description should be entirely open. He will, however, carefully consider whether on the next occasion the competition can be enlarged, and, in the meantime, will take note of the names of all well-recommended manufacturers who may wish to tender.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the item of £10 in the Additional Estimate, Class VII., under the heading "S. Eateen: Compensation for wrongful conviction," will he state under what circumstances this compensation is paid?

Samuel Eateen was convicted on a charge of stealing coal and underwent imprisonment for 14 days in default of payment of a fine. It was subsequently established that the conviction had been obtained by perjured evidence. Eateen was granted a free pardon, and the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, agreed to award him a sum of £10 as compensation for wrongful conviction. The money was applied for Eateen's benefit under direction of the Secretary of State.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of his letter to the Corporation of the City of London, embodying the terms upon which a new sessions house is to be built on the site of a portion of Newgate Prison?

The negotiations between the Government and the City have been as to the terms on which the City should acquire the site of New-gate Prison. The question has been a financial one only, and is now arranged. The correspondence is not of sufficient interest, I think, to lay on the Table.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any of the Metropolitan boards of guardians, and, if any, which of them, have passed resolutions in favour of the first sub-section of clause 1 of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund Bill, which empowers any such board to increase the salary of any of its officers on account of exceptional merit or long service, above the amount sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and to pay such increase entirely out of the rates of the union, without any claim to repayment from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund; whether he has taken any steps, and if so what steps, to bring the Bill to the notice of the Metropolitan boards of guardians; and whether he has received any representations that the proposed sub-section will operate very unfairly to the poorer districts of London, and is inconsistent with the principle on which the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund was established?

The Local Government Board has not received from, boards of guardians, since the Bill was brought in, any communication either in favour of, ar adverse to, the Measure. Prior to the introduction of the Bill, however, communications were received from several boards of guardians, including Fulham, Hampstead, Kensington, City of London, Mile End, Paddington, Stepney, Wandsworth and Clapham, West-minster, Whitechapel, and Woolwich, in favour of the principle embodied in the clause. On the other hand there were some that did not favour the proposal. The Bill was delivered nearly a month ago. It is not the practice of the Board to bring specially under the attention of boards of guardians Bills in which they may be interested. No exceptional course was taken as regards the Bill in question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the line fishermen of the North-east coast are continually subject to loss of property by the action of trawling vessels; and, if so, whether he will consent to the appointment early next Session of a Select Committee to consider the question with a view to further legislation on the subject?

At a meeting of representatives of sea fishery authorities over which I presided last month, reference was made (by the chairman of the Coquet district) to losses inflicted upon some of the Northumberland inshore fishermen 'by the action of the crews of vessels trawling in contravention of local by-laws, but I have not received any other complaints on this subject. The representation made at the meeting appeared to be not so much in favour of further legislation as in favour of more vigorous enforcement of existing by-laws. In these circumstances, I do not think that there is any need for the appointment of a Committee, but, as promised at the meeting, the means by which the by-laws of the Fishery Committees may best be enforced will receive careful consideration in each case.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the new clause to be proposed by him in Committee on the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Bill, when he will be in a position to announce the new scale and regulations which are to be made by the Board of Trade for the carrying of boys by British merchant ships, without which information it is impossible to estimate whether the proposed remuneration is adequate. Perhaps I may also be allowed to ask the right honourable Gentleman when he intends to proceed further with the Bill?

I anticipate being able, when the Bill next comes before the House, which I hope may be Wednesday, to indicate the general nature of the scale and regulations which, if the Bill passes, I shall propose for the concurrence of the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Embassy at Constantinople has yet sent a reply to the note received from the Porte repudiating all responsibility for the demand's made on behalf of British subjects for losses sustained by them during the Armenian massacres; whether he is aware that the reply recently given by the British Government to the representatives of these British subjects on this subject has caused much dissatisfaction; and in view of the serious interests involved, the British Government will insist upon the settlement by the Porte of the demands made?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government will consider the desirability of obtaining satisfaction in the claims of British subjects in respect of the losses sustained during the Constantinople massacres of 1896, either by laying an embargo on the Greek Indemnity money, as France is doing, or by deducting the sum required from the money which will accrue to the Ottoman Treasury from the conversion of the Guaranteed Loan of 1855?

The reply from the Porte has only arrived to-day, and I have not yet had an opportunity of considering its contents. The assurance given by Her Majesty's Government to the claimants was to the effect that they would use their best endeavours to obtain for British claims as favourable a treatment as is accorded to those of other nationalities. It is not possible to go beyond that statement at the present moment. But I cannot see why it should have caused much, or, indeed, am' dissatisfaction. In reply to the honourable Member for Eye I have to say I am unable to make any statement as to the particular method which may be adopted by Her Majesty's Government to procure satisfaction from the Turkish Government for the claims in question.

Do I understand that the British or any other Government have any right to interfere with the Greek Indemnity or the Guaranteed Loan of 1855?

That raises a difficult international question, and I must ask for notice.

had on the Paper the following; Question: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education at what stage of the Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation Bill (London), and at whose instance, the plan No. 10, which, had been approved by the Education Department, and had passed the Committees of both Houses of Parliament, was struck out of the schedule without notice to the House or to the parties interested; and why the Bill, although it 'had passed the Unopposed Committee on the afternoon of Tuesday last without any Amendment, was reported to the House on the evening of that day as an amended Bill? On its being reached the honourable Member said: After the Debate this afternoon, I will simply ask why notice was not given to the parties interested?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the promotion of the clerical staff in prisons to posts similar to that of deputy governor may be taken to imply that these appointments will rank along with that of deputy governors for promotion to fourth class governorships according to date of creation, as in the case of Mr. Bartle referred to?

The class of governor storekeepers to whom the honourable Member refers rank with deputy governors, and will be promoted to higher grades if they prove themselves qualified for the more responsible charge.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as the ser- geants and constables of the Metropolitan Police are provided with a uniform of a light material for summer wear, he will be good enough to inquire if a similar provision could be made in favour of the inspectors, who are at present obliged to wear both in summer and winter alike the same thick regulation uniform?

Inspectors are supplied with a light serge jacket for office wear, and the question whether it can be adapted for outdoor duty as well, during the summer, is being considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the vacancy recently caused in the Newbliss, county Monaghan, magistracy, by the death of Mr. Daly, who was a Roman Catholic, was filled by the appointment of a Roman Catholic, or was Mr. Daly's successor a Protestant?

I am informed that there has not been any justice of the peace named Daly in the Newbliss petty sessions district. With respect to the general question raised by the honourable Member, I can only say that such appointments are governed not by considerations of religion, but of fitness for the office.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fatal accident to a man named George Freeman in a tunnel near Welwyn, Herts, on the Great Northern Railway; whether he is aware that the deceased was booked on duty for 12 hours at a stretch, which the majority of the coroner's jury considered too long; and whether he will take proceedings; under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, to prevent such protracted hours of duty on railways?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the circumstances disclosed at the inquest held on George Freeman, an employee of the Great Northern Railway Company, on Tuesday last whether it is the fact that Freeman, in discharge of his duty as flagman to bricklayers repairing Welwyn Tunnel, was on duty for 12 hours in the tunnel without relief; whether the Board of Trade was represented at the inquest; and whether, having regard to the facts disclosed, and the opinion expressed by the jury that 12 hours in a tunnel without being visited was far too long, he will take action under the Act of 1893 to have the hours of such railway servants reasonably reduced, and recommend further precautions to the company concerned?

I will reply to the two Questions together. The Board of Trade have not yet received the coroner's return, but should it turn out that Freeman was a servant of the railway company, and that the facts are as stated, the Board will communicate with the company under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893. The Department was not represented at the inquest, as the coroner did not ask for the assistance of an assessor. Since I have been in the House I have received a communication from the company to the effect that Freeman had been off duty for 36 hours previous to commencing work at 6 p.m. on the 17th instant. There was no mental strain upon him, and no complaint had ever been made by him that the hours were too long. Consequent upon this accident having occurred, the company have under consideration the steps best adapted for preventing the recurrence of a similar accident.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, seeing that the Crown right of reply whether witnesses are examined or not is in England confined exclusively to the law officers of the Crown, and its exercise is subject on the responsibility to Parliament attaching to the holders of law offices of the Crown, he will direct for the future that the Crown's right of reply by both the law officers and their representatives now in force in Ireland be not exercised by the representatives of the law officers in Crown cases when witnesses are not called for the defence?

The right of reply mentioned is in Ireland only claimed or exercised where the Attorney General or Solicitor General conducts the prosecution in person, or where it is conducted by some person appointed by the Attorney General, and for whose conduct the Attorney General is responsible. This has always been the practice in Ireland, and, in my opinion, a change in it is not desirable.

Is it not the fact that prosecutions in Ireland are uniformly conducted by the Attorney General or his representative, and that private prosecutions are unknown?

It is so generally, but not always.

Could you mention two such cases?

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the Rating Act the Treasury undertakes to pay half the poor rate on land, and that for the parish of Asheldham, Essex, the half amounts to £19, half-yearly; and why it is that only £9 10s. has been received instead of £19?

In reply to the honourable Member's (Question as to the discrepancy between £19 and £9 10s., the £9 10s. does not take into account the share of the parish of Asheldham in the grant paid to the county council, although the charge for county rate is included in the £19. Again, the poor rate in the parish for the year is not the same in each half-year. It is higher during the current half-year than it was in the last half-year. The grant, on the other hand, is a fixed one, based upon the rates taken to be raised in the year before the passing of the Agricultural Rates Act, and it is paid twice a year in equal instalments. Further, the grant being a fixed one, any increase in expenditure falling on the parish since the 31st March, 1896, has to be paid in full without aid from the grant. For instance, there was an increase in the expenditure of the guardians for the union of £395, and of the rural district of £966, of which the parish of Asheldham has to bear its share. It is also to be remembered that there is no grant in respect of the overseers. The honourable Member will find, I think, that in this way the discrepancy is practically accounted for.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, will he explain why the Report of the Trustees of the National Library of Ireland is presented to the Department of Science and Art in January, but does not reach the public until August; and if he will take steps to secure in future that this Report is published within a shorter time of its presentation?

The Report in question forms part of the annual Report of the Science and Art Department, and cannot, therefore, be published before that Report. The annual Report for this year is already published.

On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an application was made to the Congested Districts Board by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to build a pier at Renard Point, near Cahirciveen; that negotiations have been going on since the railway was opened; and that the railway company offered a substantial amount towards the completion of the pier; and whether the Government will give a grant in aid for this work, seeing that there is no accommodation for the deep sea fishing boats for landing their takes at a place where railway transit is available?

A proposal was made to the Congested Districts Board by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company in 1893 relative to the construction of a pier at Renard. The board offered to contribute a sum of £1,000 towards the erection of a pier, provided the balance of the cost were contributed by the neighbouring proprietors and the county authorities. The railway company, however, considered the board's offer inadequate, and as the board declined to increase it, the negotiations fell through. There has been no communication with the railway company on the subject since January, 1894.

On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what was the result of the application to the Congested Districts Board for the building of a boat-slip at Rhodes, Cahirciveen, which application was to be considered by the Congested Districts Board at their meeting on Saturday, 16th July? I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that repeated applications were made to provide a pier for the fishing boats at Kells, Dingle Bay, to which the answer was given that the matter was under consideration, he can state if it is likely to be commenced at once?

No decision has yet been arrived at by the Congested Districts Board in the matter of the suggested construction of boat-slips at Rhodes and Kells.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Guernsey States Telephone Committee has declined to connect their telephone exchange system with the head post office in Guernsey in consequence of the refusal of the Postmaster General to allow such a connection, if made, to be used by telephone subscribers located outside the town of St. Peter Port, for the purposes of telephoning telegrams for transmission over the post office telegraphs, for telephoning messages to be written down and posted as letters, and for calling for the services of express messengers as provided for by section 7 of the Treasury Minute, dated 23rd May, 1892; and whether, seeing that such refusal is a denial of the facilities authorised by the said Treasury Minute to all the telephone exchange subscribers except those in St. Peter Port, he will take steps to have this connection made?

The States of Guernsey have not up to the present time connected their exchange in St. Peter Port with the head post office, and it may be that they are influenced by the reason mentioned by the honourable Member. There is no desire to exclude from the facilities at St. Peter Port any subscribers outside the town directly connected with the exchange there, and the States have been informed that subscribers are at liberty to use the facilities. But what it is understood that the States require is, that subscribers connected with other exchanges in the island should enjoy these facilities at St. Peter Port instead of at their own local postal telegraph offices. This would not be in accordance with the practice which has hitherto obtained throughout the United Kingdom, and the Postmaster General is reluctant to alter the existing practice in any respect until he has had the advantage of considering the Report of the-Committee of this House which is now inquiring into the whole subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, on what date the National Telephone Company applied to the Postmaster General for permission to attach wires to the post office from, the telephone exchange they commenced to erect in St. Peter Port, Guernsey, in, 1896, and on what date the permission to do so was granted; and on what date the States of Guernsey Telephone Exchange applied to the Postmaster General for the same privilege, and on what date he granted it?

The National Telephone Company applied to the Postmaster General on the 18th May, 1896, for permission to connect their exchange in St. Peter Port with the head post office, and permission was granted on the 20th May, 1896. The first formal application from the States of Guernsey for permission to connect the exchange which they were constructing in St. Peter Port with the head post office is dated the 31st May, 1898, and permission was granted on 28th June, 1898, but the letter conveying this permission also dealt with the question of the establishment of a postal telegraph office at the White Rock Pier, and with the rules which governed the use of the proposed connection with the head post office—matters about which the States entertained views which were not in harmony with those of the Department, and about which there had been separate correspondence.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consequence of the highly unsatisfactory state and outlook of recruiting, the Government will bring on the Army Estimates at an early day, and under such conditions as will allow of a full discussion of the subject?

In answer to my honourable and gallant Friend I have to say that, as I think I stated in the House on Friday, we shall take the Army Estimates on Thursday next. In giving this reply I ought to guard myself from any supposition that we agree with the gloomy forecast the honourable and gallant Gentleman has made with regard to recruiting.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Report on the Foreign Office Vote will be taken; and if the Government propose to make any statement to Parliament as to the position of the China negotiations?

While we are perfectly prepared to defend our action and policy in China if it is called in question, we do not contemplate making any statement in Parliament or laying any Papers on the Table before the Session closes other than those relating to the agreement as to the Yang-tsze provinces. The reason of this is that negotiations are still in progress and have not reached a stage when either a statement or a communication of Papers is possible.

I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it is not the fact that no Papers on China have been laid before Parliament since the month of April? Does the right honourable Gentleman not propose to give us any Papers relating to affairs in China generally during the months of May, June, and July, before the rising of the House?

No, Sir, I gather that there have been no Papers relating to China, except such as refer to pending negotiations.

Is the House to understand that no further information will be given to the House before the recess either as to the Government's intentions in regard to Wei-hai-Wei, or as to the French opposition to the opening of Nan-ning as a free port?

There are no Papers to be laid before the House, but if questions are put to me, or to my right honourable Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, they will be answered, so far as it is compatible with the interests of the public service.

When will the Papers relating to the Yang-tsze assurance be presented?

My right honourable Friend informs me that the Papers have already been laid in dummy, and he hopes that they will be circulated either to-morrow or the next day.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to undertake the sole responsibility of guaranteeing a loan of 16 millions to the Chinese Government; whether there is any precedent for such a guarantee, and with what object it was to have been given; and whether, if the Government were prepared to guarantee such loan, they will, in view of the vast importance to our trade in general and to the trade of Lancashire in particular of developing and opening up markets in the Yang-tsze region, guarantee such schemes of railway enterprise by British subjects in that region as they may be advised are requisite?

The Papers already presented to Parliament contain full information as to the character and objects of the loan which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to make to China in January last. Such a loan would be much more secure than any guarantee of a railway on foreign soil could be, and having a national character, it would be on a different footing from the guarantee of a railway undertaken by private enterprise.

Can the right honourable Gentleman answer the second paragraph and say whether there is any precedent for such a loan?

I do not remember at this moment any precedent.

The Turkish loan?

Well, yes; I suppose the Turkish loan would be.

But on the sole responsibility of the Government?

That, I am afraid, makes no difference.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to inform the House as to any further facilities granted to foreigners in respect to internal water communication within the Chinese Empire?

Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin has reported by telegram that the amendments demanded by him have now been agreed to by the Chinese Government, and that revised regulations are in course of preparation, and will be promulgated very shortly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state in what part of the Parliamentary Regulations, as presented to this House in 1879, the Post Office is authorised to charge the full rate to each newspaper in a multiple address message, even when a separate pass is handed in for each newspaper; whether he is aware that the regulations provide for the full charge being made only in eases where a single pass is handed in and the other addresses are paid for in cash or stamps; and whether he will undertake that the full rate will not henceforth be charged on multiple addresses when a separate pass is handed in for each address, especially in view of the fact that when cash is paid the reduced rate is allowed?

The authority to charge the full rate to each newspaper in a multiple address message when a separate pass is handed in for each newspaper is given by Regulation 19 of the Press Message Regulations of 1879. The honourable Member has not accurately interpreted the regulation referred to in the second paragraph. As regards addresses for which there is no pass, the messages must be paid for at the full rate. The Postmaster General, as at present advised, does not see his way to give the undertaking the honourable Member asks for.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Commercial Attaches appointed by Lord Salisbury to assist British commerce in the principal countries of Europe are entitled to correspond freely with all persons interested in the trade of the countries to which they are accredited, as well as with chambers of commerce, and are provided with properly equipped offices wherein they are readily accessible to British manufacturers, merchants, and their agents, independently of the social and epistolary ceremonies of diplomacy?

The Commercial Attaches are not only entitled, but are instructed to correspond freely with all persons interested in trade. Accommo- dation is provided for them in Her Majesty's Embassies to which they are attached.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the post of Commercial Attach to the Embassy at St. Petersburg is now vacant, and has been practically so for some time past, although the salary has been voted by Parliament; and, in such case, if, having regard to the damage resulting to British trade in Russia by the growing competition of France, Belgium, and Germany, steps will be taken to appoint to this important post a person thoroughly conversant with British commerce and its opportunities in all the Russia from the Vistula to the Pacific?

The post of Commercial Attaché, held by Sir E. Law, which was not confined to Russia, but included some of the smaller European States, has now fallen vacant owing to his appointment to another office; and Her Majesty's Government are considering what steps can best be taken in the interests of British trade in the countries concerned, in connection with the filling of the vacancy.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Colonel Langtry has been passed over for promotion to the rank of major-general, although he has 37 years' good service, and is eligible under the terms of the Royal Warrant, 1897 (paragraph 44); whether lie is aware that Colonel Langtry took part in the Abyssinian Campaign, both advances to Kandahar, operations in Yarkistan, and the Boer Campaign, was selected to command Sir Michael Biddulph's escort for the first reconnaissance into the Zhob Valley, and was strongly recommended) by the various generals under whom he 'served; whether purchase officers, among whom was Colonel Langtry,' were assured that they would not suffer either pecuniarily or in promotion; whether one colonel who has superseded him has never commanded a regiment; and whether, looking to these facts, further consideration will be given to Colonel Langtry's claims?

Colonel Langtry was not promoted major-general because he was not considered by the Army Board to possess the qualifications required in a general officer. Colonel Langtry was a captain when purchase was abolished, and has no claim to promotion to the rank of major-general on that score. I regret that I cannot hold out any hope that his case will be reconsidered.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what sum Gunners H. Watson and T. Downie, of the 1st Banff Volunteer Artillery, must pay before they can obtain their discharge applied for on 29th January last; and, if they do not pay, whether it is the intention of the War Office to retain them as Volunteers against their will for an indefinite time?