laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—

Mr. Speaker, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. It is a Bill promoted by a company of which the House has heard a good deal during recent years. This company has an enormous capital, amounting to nearly 12 millions sterling, and serves a very largo area in the North of London. Throughout that vast area the most profound dissatisfaction exists among the consumers with the management of this company, and the results of that management, and the dissatisfaction is made all the more keen and all the more clamorous by the fact that the consumer on the north side of the Thames has to pay 3s. per thousand feet for his gas, whereas the consumer on the other side gets his gas for 2s. 3d., and will, according to an announcement which was recently made, get' it for 2s. 2d. in the immediate future. This Company keeps coming to Parliament for new powers. Last year it obtained an Act enabling it to split its stock, and this year the Company has a Bill of another kind, which is now before the House. All the gas consumers of North London say, and what I desire respectfully to press upon the House is, that before these new powers are granted, some conditions ought to be imposed on this Company in the interests of the consumers. The promoters of the Bill have issued a statement in which they say that this is a most ordinary type of pri- vate Bill. That is a distinction to which I cannot give my assent. Part, and a very important part, of this Bill seems to me of an unusual, exceptional, and extraordinary character. It appears that from time to time lands have been acquired by the Company without Parliamentary powers. These lands were conveyed to the Governor of the Company and another person, and held by them as trustees for the Company, who now come to Parliament and, through this Bill, ask Parliament to legalise their position with regard to these lands. I think, Sir, that that is a demand made upon Parliament to which Parliament should be slow to respond, and certainly there is nothing in the relations of the Company with the public to induce Parliament to in any way consider and be lenient to this Company. The Company have been holding lands without legal authority, and I think this House ought to leave them to settle their position the best way they can, and not now condone their illegality. The remainder of the Bill deals with the proposed increase of stock. The House may possibly remember, from the discussion we have had on this Company and its management on previous occasions, that it is over-capitalised at present. But, notwithstanding that that is so this Bill actually proposes to increase the capital of the company by no less a sum than three and a half millions sterling. The promoters urge that debenture stock bears a lower rate of interest than the ordinary capital. That is true, and if the new debenture stock were to take the place of the ordinary capital, the statement would be evidently true, but this debenture stock is to be created in addition to the already existing, capital. Therefore, the interest to be provided on so large an amount of new capital must tend to an increase rather than to a reduction of the cost of gas. There is one other portion of this statement to which I must refer. An allusion is made to the poorer class of consumers, who make use of the penny-in-the-slot system. I am surprised that that reference should have been made, because of all the classes of consumers of the Gas Light and Coke Company, I think the poorer class, who have occasion to make use of the penny-in-the-slot system, are most harshly treated. I find that the Gas Light and Coke Company charge 1d. for every 22 cubic feet consumed, whereas the South Metropolitan Gas Company charge 1d. for every 29 cubic feet. So much for the allusion to the tender regard of the Company for the interests of the poorer class of consumers. This Bill is opposed by the Corporation of the City of London, and the fact that I am co-operating with the Corporation of the City of London in this matter—and I very seldom have the pleasure to be in agreement with that Corporation—is, I think, some sort of primâ-facie argument in favour of the reasonableness of my opposition to this Bill. I ask the House, then, to reject the Bill, but if the House should be against me on that issue, I will, as an alternative, ask the House to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, so that full inquiry may be made into the management of the Company, and the operation of the Sliding Scale, and as to the justice of the existing Statutory conditions before the House departs finally with its control over this Bill. I move, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green has described this as not an ordinary Bill. I maintain that it is quite ordinary in character. It is a Bill of the type which is usually sent to a Select Committee. It is promoted by the existing Company in order to raise further capital, which they cannot do unless they get the sanction of Parliament. There is no question of principle whatever involved in it; it simply asks that the Company may raise further capital in order that they may fulfil the Statutory obligations which have been imposed upon them by Parliament. It is quite impossible for this House to say whether this further capital is needed by the company or not; that is a matter for the Select Committee to inquire into in the ordinary way. As to the question of the price of gas which the honourable and learned Member has raised, I maintain that that is a question with which this House cannot deal. That is also a matter for the Select Committee. If the company are charging too much, the Committee will deal with that, no doubt. There may be 20 reasons why the Gas Light and Coke Company charge more than do the South Metropolitan Gas Company on the other side of the water, and I have no doubt the former company could give a very good defence of their higher charge if an inquiry were made. My honourable Friend the Member for East Islington has put down a Motion to ask the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the powers conferred by Parliament on the Metropolitan Gas Companies, and this Motion had been practically blocked by the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green, who will not allow the inquiry, and also refuses the company this Bill. I hope the House will free the company from the present deadlock by adopting the usual course, and letting this Bill go to a Select Committee. The honourable and learned Member for Bethnal Green said this company was continually coming to Parliament for further powers. That is not exactly correct. It is true that they came last year or the year before to Parliament in order to get permission to consolidate or make some alteration in their stock: but it is a fact that they have not been to Parliament for 23 years for powers to raise additional capital. And when one considers the enormous growth of London, and the extension of the district which this company have to supply, I think it will be agreed that it is not unreasonable that after so long a time the company should find themselves unable sufficiently to extend their works and mains in order to supply the increased population. The honourable and learned Member has referred to the claim of the company that they are supplying the increasing demand of the working population for gas on the penny-in-the-slot system. I think it is creditable to the country that they should have established that system.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, by way of explanation, that I do not object to the penny-in-the-slot system. What I objected to was the exorbitant charge which is made by the company.

The honourable and learned Gentleman says that the Gas Light and Coke Company charge 1d. for every 22 cubic feet consumed in this way, whereas the South Metropolitan Gas Company charge 1d. for 29 feet. That is not a very great difference, and there may be many reasons why the company are obliged to charge more than the South Metropolitan Gas Company. The same thing applies to Electric Lighting Companies in London. It is quite understandable that their prices vary for many reasons. The honourable and learned Gentleman says he is allied with the Corporation of the City of London in opposition to this Bill. I should like to know whether the Corporation has given him a brief to appear for them. I should be very much surprised if the City of London were desirous of throwing out this Bill on the Second Heading, when they would have a right to appear and lodge their objections against the Bill before the Committee upstairs to which it would be sent. Moreover, the City of London have two representatives in this House who could come here and stand up for the City without the City being compelled to appeal for assistance to the honourable and learned Gentleman the Member for Bethnal Green. I am surprised at the unusual course he has adopted of asking the House to reject this Bill, and not to send it to the Committee, who could make all the necessary inquiries, examine all the witnesses, and hear all the objections which could be urged against it. This House is not the proper tribunal to deal with details, and I contend that the honourable and learned Gentleman opposite has not shown any reason why this Bill, which is urgently required by the company, should not be considered, and I hope the House will give it a Second Heading, so that it may go to Committee and be carefully considered.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to say one word in support of what has fallen from my honourable Friend the Member for East Marylebone, because I have had, ever since the commencement of the Session, a Motion on the Paper, which has for its object, and which, in my opinion, would have for its result, that which the honourable Member for Bethnal Green professes to desire—namely, the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the powers of charge conferred on the Metro- politan Gas Companies, with a view to secure uniformity of charge on the north and south sides of the Thames. It is owing to the opposition of the honourable Member for Bethnal Green that that inquiry could not be obtained. I do not see how opposition to this Measure, or to this inquiry for which I have moved, can in any way cheapen the price of gas. The effect of the honourable Gentleman's tactics is to prevent inquiry, and also to prevent our getting before the Committee upstairs the case which we believe we have to make. I do not come to this House as a supporter of the interests of the Gas Light and Coke Company. I believe they do charge unjustly, and it is because I believe that that I want to apply a remedy which will give us redress from our grievance. But I do not want to stop the company in obtaining the Measure now before the House, which, if it does anything at all, will facilitate a more efficient supply of gas on the north side of the Thames. I believe the improvement of their plant would facilitate a cheap and expeditious supply of gas throughout their district. I am sorry that the London County Council, of which body I have the honour to be a member, is also opposing this Bill, but they do so avowedly for reasons with which I have no sympathy. They are of opinion that it will enhance the value of the undertaking of the Gas Light and Coke Company. I do not know whether it will or not, but if it does it will only do so legitimately, because the company are going to add many hundred miles of additional piping. I hope the argument of the London County Council is not one which will appeal to the House. I have the honour to be one of the representatives of the City on the London County Council, and I know that the Corporation of the City of London are in sympathy with my Motion for a Committee, which the honourable Member has blocked, and I do not know, notwithstanding that I am one of their representatives, that they are at all opposed to this Measure. I, therefore, view with with some suspicion the statement of the honourable and learned Member that he is opposing this Bill in association with the Corporation of the City of London. I hope the House will unanimously give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents take a great interest in this matter, and are extremely anxious to have the inquiry which my honourable Friend has suggested. I think it should be publicly stated that the reason why this inquiry cannot be held is that the honourable Member for Bethnal Green has insisted in blocking the inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I Will now ask the House to take the alternative course to which I alluded just now, and send this Bill to a Select Committee. That is a course which, under similar circumstances, the House has often taken. There are many precedents, of which I will cite one or two, where a private Bill, having been introduced in connection with a subject relating to which an inquiry by the House was either pending or imminent, has been referred to a Select Committee with special instructions. In 1866 the City of London had a Gas Bill before this House, and the House read it a second time, and referred it to a Select Committee, at the same time directing that Committee to inquire into the operations and the results of the Metropolis Gas Act, 1860. In the following year there was the East London Thames Supply Bill, which was also committed to a Select Committee, with instructions to inquire into the operations and the results of the Metropolis Water Act, 1852. Again, in 1886, there was the London City Traffic Regulation Bill—a private Bill—which was committed to a Select Committee, with instructions to inquire as to the best means of regulating the traffic in the Metropolis. These are precedents on which I rely in asking the House to take the course which I suggest. I therefore propose to move—

"That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of 15 Members, of whom seven shall be nominated by the Committee of Selection."

"That it be an instruction to tin-Committee to inquire into the powers of charge conferred by Parliament on the Metropolitan Gas Companies, and to report as to the method in which these powers have been exercised, having regard to the differences of price charged by the various companies, and also whether the provisions of the Acts fixing the price of gas supplied and the rate of dividend should he reconsidered."

Perhaps it will assist the honourable Member if I tell him now that his Instruction is out of order. It proposes to refer to the Select Committee on this Bill the consideration of the affairs and position of a number of other independent companies, to which the Bill has no reference. The honourable Member will see that it is an altogether impossible Instruction upon this Bill.

Then I beg to move that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. The object of doing this is to enable the House to keep control over the Bill until a more effectual inquiry has been made into the management of the Gas Light and Coke Company, into the results of that management, and into the statutory conditions at present existing than would be possible if this Bill was referred to an ordinary Committee.

I beg to second the Motion.

I hope the honourable and learned Member will not persist in this Motion. After the ruling of the Speaker there can be no real object in sending this Bill to a Select Committee of 15 Members, because they would not have the power that the honourable Member intended when he put this Instruction on the Paper.

In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to withdraw my Motion.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any prospect of the reduction of fees in county court cases?

I cannot, of course, go into detail in a mere reply to a printed question. The Government will be prepared to state their views fully on the Vote for the County Courts. I may say at once, however, that if any particular fees were found to press unduly on the poorer class of suitors the Treasury would be ready to consider, with the Lord Chancellor, whether any readjustment of the scale were possible which would afford relief in the items complained of.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could state to the House what was the total amount due to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks and the Trustees Savings Hanks on the 31st December, 1898, and what was the par value of the Consols and other securities held against those liabilities at that date?

The estimated amount due to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks at the 31st December, 1898, was £123,155,000, and the amount due to Trustees of Savings Banks at the 20th November, 1898 (the latest date on which the figures were made up) was £50,624,655. The par values of the Consols and other securities held against those liabilities at those dates were £123,494,000 and £50,423,418 respectively.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the protection granted in Germany to a supplementary patent (Zusatz) is limited to the remaining term of the original patent, whilst in the United Kingdom it is treated as a new patent running for the full term: and that a patent originating in Germany and registered in France ceases to exist in Germany and in Franco simultaneously; and whether, considering that the longer duration of such patents in this country than in Germany and France is so serious a disadvantage to British manufacturers, more particularly to manufacturers of chemicals, who are precluded from using them, often for years, during which their German and French competitors are at liberty to do so without restraint or payment of royalty, the Government would be willing to bring in a Bill during the present Session to remedy this inequality arising, not from natural causes, but from discordant legislation?

In Germany and France the duration of an ordinary patent is 15 years. For this reason patents taken out in both these countries expire simultaneously. In the United Kingdom the duration of a patent is limited to 14 years. Therefore, in the great majority of cases in which patents for the same invention are taken out in the three countries, the patent expires one year earlier in the United Kingdom than in Germany or France, and not later, as might be inferred from the honourable Member's Question. The existing law, so far from placing manufacturer in this country at a disadvantage in this respect, operates distinctly to their advantage on the whole. In the very exceptional case of patents of addition in Germany it would depend upon the date of the application for the patent whether the patent would expire earlier in Germany or in the United Kingdom. If the application were made within a year from the date of the application for the original patent, the patent would expire earlier in the United Kingdom than in German}'. If made later, the patent would expire later. I am not prepared to introduce legislation this Session.

had on the Paper the following Question: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is a fact that the Boer policeman Jones has been acquitted on the charge of shooting Mr. Edgar, an Englishman resident in Johannesburg; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to secure justice for British residents in the Transvaal? On being being called upon, the honourable Member said he would simply inquire if the right honourable Gentleman could add anything to the answer given on his behalf on 2nd March to the honourable Member for Cumberland.

I can add nothing except that I have since heard it is true the policeman was acquitted.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is a fact that a special tax of £25 a year has been placed upon non-Boer barristers practising in the Transvaal; and whether such tax is in accordance with the Conventions of 1881 and 1884?

The licence of £25 appears to have been in existence for many years, and, so far as I am aware, there is no differential treatment of foreigners.

Do I understand that this tax is placed on Boers as well as Uitlanders?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial signed by the principal ratepayers of Monard, Cullen, and Sologhead, county Tipperary, in reference to the neglected and dangerous condition of a local road in which two Roman Catholic churches and one Protestant place of worship are situated; whether he is aware that 300 children have to use this road daily in going to their respective schools, and run serious risks in so doing; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to what local authority or official is responsible for the protracted and perilous neglect into which this thoroughfare has been allowed to fall?

The memorial mentioned in the first paragraph has been received. I am informed that the road referred to is in a bad state of repair, though not in a dangerous condition, as alleged in the Question. The parties responsible for the state of the road appear to be the ratepayers of the district and the Barony Presentment Sessions. The former have never applied to the Sessions for an adequate sum of money for the repair of the road, whilst, on two occasions, namely, in 1895 and 1898, the Sessions refused to pass a, sufficient sum for the purpose, though urged to do so by the County Surveyor. At the Sessions in 1898, which was largely attended by associated ratepayers, the County Surveyor applied for an expenditure on the road at the rate of £80 per mile, but the Sessions made a presentment for £50 a mile only. No contractor, however, has tendered for the work owing to the low price passed at the Sessions, and the Grand Jury, who are not authorised to increase the presentment, handed over the road to the County Surveyor to expend the limited sum passed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he will state whether the guarantee required for the establishment of a telegraph office at Hill town, county Down, was given, and the date on which same was signed by the guarantor; also when the connecting wire with Hilltown was commenced to be laid; what is the cause of the delay in opening the telegraph office there; and whether he can state about what date will the office be open for the dispatch and receipt of telegrams, and from what date will the guarantee commence to run?

The office will be opened to-morrow, from which date the guarantee will run.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that several of the official text books, laid down as being those to be studied by officers of Her Majesty's forces presenting themselves for examination for promotion to captain and major, have been for some considerable period, and still are, out of print and quite unobtainable; and whether he can state at what date the following books, "Field Artillery Drill," "Army Book of the British Empire," "Manual of Military Engineering," and "The Manual of Military Law," will be procurable?

It is the fact that some among the official text books are out of print. This is due, partly, to an increased demand for such works, and, partly, to the absence of a proper system of communication between the Stationery Office and War Office, by which intimation of an approaching exhaustion of stock could be given. This is now being remedied, and every effort will be made to accelerate the revised editions of the four works named. The last two have already reached the proof stage.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland intend continuing their annual subsidies towards the expenses of the administration of British New Guinea after the expiration of the present month; and whether there is any ground for the statement in the Colonial press, that the early conversion of British New Guinea into a Crown Colony is in contemplation?

The contributing Colonies have agreed to continue the New Guinea expenditure on the present basis to the"30th of June next, pending a settlement of the Federation question. There is no ground for the statement referred to in the second Question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in countries where it has been deemed necessary to increase the police force owing to the operation of the swine fever order, he has any power to make a grant of public money for the purpose of defraying such expense, or whether the additional cost has to be paid by the county?

No, Sir. It is part of the statutory duty of a police force to execute and enforce the Diseases of Animals Acts, and the Orders made there under, and no special contribution for the work thus arising can be made out of Imperial funds.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the disturbances which took place at a meeting at Flint last Monday evening, called to protest against the conduct of the rector in refusing to the parents of children attending school there exemption from attendance when the Creed and Catechism of the Church of England were being taught; whether he is aware that this meeting was practically broken up by the conduct of persons who thus attended, and that the police who were present declined to render assistance in the preservation of order: whether after the meeting the crowd followed the speakers who had attended the meeting, threw stones at them, and struck the chairman; and whether the Government will take any necessary steps for preserving the peace?

The Secretary of State has had before him a report of the meeting referred to, and it does not appear to him that the police in any way fell short of their duty, as, in his opinion, it is no part of their duty to secure a hearing for speakers at meetings of this kind or to prevent interruption. It appears that one of the speakers, on his way home after the meeting, was struck by a stone; the police are making every endeavour to discover who threw it. Such an occurrence obviously affords no sufficient ground for intervention on the part of the Home Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a prisoner in Walton Gaol, Liverpool, has recently been kept in irons for between 20 and 30 clays, contrary to law; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case, and state the result of such inquiry to the House?

The facts are as stated in the Question. The prisoner, owing to violent conduct, was handcuffed, and the officer in charge of the prison during the Governor's absence through illness, finding that the man would not promise to behave, gave directions, after obtaining the concurrence of one of the Visiting Committee, for his further restraint, which was continued owing to his persisting in threats of further violence. As soon as the matter came to the knowledge of the Prison authorities, through one of the inspectors, directions were given for the immediate release of the prisoner from restraint, and steps taken to prevent a recurrence of this unfortunate misapprehension of the law. The Secretary of State is glad to learn that no injury has resulted to the prisoner.

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether he is aware that the Hospital of St. Bartholomew, Oxford, was placed under the care of Oriel College by Edward the Third for administration, and that the Commissioners in 1807 declared that before Oriel College is entitled to take any share in the profits of the hospital property it must fulfil cer- tain obligations, inter alia, providing lodgings for the almsmen, repairing the buildings, and providing a chaplain to officiate in the chapel; whether, since 1897, the College has discharged these obligations, or any of them; what is the total income arising from the hospital property, and whether the College has taken it for itself without performing the obligations; and, if so, whether the Commissioners will lay the matter before the Attorney-General; and whether he is aware that the buildings are now used as cattle-sheds, and no chaplain in Holy Orders maintained?

In the opinion of the Commissioners, the hospital was not placed in the care of, but granted to, the College by Edward the Third for its better administration and for the benefit of the College. The Commissioners did in 1897 give the opinion set out in the second paragraph of the Question. With the exception of doing certain repairs to the buildings, the College has not discharged the obligation specified in the Question, and the Commissioners consider that no one would benefit by their doing so, as the old method of administering the charity has fallen into desuetude and is incapable of performance. The total net income is estimated at about £105. After deducting the expense of repairs to the buildings and the amount of stipends paid either to existing almsmen or to a suspense account, the College has taken the income for itself. The Commissioners will not at present lay the matter before the Attorney-General, as they are engaged in negotiating for an arrangement. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the buildings are used as farm-buildings, and no chaplain in Holy Orders is maintained.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent case in which a workman, who appealed from an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, was ordered by the Court of Appeal to find security for costs; and whether, having regard to the fact that the procedure under the Workmen's Compensation Act is of a very special character, he will favourably consider a proposal to make a workman's right of appeal effective by amending the law as to requiring security for costs in proceedings under that Act?

The Secretary of State has seen the Report of the case referred to and also that of another important case decided yesterday. In both these cases the appellant has been ordered to find security for costs in accordance with the Rules governing the procedure of the Court of Appeal made under the Judicature Act. The Secretary of State thinks that there are grave objections to interfering with these Rules by special legislation in favour of a particular class of appeals. At the same time the effect of these Rules upon appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Act is an important question, and the Secretary of State proposes to confer with the Lord Chancellor thereon.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the meeting of the Philanthropie Reform Association held in Dublin on Tuesday last, to the speech of The O'Conor Don at that meeting, and to the extracts from letters from managers of industrial schools circulated by the Philanthropic Reform Association; and whether the Irish Executive will now consider the desirability of withdrawing or modifying the circular complained of, and so allowing the Irish Industrial Schools Act to be administered (as it has been administered for 30 years), pending any further legislation which the Irish Government may judge desirable?

My attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the meeting referred to in the first paragraph. It is not the intention of the Government to withdraw or modify the circular in question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 26th February, the Reverend Mr. Peoples was followed by a large and disorderly crowd from St. Clement's Church to his own house on his return from morning and evening service; and that the crowd boohed, hissed, and threatened Mr. Peoples; and, considering that it was necessary to furnish Mr. Peoples with a large police escort, why no effective steps are taken by the Executive to put an end to such proceedings?

I am aware of the facts stated in the first paragraph. The only additional steps that the Executive could take beyond those already taken would be to prosecute individuals in the crowd or to disperse the crowd by force if necessary. The Executive have not hitherto thought it expedient to adopt either of these courses. Should, however, the disorder assume a more serious character, it may be necessary to take stronger action.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the system of utilising soldiers to execute carpentry and other skilled work required in and about barracks deprives civilian tradesmen of employment; if he can state at what rate of pay soldiers who perform this work are remunerated: and, whether it is intended still further to extend this system?

In accordance with paragraph G90 of the Regulations for Engineer Services incidental repairs to War Department Buildings are executed by military labour where it is available. Soldiers so employed are paid 2d. or 1½d. an hour according to their skill. It is proposed to continue this system in the interest both of the public purse and of the soldiers, who thereby are put in a better position to obtain employment on leaving the colours.

Will not this practice inflict injustice on civilian tradesmen? Has not the Cork Allied Trades Association adopted a Resolution complaining of the practice?

I do not know, but if they had it would not interfere with the policy we are pursuing.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police authority has power to suppress, in Belfast, meetings held each Sunday for inflammatory harangues calculated to disturb the peace of the city, called in following terms: "Mr. Trew at Custom house steps. Subject, First Martyr. Come in your thousands. No surrender;" whether he is aware that all the disturbances at St. Clement's Church have arisen from the declamation of Trew on those occasions; and, will the Government take some effectual measures to maintain the peace?

The police authorities undoubtedly have power to suppress meetings calculated to lead directly to a breach of the peace. Whether Mr. Trew's harangues properly come under that designation, or not, is a question on which there may be possibly some difference of opinion. In any case, these matters involve considerations of degree, and what may be lawful may not always be expedient. I do not think the statement in the second paragraph is accurate; and in reply to the third paragraph the Government have taken, and will continue to take, whatever measures that they deem necessary for the preservation of the public peace.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death of a man named James Canning, who was killed by the explosion of a boiler at the granite quarries near Castlewellan, county Down, on the 28th ultimo; whether he is aware that, after medical evidence, the coroner's jury found that deceased had been killed by shock and injury arising from the explosion, and the jury recommended that a sworn inquiry should be held by the Board of Trade; and, whether any such inquiry will be held; and, if so, about what date and where?

Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the case referred to in the Question, but I have not yet received any communication with regard to the recommendation of the coroner's jury. The Board of Trade have, however, already held a preliminary inquiry under the Boiler Explosions Acts, and a formal sworn investigation will follow. It will be held as soon as possible and as near the scene of the explosion as practicable.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Boer Government in January arrested certain members of the South. African League, because they had drawn up a petition to the Queen setting forth the grievances of the Transvaal Uitlanders; and that five times the amount of bail was demanded by the Boer Court for them as was asked for the Boer policeman charged with the murder of Mr. Edgar, an Englishman; whether the meeting held in January by the Uitlanders to protest against the arrest of their leaders was deliberately broken up by armed Boers, who were at the time in Government employ and who were brought in from the country, and were organised for the purpose by Boer officials; whether he is aware that the chief of the Boer police, Commandant-Van Dam, himself watched, without reproof, the violence of his men, whilst they destroyed the furniture in the Amphitheatre, where the meeting was held, and that they afterwards marched round the town assaulting individual Uitlanders; and what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to protect British subjects in the Transvaal from outrage and to obtain redress for the grievances of the Uitlanders?

Two members of the South African League were arrested on a charge of having committed a breach of the law regulating public meetings; their bail was at first fixed at £1,000 each, which was five times the amount of the bail originally fixed in the case of the policeman charged with the murder of Edgar, but this was subsequently withdrawn, and the policeman re-arrested. The bail for the members of the League was afterwards reduced to £500 each. The meeting held to protest against their arrest was broken up by Boers. I am not in a position to say that those person were armed or were in Government employ, or were brought in from the country, or were organised by Boer officials. I am not aware whether the Chief of the Police was present at the meeting—some police were present, and it has been stated that they did not interfere. I am expecting a report from the High Commissioner, and am not yet in a position to say whether any action is called for on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

On a later day I shall repeat portions of the Question that have not been answered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the Waste Land Ordinance of Ceylon (No. 1 of 1897), and whether it is true that the High Court of Ceylon had held and stated that the said Ordinance was against the fundamental principles of justice; whether, notwithstanding certain decisions of the High Court of Ceylon, rendering proceedings under the said Ordinance invalid, the Government of Ceylon are enforcing its claims independently of the Courts by armed police, and what steps he proposes to take in the matter; and whether he is aware that the Government of Ceylon have passed an amended Ordinance Act, which has been, or shortly will be, submitted to the Home Government, which is still more stringent and harsh to the claimants of land (ancestral, gardens, and uncultivated) than the Ordinance of 1897?

The Waste Lands Ordinance, No. 1 of 1897, has been under my most careful consideration. I have not seen any judgment of the Supreme Court of Ceylon to the effect referred to in the first paragraph. Allegations have been made to the effect of the second paragraph of the honourable Member's Question. I am awaiting a Report from the Governor. An Ordinance has been introduced amending the Ordinance of 1897, but I do not consider that it answers to the description conveyed by the third paragraph of the Question.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when he expects to introduce the Naval Works Bill; whether, meanwhile, he will lay upon the Table, as on 9th March, 1898, a Statement of Estimated Expenditure to 31st March, 1899, under the Naval Works Act, 1897; and, when the Annual Account for 1897–8, under the Naval Works Acts, corresponding to Paper 124 of last Session, will be in the hands of Members?

I cannot yet fix a date for the introduction of the Naval Works Bill, but it will not be taken before Easter. I shall be glad to lay on the Table the Return asked for. I understand that the Annual Account for 1897–8 will be issued in a few days.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the accounts for St. James School, Northampton, have been sub- mitted to the inspector at his annual visit, and sent to the Department under Form IX., for the years ending 30th November 1898, 30th November 1897, and 30th November 1896; what was the debt incurred by the managers in respect of the annual maintenance of the school up to 30th November 189G, and up to 30th November 1897, respectively; what proportion of the debt of £285, shown at the commencement of the last school year, on 30th November 1897, and carried over into the balance-sheet just issued, was incurred in the years named; and was any of that debt incurred prior to the passing of the Act of 1897?

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. No debt was incurred by the managers for annual maintenance in either of the years referred to, since the overdraft at the end of each of those years was more than covered by the amount of Annual Grant then due from the Education Department.

Will the right honourable Gentleman say when the debt of £285, which was paid off in this account, was incurred?

There was no debt of £285. Although the account shows an overdraft, that was a great deal more than covered by money due from the Exchequer, which, in the course of a few weeks after, was paid in.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the event that the Metropolis Water Bill does not pass into Law in time to prevent a recurrence next summer of the water famine in East London, he will take temporary measures to prevent a scarcity of water in that district of the Metropolis?

I do not quite understand what are the temporary measures to which the honourable Member refers, or why he should assume that the passage of the Bill may be delayed. Nothing that I am aware of except the completion of certain connections between the works of different companies, can ensure the inhabitants of East London against recurrence of scarcity, in the event of a similar drought to that of last summer, and every effort will be made to promote the passing of the Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the disqualification of Councillor Gageby, as declared at the meeting of the Belfast Town Council on Tuesday; whether he is aware that, through no fault of his own and without warning or notice of any kind, Mr. Gageby's name was omitted from the register, that he was disqualified and deprived of the franchise; whether, considering the hardship and injustice of the case, he will consider the desirability of having the Law amended so as to remedy such a defect; and, if he can say who was responsible for this disfranchisement?

My attention has been drawn to the disqualification of Mr. Gageby. I am not in a position definitely to say whether the omission of his name from the register arose from the default of a local official or from negligence on Mr. Gageby's own part. In any case, it is a matter with which the Executive cannot interfere. If an amendment of the Law is called for, as suggested in the Question, such an Amendment should apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, and not to Ireland alone.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could state to the House how many audit districts there are in which the work is so heavy that temporary assistance has to be sent every year; also, how many audit districts there are in which the work is so light that it should not employ the whole of the working year of the auditor; and whether he proposes to improve the present arrangement of audit districts which appears to necessitate the employment of a, larger number of assistant auditors than is actually required?

The number of districts referred to in the first paragraph of the Question is 32. There are no districts of the kind mentioned in the second paragraph. The subject of a rearrangement of the audit districts was considered by the Departmental Committee which sat in 1897, and they recommended that any permanent settlement of the question should be deferred until the experience of the next three years had become available. I do not propose therefore to alter the districts at the present time, but I am not aware that the present arrangement necessitates the employment of a larger number of assistant auditors than is actually required.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on a recent occasion Constable Townshend, of the Bedragh police hut, near Westport, was drunk and disorderly, and that he broke into the neighbours' houses; and have any steps been taken to summon the constable in the ordinary way, or has action been taken by the police authorities to investigate his conduct: if so, with what result?

It is a fact that the constable named in the Question was drunk on the 29th November last and broke a pane of glass in the house of a man named Thomas Moran, near West-port, but it is not true that the constable broke into the neighbours' houses. Moran did not prosecute the constable, and stated he did not wish to take any action in the matter. He was dealt with, however, by the Inspector-General under the rules of the force, and fined in a sum of 40s., and also warned for dismissal in the event of a repetition of any similar misconduct on his part.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the amount of cubic space which the local authorities for South West Ham insist upon being located to each person living in registered common lodging houses within their jurisdiction?

I am informed that the amount is 300 cubic feet.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state the number of professors in the Theological Faculties of the Scottish Universities, and the amount paid to them for their services from foes, endowments, or grants from Parliament; and whether there is any fund for the superannuation of such professors, and its source?

As regards the first part of the Question, the honourable Member will find the information he desires in the Annual Statistical Reports, page 3, made by the University Court of each University in terms of section 30 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, and which have been laid before Parliament and circulated for the year 1896–97. As regards the second part, there is no special fund for superannuations, but Ordinances 32 and 53 deal with the granting of pensions to professors retiring from age or infirmity, and Ordinances 25, 26, 27, and 16 provide for the order of priority in which such charges fall to be met out of the general university revenue.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state whether it is true that a Bill to regulate mining and the exploration of minerals in India has been drafted by the Indian Government and will shortly be presented in Council; and, if so, whether, in view of the great importance of the question to British capitalists, he will lay a copy of the Bill upon the Table of the House?

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. It is true that a Bill on the subject of mining has been drafted and will shortly, I believe, be brought before the Legislative Council of the Viceroy. But to lay on the Table of this House a copy of a Measure which is under discussion in that Council is contrary to the established practice, and would have the effect of transferring to the House of Commons a responsibility which by law rests, firstly, with the Legislative Council, and, secondly, with the Secretary of State, who has the power of disallowing any Measure which the Council may pass. I have already stated in this House that I do not think this would be right; and I cannot, therefore, undertake to do what the honourable Member suggests.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is proposed to fill up two of the three vacancies in the Second Division establishment at the Science and Art Department, South Kensington, by promoting a Mr. G. S. Watts, at present serving in Dublin, and a second division clerk (Ridley) at £70 per annum; whether there are several assistant clerks in the department at South Kensington of long and approved service who are eligible for promotion to these vacancies under clause 15 of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1898; and whether he would be willing to inquire into the matter in view of the fact that the assistant clerks at South Kensing- ton have been led to expect that, when opportunities arose, they would receive priority of consideration?

It is proposed to fill up two of the three vacancies in the Second Division staff of the Science and Art Department, South Kensington, by promoting Mr. Watts and an assistant clerk now employed in that department. The answer to the second Question is in the affirmative. Assistant clerks at South Kensington have not been led to expect that, when opportunities arose, they would receive priority of consideration.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if ho can make some further explanation of the procedure to be followed in regard to the Navy Estimates on Thursday, and, in particular, if he will state how he proposes to carry out his suggestion that, after the adjournment of the Debate on the Question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair, the House should go into Committee on the Supplementary Estimates.

I understand that there are some technical objections to taking the Supplementary Estimates immediately after the Motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair on the Navy Estimates has been adjourned. That difficulty could be got over if the House permitted us to get the Speaker out of the Chair, when we could then proceed with the Supplementary Estimates. I do not know whether the House will think that course agreeable; if so, it would be convenient to the Government. If, however, that suggestion does not meet the views of the House, I certainly shall not press it. In that case, we shall go on, with Government Bills. The Food and Drugs Bill will be the first order, the second will be the Water Bill, and the third the Colonial Loans Bill.

May I ask whether, if the course suggested by the right honourable Gentleman that the Speaker should be allowed to leave the Chair were adopted, the Amendments on the Paper would not be lost?

No Amendment could be moved to my leaving the Chair if I had already left it upon the Order of the House.

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he is aware that the Food and Drugs Bill was only circulated last Thursday, and was only explained last night; whether those interested in it have only this morning learned the nature of its provisions; and whether, in view of that fact, he will not make the Water Bill, or some other Bill, the first order on Thursday, in case the Navy Estimates should not be proceeded with; and, further, whether he will not allow the adjournment of the Debate on the Second Reading of the Food and Drugs Bill to extend over such a reasonable time as will permit those interested in its details to learn something as to what it means?

I really think the request of the honourable Gentleman rather unreasonable. We had a Debate last night, and not the slightest objection was raised of the character which the honourable Gentleman now raises. He himself, I think, supported the rejection of the Bill in a long and interesting speech. It is, therefore, rather unreasonable to ask us to defer the consideration of the Measure to a subsequent date.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering that both this year and last year the Army Estimates and the statement of the Secretary of State for War were circulated shortly after Committee of Supply was set up, and several days given before the statement was made in the House by the Under Secretary of State for War, he can state the reasons why the Navy Estimates and the Memorandum have not been circulated cither this year or last year at such a date as to enable Members to consider them before the First Lord of the Admiralty makes his statement in the House

I have not discussed the question whether the procedure on the Army Estimates or the Navy Estimates is the more convenient, but, generally speaking, on the present occasion the proposed procedure with regard to the Navy Estimates is one dictated by considerations of public policy. The honourable Member will perhaps wait for further explanation on this subject until the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Will the First Lord of the Treasury state what business he proposes to take on Friday?

We shall now take the Supplementary Estimates which we had hoped to be able to take on Thursday—first the Civil Service, and then the Navy. After the Supplementally Estimates we shall take Vote 1 of the Army Estimates.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any official statement has been made by the Russian Government as to the terms on which British vessels may trade with the port of Talienwan; if it is now or will at any fixed future date be subject to the navigation laws of Russia, and if these prevent British ships from trading between Talienwan and any other Russian port; and, is the Customs tariff the same as that of the Treaty Ports in China or that of Russia?

The assurances given by the Russian Government with regard to Talienwan have already been published in China No. 1, 1898. We understand that a formal declaration will have to be made to the representatives of the Treaty Powers in China when the port is considered to be open to foreign commerce, which will not be until a Customs service has been established similar to that which exists at other ports opened by treaty. Her Majesty's Government were informed some time ago that steps were being taken for the organisation of a general administration and Customs establishment at Talienwan, and that duties would be collected by Russian officials for the Chinese Government according to the Chinese tariff. We are not in a position to express any opinion as to the bearing of the Russian navigation laws upon the position of the port.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with a view to future discussions on China, when the Papers relating to recent events in China will be presented; and whether it will be possible to include the negotiations affecting the Niu-chwang Railway?

The utmost dispatch is being used in the preparation of these Papers, and it is hoped that they may be ready for presentation next Tuesday. I greatly regret that they have not been ready before. The negotiations with regard to the Niu-chwang Railway will be published subsequently in a separate Paper. Questions involving matters for diplomatic discussion are still pending, and until these are settled we cannot lay the Papers on the Table.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private notice, and which, I believe, he is ready to answer—namely, whether the Government desire to make any modification in the recent statement to the House with regard to the affairs of Muscat, and whether it is the case that Her Majesty's Government have expressed to Franco their profound regret at recent occurrences.

Perhaps the House will allow me to answer this Question at some little length. The circumstances of the Muscat case are as follows: —In the middle of March of last year the French agent obtained from the Sultan of Muscat the lease or concesson of a piece of land to be used as a coal depot. On the land so ceded, which was in a small harbour, some way from Muscat, the French Government would have been at liberty to hoist its flag and to build fortifications. No hint of these proceedings reached the British Agent until this year. As soon as they were known, they were at once declared by the British Government to be contrary to the Treaty of 18G2 and to the Sultan's special obligations to the British Government in respect of the assignment or alienation of any part of his territories, and the Sultan was required to cancel the lease. This he did, and the lease has been annulled. We expressed no disapproval of the action of our Agent, which, indeed, was taken under our instructions, and Lord Salisbury informed the French Ambassador more than once that, in his judgment, the British Government was absolutely right in the contention it maintained, and that it was impossible for us to recede from it. With respect to the form of the matter, the statement of Monsieur Delcassé is somewhat imperfect. He omits to mention that in November he was asked by Sir Edmund Monson whether there was any truth in the rumours of an acquisition of land on the littoral of Muscat, and he said that he had heard nothing whatever about it. He repeated the same statement a few days ago. It was therefore a case of action of the French Local Agent in excess of the instructions he had received, and in such a case it is usual to bring the question to the knowledge of the Government concerned, and secure its decision by diplomatic means, in order to avoid the publicity involved in a threat of bombardment. While on this account Lord Salisbury, as he stated to the French Ambassador, would have preferred a less public mode of action, it is clear that no blame attaches to our Agent on the spot, who was not in a position to distinguish between the responsibility of the French Agent and the Sultan of Muscat on the one side, and that of the French Government on the other, and we held his action in substance to have been absolutely right. By the Convention between France and England of 1862 there is nothing to prohibit France from having a coal store at Muscat itself, as Great Britain has done within the terms of the Convention, provided there is no concession of territory, and it is understood that the French Government will avail itself of this power subject to the above-named limitations.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs the following Question, of which I have given him private notice: —Whether it is true, as stated in the "Daily Graphic" of the 4th inst, that the British Minister at Pekin has been instructed to inform the Tsung-li-Yamên that Great Britain is prepared to support China in resisting any pressure that may be brought to bear upon her to force her to repudiate her obligations to this country under the Northern Railway Extension contract; and, if so, whether that promise of support applies to all the terms and stipulations of the said contract?

From telegrams recently received at Pekin it appears that the Russian Minister is objecting to the employment of an English engineer and a European railway accountant, and to the charge given on the freights and earnings of the lines outside the Great Wall, as being contrary to the agreement between Russia and China. Her Majesty's Government have instructed Sir Claude Macdonald to point out that none of these points constitute foreign control of the railways or involve possession or control of such lines in the event of default on the loan. I have already stated that Her Majesty's Government regard the contract as a binding engagement on the Chinese Government.

The Question is that Mr. Hanbury be a member of the Houses of Lords and Commons Permanent Staff Joint Committee.

Upon this Question, Sir, there are two points of order upon which I wish to take your Ruling. As regards this Motion which has been made by the honourable Baronet the Member for the Tiverton Division of Devonshire, I would request to know whether it is in order in coming in upon the Paper of to-day, in view of Standing Order 16 of the House, which rules that on Monday and Thursday Motions are to be taken by Members of the Government, and on Tuesday and Friday by non-official Members of the House. Under that ruling I would venture to submit that the honourable Baronet, as a Member of the Government, took his precedence yesterday to move on Mondays and Thursdays, and, therefore, he is not entitled to bring in this Motion until the next Government day.

The same point was taken last Session, and I then stated that the effect of Standing Order 16 is to enable any Member, whether a member of the Government or not, to put down Motions on Tuesdays and Fridays, and to give the Government the additional privilege of putting such Motions down on Mondays and Thursdays.

I would respectfully put another point of order to you, and that is whether the Motion ought not to appear at the end of Private Business, and whether it is not taking up the time of the private Members to put it in at the commencement of Private Business on a private Members' day?

That appears to me to be exactly the same Question—that upon which I have just ruled.

I object to the honourable Gentleman being a member of the Committee; not that I object with reference to any personal qualification which the honourable Gentleman may possess, but because I think, in the case of a Committee of this kind, an Irish Member would be better. My objection is in the interest of the Prime Minister, who, as we all know, is to be on this Committee. He would understand our powers of cross-examination, and we could assure him that we could enlighten him on many abuses that take place, and we all know that it is the Irish Members who expose all these abuses and bring them into the light of day. The Prime Minister knows the right honourable Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, but he has not the privilege of knowing any of us, to his own great loss, and if he was on the Committee we should be able to make his acquaintance, and he ours. And, what is more, we know all about these offices and these dark places. It is rather, a brave thing for an Irish Member to go in search of the House of Lords. The object of having an Irish Member on this Committee is that it does not look well to the public at large in cases of this kind, where abuses are being investigated—abuses which were first brought to light by Irish Members—that Irish Members should not be represented on the Committee. Of course, I am perfectly well aware that there is no ground for such a suggestion,

I oppose the name of the honourable Gentleman upon the ground that the Committee is becoming of a more and more one-sided description. The House may not be aware of the fact that in former years Joint Committees were composed of double the number of Members from both sides of this House compared to the number of Members from the House of Lords. As the House of Lords at the present time is particularly Conservative, this brings out with greater force how the proposed composition of this Joint Committee will be of a one-sided character. That is very much in opposition of the intentions of the Government as stated last year. Last year there was a Committee of this House appointed to meet the House of Lords. The honourable Member for Dumfries was a member of it, and a few oilier Members

I propose to leave out those words. This is a Committee that is thrust upon us, I will not say in consequence of a conspiracy of the two Whips, but it has been thrust upon us. This year there is a new departure altogether as to the principle for which we on this side of the House have fought for the last 20 years, and which we have compelled the Whips on both sides of the House to respect. Up to last year the principle of nationality was carried out, but this year it is thrown aside.

Order, order! The honourable Member must confine himself to the Motion on the paper, "That the Committee have power to send" or persons, papers, and records."

If a proper Committee, one in which the great bulk of the House had confidence had been appointed; a Committee which would have received the support of those who were not upon it, we might have been content to have allowed the Motion to pass without discussion. But, unfortunately,

The simpler course will be to negative the Motion.