I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the amount of property reported as stolen and the amount recovered in the Metropolitan and City Police districts between 1st January 1888 and 31st December 1897, and if he is in a position to give this information as to the year 1898?

As regards the Metropolitan Police, the figures for 1898 cannot be given at present, but figures for the previous 20 years are given on page 49 of the Commissioner's last Annual Report. As regards the City of London, the amount of property reported as stolen in the City Police district between 1st January 1888, and 3rd December, 1897, was valued at £186,270 12s. 10d., of which amount £33,155 6s. 3d. was recovered; the similar figures for 1898 are, respectively, £15,020 5s. 0d. and £2,259 153. 9d.

I beg to give notice that at the earliest opportunity I shall call attention to the small proportion property recovered bears to that stolen.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office why discharges are taking place in the Royal Gun Factory whilst men of the same trade in the Royal Carriage Department are working from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday to Friday, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday; and if it would be possible for men to be transferred from the Royal Gun Factory to the Royal Carriage Department, and so avoid discharges?

Before men are finally discharged on reduction, the authorities at the Arsenal are instructed to ascertain whether men of the same trade are likely to be required within a reasonable time in other departments. Some of the men who were not required in the Gun Factory have been given employment elsewhere. The employment of such men on work in another department is not at all times possible. The space and machines in the workshops can only accommodate a certain number of men.

May I ask whether, in the event of any men being discharged, the discharges will be carried out with the minimum sacrifice of bonus and sick pay in case the men are taken on again?

The discharge of men, whether temporary or permanent, always takes place in order of seniority.

On behalf of the honourable Member for Dublin University, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority and under what licence intoxicating liquors are sold at bars erected in the corridors of the Royal Courts of Justice, and almost immediately in view of the entrances to the various courts; and whether he will consider the advisability of having the sale of such liquors restricted to the refreshment rooms downstairs?

The licence under which intoxicating liquors are sold at bars in the Royal Courts of Justice is an ordinary six day early closing publican's licence granted by the magistrates of the three divisions on which the buildings stand, namely, the City of London, St. Clement's Danes, and the Liberty of the Rolls, in the Holborn Division. The second part of the Question does not fall within the Secretary of State's jurisdiction.

Can the honourable Gentleman say within whose jurisdiction it falls?

I believe it is under the Lord Chancellor.

On behalf of the honourable Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether complaints have been made as to the non-delivery of letters at the house of Mr. Edward M'Cullagh, of Caum Killinardrish,. county Cork; whether, notwithstanding that a postman passes within a few hundred yards of his house, Mr. M'Cullagh is obliged to send to the post office over a mile off for his letters; and whether, in view of the promise of a house to house delivery of letters, arrangements will be made to deliver his letters at Mr. Cullagh's house.

A surveying officer shall be Bent to visit the locality very shortly. The extension of the free delivery in the rural districts of Ireland is being carried out as rapidly as possible.

On behalf of the honourable Member for Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a mail tar leaves Cork for Blarney at 3.30 p.m., and could he explain why there is no parcels delivery by that car?

No mail car now runs from Cork to Blarney at 3.30 p.m The afternoon mail from Cork to Blarney at that hour is sent by train, which does not stop at Blarney, but drops a bag containing letters only.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the result of the inquiry of the Committee appointed last year by the Secretary of State for War to inquire into certain alleged grievances of warrant officers?

The Report of the Committee is still under the consideration of the authorities.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to his offer to state the view of the Government on the possible reduction of fees in county courts, on the Vote on Account, and to the fact that the subject may probably not be reached, he will undertake to at once consider the fees in county courts together with the legal authorities, with a view to re- duction; and whether it is the case that county court fees in many cases are higher than would be in the same cases the fees in the superior courts?

This subject is all ready being considered by the Treasury in order to see whether such a reduction of fees can properly be effected. It is no doubt true that in many cases the fees are higher than in the Superior Courts. These are, however, not as a rule the fees levied in actions for small amounts; and in almost all cases the fees charged in the county courts include payment for work which in the superior courts would be done by solicitors at the cost of the litigant.

On behalf of the honourable Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that at Oundle Police Court, on Tuesday 14th instant, a defendant named Wolfe was fined 10s. for an offence under the Vaccination Acts, and in default of payment sent to prison for seven days with hard labour; and whether he will forthwith direct that this prisoner be treated as a first-class misdemeanant as provided in the Vaccination Act, 1898?

The honourable Member for East Northamptonshire wrote me a letter, and as he is laid up with illness I was going to reply to him by letter. Instructions have been given that such offenders shall in future be treated as first-class misdemeanants. In this case the governor of the prison was telegraphically communicated with on the subject.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is the intention of the War Office to build another cavalry barracks in Dublin; and, if so, whether the site has yet been selected, and when it is proposed to commence building?

There is no intention of building another cavalry barracks in Dublin.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any portion of the claims of British subjects at Constantinople for losses sustained by them during the massacres of August 1896, has been paid by the Turkish Government; if not, whether the Porte still denies its liability to pay those claims; and whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take steps to obtain a settlement of them?

The Turkish Government have not as yet paid any portion of the British claims, and have continued to deny their liability to pay them. As regards the second paragraph of the Question, I can add nothing to the answer given by me on the 17th instant to a similar Question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what the exact nature and extent of the Italian demands are with regard to the province of Chekeang; and whether, seeing that the islands of Chusan are part of the province of Chekeang, they are included in such demands?

We have not had the text of the Italian demands, but we understand they do not include the Islands of Chusan, which are the subject of Treaty engagements between England and China, and are limited to the Eastern slope of the province towards the sea, which in no way comes within the Yangtze Basin.

On behalf of the honourable Member for East Cavan I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of sergeants and acting sergeants of the Roman Catholic religion stationed in county Antrim in April 1894, when County Inspector Lennon took charge of the county; the number of Roman Catholic sergeants who retired in the county from then until the death of County Inspector Lennon in 1897; the number of Roman Catholic constables promoted from the seniority list during the same period; the number of Protestants promoted from the same list during the same period; and the number of Roman Catholic constables; will he explain why, since County Inspector Scott took charge of Antrim there have been promoted from the seniority list four Protestants and only one Roman Catholic, and also why members of the Constabulary force in the same county and in the same list, who happen to be Roman Catholics, have been overlooked; and whether similar treatment has been given to Roman Catholics in the county Down branch of the force?

The number of Roman Catholic sergeants and acting sergeants in the county Antrim in April 1894, was 31. The number of Protestant sergeants and acting sergeants was also 31. The number of Roman Catholic sergeants who retired from April 1894, to January 1897, was 9. The number of Roman Catholic and Protestant constables promoted from the seniority list during the same period was three and six respectively. The number of Roman Catholic constables at present in Antrim is 104. As regards the second paragraph, one Roman Catholic and three Protestant constables have been promoted from the seniority list since Mr. Scott took charge of the county. Promotions are not made with reference to religious considerations, and the claims of all deserving constables for advancement are considered quite irrespective of their religious views. Nor can seniority be regarded as the only, or even the chief qualification for promotion. The general principles upon which promotion is regulated in Down are the same as those existing in other counties.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he could state how, in view of his recent promise to the effect that regiments of Cavalry on the higher establishment should not be called upon to furnish drafts for regiments serving abroad, drafts will be supplied during the coming year to Lancer regiments in India; and whether he is aware that both Lancer regiments at home are on the higher establishment?

Drafts for the two Lancer regiments in India will be furnished from the depot at Canterbury, supplemented by a certain number of men from the 21st Lancers, should that regiment be brought back from Egypt next trooping season.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the instructions as to the voluntary retirement of combatant officers, laid down in Army Orders of February 1899, are retrospective in their application; and, if so, whether ho can state to what extent?

The regulations contained in Army Order 27 of February 1899 have been in the main part in force since 1886. The modifications introduced by this Order are in the nature of a relaxation of the regulations, and came into effect from the 1st February 1899.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen a published statement by the Rev. J. Stratton to the effect that, during a recent hunt of the Queen's Buckhounds, the stag, after injuring itself by jumping into a pigstye, was, though wounded and bleeding, again hunted; and then, on taking refuge in a farmyard, was once more, and in an exhausted condition, hunted for 10 miles; and whether steps can be taken to prevent tame animals being subjected to such treatment?

The Secretary of State has seen a newspaper paragraph containing statements made by the Rev. J. Stratton to the effect suggested. On inquiry into the matter it appears that there is no ground for the allegation that the stag was wounded as suggested; in fact, when it was finally taken, the stag was uninjured in any way.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to issue lighter and more modern guns to the Volunteer Battalions of position now armed with 40-pound rifled breech-loading guns manufactured 35 years ago, and weighing with carriage and packed limber 4½ tons?

The Volunteer batteries are allocated to defensive positions, and it is not possible at present to make any change in the armament.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any statutory provision exists making the conjunction of the offices of inspector of the poor and county councillor illegal; and, if not, will the Local Government Board, cither by rule or legislation, make the tenure of these two offices by one gentleman illegal?

There is no statutory provision making the conjunction of the offices of inspector of poor and county councillor illegal. The Local Government Board for Scotland have more than once expressed the opinion that 6uch a conjunction of offices is inexpedient, and should occasion arise, they are prepared to consider whether a rule on the subject should be made.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that foreign bacon imported into this country has been found to contain 0.33 per cent, of boracic acid, and that the French authorities have refused to admit the importation of bacon thus preserved on the ground that it is injurious to health; whether he is aware that the law in Brazil prohibits the use of borax as a food preservative; and whether, in view of the action taken by other Governments, inquiry will be made into the use of borax in the interest of the public health?

I was not aware of the facts alleged in the first two paragraphs of the Question. I have not yet ascertained how far they are accurate, for the Local Government Board have no direct information on the matter. But I am considering the question of such an inquiry as that suggested by the honourable Member, and, if it should appear to be necessary or desirable in the interests of the public health, it will be my duty to direct it to be made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objection to grant the Return as to the prosecutions by the Inland Revenue Department, which stands on the Paper this day?

Yes, a Return will be given, subject to certain alterations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Returns for 1897 show an increase of secondary syphilis of 8.5 in admission rate per 1,000, of mortality of 17, of constantly sick of 1.18, as compared with previous year; and that the number invalided home was 662 in 1897 as against 479 in 1896, being an increase of 183, or 33 per cent., of venereal disease; whether the information in the hands of the War Office shows that this increased virulence is duo to the fact that patients do not undergo early treatment, but are removed from cantonments to spread disease elsewhere; and, if it is the practice to treat men suffering from constitutional syphilis in barracks instead of in hospital, which causes an apparent reduction in the number of admissions and renders the statistics misleading?

The figures relating to venereal disease are correctly given by my honourable and gallant Friend, but as regards admissions are applicable to troops in cantonments only. The information available does not admit of any definite conclusion being drawn as to the cause of the increased virulence of secondary syphilis in 1897 as compared with 1896. Treatment of soldiers in barracks, in certain stages of the disease, has doubtless caused some reduction in the admission rate, but as it has been practised for some years, it does not, I think, affect the comparison of one year with another.

On behalf of the honourable Member for East Cavan, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a letter by Edward Thompson, M.D., Omagh, on the question of trained nurses in relation to the late order of the Local Government Board; and whether, in view of the statements contained in that letter, the Local Government Board will reconsider its decision in regard to Miss Widdes, of Bailiebero', and other certified nurses similarly circumstanced?

My attention has been directed to the letter referred to. This letter contains several important mis-statements of facts, and inaccuracies. Dr. Thompson is surgeon to the Tyrone County Infirmary, which is believed to have a maximum of 62 beds, but no fever hospital attached. The Local Government Board do not consider it would be expedient to include small provincial hospitals in their list of recognised teaching institutions, and are not prepared to reconsider their decision in regard to Miss Widdes and other nurses similarly situated.

On behalf of the honourable Member for East Cavan I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, considering the present disturbed state of public feeling, and the likelihood of serious riots in Belfast, he will proclaim Mr. Trew's meetings and gatherings of a like nature in the neighbourhood of it. Clement's Church?

The police, as I have already stated, have full power to suppress meetings calculated to lead directly to a breach of the peace. No formal proclamation is necessary to this end, and no proclamation that might be issued would per se make an assemblage illegal if it would otherwise have been legal. The police at Belfast have been instructed to prevent disorder and obstruction of the thoroughfare, and this duty they will continue to discharge as well as to afford every necessary protection to person and property.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any announcement as to the names of the British representatives at the ap poaching 'Peace Conference at the Hague; and whether, having regard to the position already taken by this country for the promotion of arbitration, in the case of the Alabama, Behring Straits, and Venezuelan difficulties, and in the proposals made for the conclusion of an Anglo-American Treaty of Arbitration, Her Majesty's Government will take the initiative of laying before the Peace Conference a scheme for establishing a permanent system of inter national arbitration?

No announcement can be made as to the choice of the British Plenipotentiaries until the forma! invitation to the Conference has been received and the date of the meeting fixed. It would not be convenient to-give any undertaking as to proposals to be brought forward in the Conference. But Her Majesty's Government will be ready to use their best efforts to promote the principle of recourse to arbitration and mediation for the prevention of war.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received any report upon the recent lamentable occurrence at Manila, when a British subject, Mr. C. F. Simpson, was unfortunately killed; whether he is aware that Mr. Simpson's family was partially dependent upon him for support; and whether, under the circumstances, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to obtain some pecuniary-compensation for Mr. Simpson's family, by friendly representations to the Government of the United States?

There has not been time to receive a detailed report on the occurrence in question. It was reported' by telegraph on 27th February, and the-dispatches by mail cannot be expected before April. Without sufficient information it would be useless to make representations to the United States Government as regards compensation.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before making a demand for a coaling station and sphere of influence in China, the Italian Government consulted the British Government; and, if they did, what advice they received from the British Government?

The Italian Government informed Her Majesty's Government of their desire to obtain a coaling station and sphere of influence in China previous to addressing their application to the Chinese Government. The advice tendered to Italy by Her Majesty's Government was that the matter should be treated diplomatically, and that there should be no employment of force.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the statement that Dum-dum bullets have been served out to Russian troops serving in the neighbourhood of the Indian frontier?

We have no information with regard to the statement.

Cannot the right honourable Gentleman make inquiry?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man called Trew, with a number of his followers, on Monday, the 2nd of January, broke into a house in Skipton Street, Belfast, in which the Rev. William Peoples had been holding a service, threw the furniture out on the street and smashed it, and that Mr. Trew has openly boasted of this in a paper edited by him; and, if so, what action the Government intend to take in the matter?

On the 11th January last the Rev. Mr. Peoples reported that between the 1st and 3rd of that month a house in Skipton Street, used by him as a mission hall, had been broken into and his property injured. A head constable of police was at once sent to make inquiry into the matter, and was informed by Mr. Peoples that a fanlight, two small oil lamps, and a small seat had been broken. Another house in the same street, and used for similar purposes by the Methodist body, was also damaged at the same time. No suggestion was made by Mr. Peoples that the damage was done by Mr. Trew or his followers, and the police, who have made careful inquiries, have been unable to obtain a clue to the guilty persons. The police have no reason to believe that Mr. Trew, or his party, participated in the occurrence; in their opinion the damage was done by boys. It is a fact that the publication, to which reference is made in the Question, contained an allusion to the destruction of the articles mentioned, but I am not aware that Mr. Trew has boasted that he was the author or instigator of the offence.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the town inspector of Belfast called on the Protestant Bishop of Belfast, and advised him to remove the Reverend Mr. Peoples from St. Clement's Church?

It is the fact that the Commissioner of Police recently had an audience with the Bishop of Down and Connor. The proceedings at the interview were of a confidential nature, and I am unable, therefore, to make any statement as to what transpired on the occasion.

I must press the right honourable Gentleman for a definite answer, as this is a serious matter. Did the police official, representing the Government of Belfast, give this advice?

The interview was of a confidential character.

I shall endeavour to raise the question on the Vote on Account.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Minister at Pekin is pressing the claims of Italy on the Chinese Government?

Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin was instructed on the 25th February to support diplomatically the Italian request for a coaling station off the coast of Chekiang, and for a sphere of influence over the eastern slope of the province towards the sea. The Italian Government have in the last few days withdrawn their representative and requested the British Minister to represent them temporarily. No action has since been taken.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether dum-dum bullets were used in the Soudan Campaign?

No dum-dum bullets were used in the Soudan Campaign.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the serious loss to ratepayers where property is taken under Parliamentary powers by railways or other companies, and a long interval occurs before the said property conies under rating, the liability for which falls upon the new purchasers; and, whether he can advise such an amendment of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1815, as shall entitle local authorities to be recouped not only the poor rate, but the whole of the local rates, until the new works come into rating?

I can only refer my right honourable Friend to the reply I gave to a similar Question last week. My right honourable Friend is no doubt aware that a Royal Commission has investigated the whole question.

I suppose the right honourable Gentleman does admit there is a certain amount of grievance when the sale is compulsory?

On the face of it, yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the importance of a knowledge of Russian in the Indian Civil Service, he will cause that language to be added to the list as an optional subject for candidates in the open annual Civil Service competition?

The subjects in which the open competition for the Indian Civil Service is held are chosen with the view of testing the general ability of the candidates, and their proficiency in the studies which usually form part of the higher education of this country. The candidates thus selected have to pass a subsequent examination in languages and other subjects which are likely to be specially useful for work in India: and, if a knowledge of Russian were made an optional subject, it would have to be added at this stage, and an extra language so added would tend to oust some other language more generally useful. The honourable Member is probably aware that the study of Russian among Indian civilians is encouraged by the grant of special facilities and privileges.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of lascars employed respectively on board of the Peninsular and Oriental steamships "Himalaya," "Oriental," "Ceylon," and "Japan"; whether ho will state how many of the lascars are employed upon the deck department of each ship, and how many in the engine-room and stokehold departments, and how many are employed in the cook and stewards' departments: whether he can state the number of forecastles or berths set apart for the use of the lascars on each vessel; whether he can state how many cubic feet and how many superficial feet is provided in each of such forecastles or berths for each lascar, and the number of lascars located in such forecastles or berths; and whether the crew spaces are kept entirely free as required by Section 210 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, sub-section (2)?

The questions put by the honourable Member number over 40, and are of so complicated a nature and involve so many details, that I fear I cannot satisfactorily reply to them within the limits of an answer in the House, but I shall be happy to furnish the honourable Member with a Memorandum giving the particulars he desires, as far as it is possible to give them.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Elder, Dempster,and Co., shipowners, of Liverpool, make it a condition of employment on all their ships for sailors and firemen whom they employ that they must insure with the Norwich Union Life Assurance Society, of which Messrs. Elder, Dempster, and Co. are agents; whether he is aware that this firm compelled two firemen named R. Unsworth and Robert Leitch, who served on board their steamship "Calabar," which was wrecked on the 25th of October last, to pay 13s. 4d. each for insurance premium out of 17s. wages due to them at the time of the wreck, leaving these men only 3s. 8d. balance of their wages; and whether he is aware that in consequence of this these men were landed at Liverpool without clothes, and destitute?

I am informed by Messrs. Elder, Dempster, and Co. that for some years they have required their seamen and firemen to insure their lives. This they do in the interests of the men, and to encourage prudence on their part, having regard to the special risks of the African trade, and in many cases the practice has proved a great help to widows and children. The firm add that they do not insist upon insurance in the Norwich Union, many of their men insuring with other companies. As regards the specific cases mentioned in the Question, I am informed that, in Unsworth's case, his wages were £3 10s. per month, making £7 7s. for the voyage. His deductions were one month's advance (£3 10s.), life insurance 13s. 4d., and £3 paid his wife in cash, reducing his balance to 3s. 8d. In Leitch's case, I understand the wages were also £7 7s., being £3 10s. per month. The deductions were one month's advance (£3 10s.), postage 2d., and insurance 10s., leaving a balance of £3 6s. 10d.

Arising out of that Question, I wish to ask whether the insurance policies do not bear the name of Elder, Dempster, and Co., as agents for this particular company?

I know nothing of that. I am told that the firm did not insist on the insurances being effected with the Norwich Union Company.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state whether any communications passed between the Board of Trade and the India Office from the 9th of August 1898 up to and including the 9th of January 1899 with regard to the accom- modation of lascar seamen on British registered vessels?

No written communication has passed on this subject, but on behalf of the Board of Trade inquiry was made orally, and after reference to the Government of India, I informed the Board that the matter remains under the present law—that is, under the Indian Merchant Shipping Acts of 1857 and 1876.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state under what circumstances the sum of £13,870 has been placed on this year's Estimates, Class 5, Vote 3, Sub-head D (Grants-in-aid of Local Revenues), to make provision, amongst other matters, for the purpose of assisting the Governments of Tobago, Grenada, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Antigua, Granada, Nevis, Dominica, Barbados, and British Guiana, in the experimental cultivation of sugar cane?

This sum has been placed on the Estimates to give effect to the recommendations of the West Indian Royal Commission in connection with the establishment of an Agricultural Department in the West Indies for the purposes stated in the Estimate, which is only partially quoted by the honourable Member.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the War Office states that the character and sanitary surroundings of the buildings at Dingwall, in which a portion of the staff of the Ross-shire Militia are now quartered, are not such as to make it desirable to extend the accommodation, will he consider the expediency of erecting new buildings in or near the town such as will accommodate the whole of the staff?

As detached Militia head-quarters are undesirable, and as there is accommodation at Fort George for recruits for the 3rd Battalion of the Seaforth Highlanders during their drill on enlistment, it Mould not be right to incur the heavy tost of building barracks at Dingwall.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state under what circumstances the late commander of the Fishery Board cruiser "Brenda" was appointed; and was the appointment advertised as vacant, and was the commander selected from several candidates; if so, from how many, and by whom was the selection made?

I am informed by the Fishery Board that all the vacancies referred to by the honourable Member were duly advertised in the newspapers. There were many applications, which were carefully considered by a Committee of the Board, and their recommendations were afterwards confirmed by the whole Board at their regular meeting.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that about nine years ago the Portuguese Government took possession of the Delagoa Bay Railway; and that, by the consent of both parties, the matter was referred to certain Swiss arbiters in Berne who over two years ago ceased to take evidence, but have now determined to take evidence which they had previously decided not to take; and whether, in the interests of arbitration, he will communicate with the arbiters with the view of having the questions at issue settled without further delay?

Her Majesty's Government are aware that certain inquiries with regard to the value of land at Lorenco Marques are being made for the information of the arbiters. They cannot, however—as has already been stated in answers to previous Questions in the House on this subject—interfere in a matter which is under arbitration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the conflict which has arisen between the Supreme Court of Ceylon and the Agents of the Governor in regard to the working of the Governor's Ordinance, No. 1, of 1897, will he, pending the consideration of the whole question by the Colonial Office, give instructions that the police forces of the Crown shall not be employed for the purpose of evicting people by force from lands to which they claim ownership?

There has been no conflict between the Supreme Court and the Government Agents in Ceylon. I am awaiting the receipt of a Report from the Governor, and pending its receipt I have not seen any reason to give special instructions in the matter.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to a case recently decided by Sheriff Fyfe at Lanark, and reported in the "Glasgow Herald" of 1st instant, as follows: A girl, the servant of an adjoining fanner, was sent by her employer gratuitously to assist his neighbour at a day's threshing by a portable steam mill. Contrary to orders, she moved from her place, was entangled in the machinery, and badly injured; and whether, seeing that Sheriff Fyfe held that a travelling threshing mill was a factory under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and gave damages and maintenance, the Government will be prepared to bring in a Bill to define a factory and a threshing mill?

My honourable Friend invites me to criticise the decision of the Sheriff. I have no power to review his judgment, even if I disagreed with it; and I have always, as he is aware, refused to give purely legal opinions in answer to Questions in this House. I am afraid I cannot depart from my usual practice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give the House information as to the agreement between the Powers regarding China?

No general agreement between the Powers interested in China is in contemplation. I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can now state when and where the plans of the new public offices will be exhibited for the inspection of Members; and whether the Government have given consideration to the suggestion which was urged upon them last year that the remainder of the Great George Street site should be acquired?

The designs for the new public offices will be placed for the inspection of honourable Members in the Tea Room to-morrow. The plans as prepared for the new buildings on the Great George Street site show them extending back to the Park, and these plans will be laid in their entirety before the House, the portion which cannot at present be proceeded with being distinctly coloured. Having regard to the heavy extra outlay which the extension of the scheme would involve, the Government have not felt themselves to be in a position to apply for the additional funds, and they propose, therefore, to carry out only so much of the building as will cover the site now acquired.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether Mr. P. M. Leonard, after being for 22 years county court judge of Circuit NO. 51, and having attained the age of 75 years, was on the 12th March 1896 invited to tender his resignation, and was informed that in the event of its acceptance the question of pension would be considered by the Lord Chancellor; whether, in consequence of the aforesaid invitation, Mr. Leonard did resign on the 16th March 1896; whether the question of his pension has been so considered; and, has the same been granted; and, if not, on what grounds?

It is not possible within the limits of an answer to a Question to deal with the facts of this case. After full consideration, the Lord Chancellor came to the conclusion that it was not possible to recommend the grant of a pension to Mr. Leonard.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the growing practice of special juries in cases which last over one day applying, with the consent of the presiding judge, to the parties to the action in course of trial before them for increased fees; and whether a common jury is entitled to make similar application for some remuneration for their services?

I am not aware that the practice to which the honourable Member refers has increased, though I know that in long cases it has been customary for the parties to agree that an increased fee shall be allowed. This can only be done by the consent of both parties. There is no precedent for a similar allowance being made in a common jury case.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether any communications have passed between the Board of Trade and the Law Officers of the Crown from the 9th of August 1898 to the 9th January 1899, with regard to the state of the law as to the accommodation of lascar seamen on board British registered vessels?

The matter referred to in the honourable Member's Question has been submitted by the Board of Trade to the Law Officers of the Crown, and is now under their consideration.

That is not an answer to my Question. I wished to know if any correspondence had passed between the dates named.

No written communications have passed during the period in question, but certain oral communications took place. I am sorry I missed the point of the honourable Member's Question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the growing practice of blocking Motions for the Adjournment of the House to discuss definite matters of urgent public importance: and whether he will consider the expediency of leaving such Motions to the absolute discretion of the Speaker and the House, with only such limitations on their authority as are already imposed by the terms of Rule 17?

In answer to my honourable Friend I have to say that no evidence has come before me that would induce me to believe that the practice of blocking Motions for Adjournment has increased.

May I ask whether my right honourable Friend remembers an episode when I put down a Motion of the character—

Order, Order! I think the right honourable Gentleman should give notice of any specific Question of that kind.

I was only asking my right honourable Friend whether he would refresh his memory.

It has escaped my memory at this moment, but I shall be glad to refresh it if my right honourable Friend desires.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a Notice now on the Paper respecting the desirability of enabling Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence through illness of the Chairman of Ways and Means, to appoint a temporary Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall for the time being only have the same duties and powers as the Chairman of Ways and Means; and whether, with a view to preventing great public inconvenience and loss of time in the unavoidable absence through illness at the same time of Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means, he is prepared at an early date to propose some Amendment to the Standing Orders on the lines indicated in the Notice in question?

Undoubtedly the present rules are of such a kind that difficulties may arise in connection with the matter alluded to by my honourable Friend. I think the subject is worthy of consideration, and that consideration the Government is prepared to give to it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to introduce legislation for the purpose of imposing countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar, in order to carry out the same policy in Great Britain and Ireland as has been declared to be that of the Government with regard to India, namely, to prevent a vast indigenous trade in Britain, based on enterprise and industry, from being undermined by the subsidised products of foreign countries?

Without discussing the question of countervailing duties in this country, I must point out to the honourable Gentleman that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India in his answer referred to the fact that there was in India a great indigenous production of sugar, which under ordinary and natural conditions of trade might largely increase. As the honourable Gentleman knows, there is no indigenous production of sugar in this country.

was-understood to ask if butter was not an indigenous product?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the Secretary of State will obtain the opinion of counsel as to whether the drafting of soldiers from one Cavalry regiment to another, without their consent, and in time of peace, be legal, or whether it be in contravention of the meaning and intention of section 83 of the Army Act of 1881; and whether, in view of the inability of the private soldier actually serving to enforce his rights against the War Office, the Secretary of State will receive statement of the case of the soldier or submission to counsel before any final opinion be given. I beg also at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether in the event of it being established that the drafting of Cavalry soldiers from one regiment to another in time of peace and against their will be legal, and that the statutory protection given by section 83 of the Army Act of 1881 can be legally taken away from 17,000 men serving in the Cavalry by means of a Royal Warrant, the War Office can in a similar manner declare the whole of the Infantry of the Line to be a corps within the meaning of the Act, and thereby deprive 136,973 men serving in the Infantry of the right conferred on them by Parliament; and if such, a step can be lawfully taken in respect of the Cavalry and not in respect of the Infantry, what is the circumstance which differentiates the two cases?

The Secretary of State for War sees no occasion for taking counsel's opinion upon this point, as to which legal advice was taken in 1893. Under section 83 of the Army Act, it is laid down that—

"A soldier of the Regular Forces when once appointed to a corps shall serve in that corps for the period of his Army service."

But in section 190 (15) a corps is defined as being—

"Any such military body, whether known as a territorial regiment or by any other name, as may be from time to time declared by Royal Warrant to be a corps for the purpose of this Act."

The Household Cavalry, the Dragoons, the Lancers, and the Hussars were respectively declared to be such corps under the Royal Warrant of February 1893, and there is, therefore, no doubt as to the legality of transfers within those corps, nor do such transfers involve the removal of any statutory protection. In the attestation paper signed by every recruit who enters the Cavalry, it is distinctly stated that he is engaged for service with the corps of Dragoons, Lancers, or Hussars, as the case may be. Every recruit is, however, now permitted to select the regiment in which he wishes to serve, and if he is accepted for that regiment he will be allowed to remain with it unless urgent reasons require his transfer to another regiment. This, too, is set out in the attestation paper. There is, so far as I am aware, nothing in the Army Act to debar the Secretary of State from grouping into corps a larger number of battalions than constitute the present regiments of Infantry. But the fact that the Cavalry has been subdivided into four corps does not justify the inference that it would be a reasonable exercise of the powers conferred by the Act to declare the whole of the Infantry of the Line to be a corps.

Was not the section of the Act of 1881 speci- fically passed to secure linked battalions?

I believe the answer to that is in the negative, but it is a legal point on which I have no right to give an opinion. If the honourable Member wishes an answer perhaps he will put a Question down.

The point cannot be tested by an action at law because soldiers are under the Mutiny Act; therefore a legal decision is necessary.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to take the Telegraphs (Telephonic Communication, etc.) Bill to-night?

No, we shall not take the Bill to-night.

Is there any chance of the Bill being taken before Easter?

No; I think there is no chance of that Bill coming on before Easter.

May I ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to proceed with the Automatic Railway Couplings Bill, or if he proposes to appoint a Committee to investigate the matter?

I think it more convenient that I should say what I have to say on this subject when the Bill is reached without explaining matters now.

I explained to the House on a previous occasion how it was necessary, in order to meet the appeal that has been made to mo that the Second Reading of the London Municipal Bill should not be thrust too near the Easter holidays, that we should begin the discussion to-morrow. I think the House acceded to that suggestion, and, therefore, without any further remark, I move the Motion that stands in my name.

I think that the right honourable Gentleman has been very sparing in his arguments in support of his Resolution, and I think that the reason why he has been very sparing in his arguments is because there are very few arguments that can be adduced in support of it. Now, I am opposed to the method adopted by the right honourable Gentleman in continually making Motions of this sort for using private Members' time. I oppose it tonight, not only because I have a Motion upon the Paper, but upon other general grounds. With regard to my Motion ever having a fair chance of coming on, I knew perfectly well when I put it down upon the Paper a few weeks ago that its chance of life was somewhat precarious. I know that the right honourable Gentleman is one of the severest enemies of private Members' Motions, and of their being brought forward at all, but I will admit this, that he serves out equal measures to all Motions, whether important or unimportant, whether large or small, those coming from this side of the House and those coming from that—no matter from which side of the House they come. I strongly oppose the Motion of the right honourable Gentleman, not because of my own Motion, but upon general grounds. Now, what is the reason, and is there any reason, for this course being taken? Why should to-morrow be taken? Is there any possible reason, in the urgency of public business at the present moment, why to-morrow night should be taken away from the private Members? The right honourable Gentleman has not had the excuse this evening which he has had so often in the past—that the private Members have not availed themselves of the opportunities given to them. We have only had three nights for the purposes of our discussions, and the right honourable Gentleman cannot in any way deny that important Motions have been brought forward, from his own side of the House and from that of his opponents, and there has not been any time wasted, and there has been no count out. He cannot allege that there has been even the slightest waste of time on the part of the private Members. The only time that has been wasted was wasted last Friday week, not by the private Members, but by the right honourable Gentleman himself-—his excuse being there was some mistake on the part of the printer!

Does the honourable Member imply that I used the printer as a shield?

I say that certainly the responsibility was on the right honourable Gentleman himself.

It is nothing of the kind.

The right honourable Gentleman is responsible for the business in this House, and if half a sitting is thrown away, it is the right honourable Gentleman himself who is responsible for it. I could never have imagined that he would endeavour to shirk the responsibility which must remain upon his shoulders. To-night he has no such question in his mind, and I wish to know what possible reason is there for urgency in this matter? If he put down his Motion for financial reasons and Supply I could have understood his doing so, but he has not done that; he has put down the Motion in perfectly general terms, and has told us to-night that it is in order to bring forward the London Municipal Bill. Now, is there really any reason why this London Government Bill should be taken to-morrow at the expense of the private Members' time? I say that no such reason can be given. Wo had it fixed, first of all, for next Monday, and then for next Thursday, and now it is fixed for Tuesday, and we are to have one or two days for it. Now, whatever time is necessary for this London Government Bill, I say that that time ought to be found out of Government time, and that the time of private Members ought not to be sacrificed at the hands and by the Motions of the Government. The right honourable Gentleman has shown us that the only important business to be done in this House, in his idea, is the passing of Government Bills and Measures. That is a very limited view to take of the duties of this House and the Members, and our constituents who send us here send us with the idea that we shall, at least, have some opportunity of bringing forward some discussions on very important matters in this House in which they and we take considerable interest. And because the right honourable Gentleman has, I consider, been acting improperly, and is ruthlessly trespassing on the rights of the private Members, I shall certainly give this Motion the greatest opposition in my power.

May I ask my right honourable Friend whether, if he takes to-morrow for Government business, he will, after Easter, give us some equivalent time? It seems rather hard upon us if he does not, as there are several interesting Motions put down upon the Paper for to-morrow for private-Members.

I desire to support my honourable Friend who spoke in opposition to this Motion, and who took exception to it from the standpoint that the exigencies of Parliamentary business did not require it. As a London Member, I should like to take a different point. The only explanation that the right honourable Gentleman gives us is that to-morrow is a very desirable day to take this London Government Bill. I think it is a most undesirable day to take it. I think it is being hurried through with undue haste. Two or three weeks ago the right honourable Gentleman said that he was most anxious to hear the voice of London upon this matter; but he gives no time for the voice of London to be heard upon it—no time whatever. The Bill is of very far-reaching importance, affecting as it does 42 municipal bodies in the metropolis, and it is only right that some time should be given to those bodies to consider a Bill of this character, which affects their welfare so much. Already 17 of those bodies have