I move that the Second Reading be postponed to 1st June.

We have received no notice that these Bills were to go off, and I must say that great inconvenience arises from honourable Members being brought down here to consider Private Bills (by Order), and that then they should be put off. I have an objection to their going off, and I move that the Amendment be taken, now.

The honourable Member cannot move an Amendment to do that. The only thing the honourable Member can do is to vote against the postponement of the Second Reading.

I wish to say that as the Bill is put down by Order it ought to be proceeded with, but the difficulty that the House is in is that the honourable Member who has undertaken to move its rejection is not here. His notice for rejection is on the Paper and he is not here, an arrangement having been come to between the parties. Of course, I have nothing to say to that arrangement, but I must object to the postponement of a Bill in this manner. The Bill is down "by Order," and to postpone it in this way is a most inconvenient course to everybody here. Of course, if the House had been informed of the proposed postponement I should not object to it.

I entirely admit the inconvenience of postponing this Bill from time to time, but it will be remembered, I think, that with the complete approval of the House I took the course when this Bill was first down of proposing its postponement from that time to a later date in the hope that the Royal Commission, which is now sitting on the Water question, would have indicated the solution which it desired to make; and, Sir, I have on more than one occasion taken the same course with respect to this Bill for ex- actly the same reason, and I, not unnaturally, postponed it until a late date because I, with the rest of the House, had heard rumours afloat that the Commission might report at that time—I believed, by the present occasion. The evidence to be given before the Commission was finished a considerable time ago, and the Commission might reasonably have been expected to report by this time. I am not finding fault with the Commission, but I mean that outsiders might reasonably have expected it to have made its report by this time. But finding it has not done so, and hearing, at any rate, that the Commission will report by the Whitsuntide holidays, and thinking that that is a very reasonable expectation, I have taken the course which has been proposed by the honourable Gentleman who has proposed this date of asking the House to postpone the Hill to the date which he has indicated. The reason of that date is a very simple one, and the reason against taking the Hill now is equally a very simple one. I have no desire to divide the House on this London Water question when the obvious reply to my position would be that a Commission is just about to report, and, therefore, this matter cannot be decided upon its merits. I think, with proper deference to the House and to the Commission, that I ought to maintain that position. I propose to put it off now till immediately after the Whitsuntide holidays. I think honourable Members will admit that it is the first possible day, and if it be not, I shall be happy to accept any other that is suggested, but I think it is the first possible day after the Whitsuntide holidays. I wish to point out to honourable Gentlemen that this is not such a great postponement in the case of the present Bill as it might be in the case of an ordinary Bill, because it is postponed in the hope that the Commission may have reported favourably—may have reported by that time. Now, if the Commission reports favourably to purchase, which I would hope, at any rate, or in whichever way the Commission reports, it will be observed that a great portion of time, which will be occupied in discussing such a Bill in this House, would take place upon the issue of—Should the purchase take place or not? If there is the Report of the Royal Commission, after the attitude which all sides of the House have taken upon that question, suppose the Commission reports in favour of purchase, it will scarcely need to be argued. There would be, therefore, merely a question of clauses and the other portions of the Bill. If this Bill had, without the Commission sitting at all, gone on in the ordinary course, and been started at the ordinary time, by the Whitsuntide holidays—and I am speaking with considerable experience as Chairman of Committees—we would not really have got through the main issue of whether purchase should be permitted or not. So postponing it, as I do, till after Whitsuntide in the hope that the Commission will have reported, I believe the Bill will be practically under the same circumstances and in the same condition relatively to the Committee as it would be if this interval of delay had not taken place. I would really appeal to the House not to cut off the last opportunity that there may be for passing this Bill, because if this Bill be dealt with just now, to-day, it is quite obvious that the House will hold, and very fairly argue, if it is dealt with today, that the Commission has not reported. But if the Commission should report, and we should be able to deal with it on the 1st June, we have still a very reasonable opportunity of passing the Bill into law. And, Sir, allow me to point out why I desire to have that opportunity and ask the House to support me in getting that opportunity. It is that the sands are running out. There are a large number of Bills which have been passed for various companies—for every company, in fact—within the last five years except the Kent Company. Every company has obtained a Bill giving powers amounting to nearly 4½ millions of money, and with this year to six millions of money; and to a large amount of that is affixed the condition that it shall not affect the value of the companies if purchase takes place within a certain time. Sessions are, therefore, of extreme importance in this matter, and my hope is, if the Commission should report, as I hope it might report, we should be able to save a Session in this important matter, otherwise a very large and serious charge will be thrown upon the people of London, contrary, as I venture to suppose, to the wishes of Com- mittees of Parliament which have inserted that clause suspending the addition to the companies' value for a period of years in each case. These are the reasons both why I did postpone the Bill and why I do not ask the House to take it just now, and why I hope that the House will not extinguish this possibility. The Bills of the companies have gone on this year, and they are before a Committee, and if I am rightly informed, the Committee has suggested to them to wait a little before they proceed till they see what the Royal Commissioners' Report may be. I think we are all desirous of seeing that, and I think I have shown good reason why we should be left the last chance we can have in this matter. I have taken every opportunity of letting the House know of the postponement by putting it in the public prints, and in other ways I have tried to meet the convenience of the House; but the circumstances are extremely peculiar, and that being so, though the procedure may be somewhat inconvenient—I admit that it is inconvenient, but I say the inconvenience is not one of the creation of the promoters of this Bill—I think it is a reasonable inconvenience under the circumstances of the case. I do not attempt to argue anything about the Bill. I hope I have confined myself solely to the matter of the delay, and under these circumstances I hope the House may be able to support the postponement.

I think my honourable Friend the Member for West Cumberland was perfectly justified in raising the protest which he has this afternoon. It certainly is very inconvenient to those who are not what I think I may call "in the know" to come down time after time expecting Bills to come on, and then to find that the Bill does not come on, or that by some arrangement between the parties the Bill is dropped or postponed to some future date. I think it must be admitted that that is rather an inconvenient practice.

Yes.

But there are occasions, it seems to me, when that cannot be avoided. I will certainly do what I can to inform my hon- ourable Friend, if he will apply to my office, whenever I know myself that a Bill is not coming on which appears on the Papers for a particular day. I have sometimes opportunities of knowing. With regard to this particular case, I think the honourable Member who has just addressed the House has certainly made out a case for the postponement, and that the circumstances which he has narrated, and which certainly I need not go over again, distinguish this Bill from the case of very many other Bills. The main principle of the Bill depends to a great extent upon what the Commission may report. It is quite true if the Commission reported in one direction or the other, so a large number of Members of this House would be influenced either in one direction or the other on the Second Reading of these Bills. Therefore, I do not know on the whole that we lose very much time in postponing this Bill. But I think it should be distinctly understood that on the 1st June we really should see the last of this Bill, and either pass it or reject it. Of course, it is possible, I quite conceive, that by the 1st June the Commission shall not then have reported, and therefore the honourable Member opposite would be able to make exactly the same speech again as he has made this afternoon as to the desirability of postponement, and his arguments would be just as cogent. But then I think it would really be an improper thing, having reached within two months, for we should be then within a period a little over two months of the end of the Session; and I think by that time, on the 1st of June, we ought really to have disposed of the Second Reading of such an important Bill as this, because it must be remembered there are other parties besides the promoters of this Bill who are much interested. The water companies have been kept month after month in a state of doubt as to whether the House means to assent to the Second Reading of this Bill or not. I may point out to my honourable Friend that one good reason for not proceeding with the Bill to-day is the absence of the opponents. Both the honourable Members whose names are down as opposing this Bill certainly do not expect it to come on, and neither of them is present. I think, under the circumstances, it would certainly be very inadvisable that the House should pro- ceed this afternoon with the consideration of this Measure, but, on the other hand, I think if the Bill is postponed to the 1st June it should be with the distinct understanding that the House disposes of the Bill then, either by passing it or rejecting it. On that understanding I certainly support the honourable Member in postponing it to the 1st of June.

I am sure I shall have the indulgence of the House in order to say that I shall have no choice but to withdraw my opposition to the postponement of the Bill to-day. At the same time, in doing so, I hope that the practice which has grown up, and which causes not only considerable inconvenience, but a large amount of expense, which must fall on the ratepayers and public companies, will not be repeated; and I should like to make the suggestion that in future, when private business is put down by Order for a certain day, it should be taken on that day. I beg to withdraw.

Can we receive the assurance that the Bill, under these circumstances, will not be postponed beyond the 1st of June? It is an extreme inconvenience to those who are interested to the extent of £40,000,000 in this matter to have it hanging over their heads. Can we not receive an assurance from my honourable Friend who represents the London County Council (Mr. Stuart) that they will deal with the matter in one way or the other on the 1st of June?

There is only one word I should like to add. The honourable Member (Mr. Boulnois) has just asked an assurance to be given that the matter shall not be postponed after the 1st of June, and I think what the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Lowther) stated is absolutely the fact, that we shall be put as qua water companies to great expense, and kept in a great state of suspense, unless we are given an assurance that the matter shall be settled, for good or bad, once for all, on the 1st June There is another matter I wish to raise on the speech of the honourable Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart). He stated, what is perfectly true, that the Committee sitting on the Bill of the East London Water Company had postponed their sittings because they seem to have expressed the opinion that we should not proceed with our Bill pending the Report of the Royal Commission. What I wish to impress upon the House is that we are in no way parties to that postponement. I myself look upon it, I was going to say, with consternation, but I will not use so strong a word, but I feel very strongly on this keeping back of the Bill pending the Report of the Royal Commission. I would not allow it to be thought for a moment that the East London Water Company are in any way a party to that postponement.

I feel it will be quite obvious to the House generally why I do not pledge myself to the suggestion that has been made, but it will be quite plain that the arguments I have used to-day for taking this Bill on the 1st of June and the possibility of doing it will be evanescent in their character. I cannot repeat those arguments with effect to the House, because the obvious answer is that we have not time to do it. But if I were to give a distinct pledge at the present moment that on the 1st of June I would take this Bill, whatever happened, it will be obvious that I might be landed in this difficulty—the Commissioners' Report might be out on that day. I say it is a very probable thing, for it is just after the Whitsuntide holidays, and I might be forced to take this Bill on the 1st of June on the pledge that I made to take it on that day. But I may say that I obviously cannot ask the House to continue to postpone the Bill in this way, and I think, not pledging myself, for the reasons I have given, in this matter, and pointing out clearly that I should not be able to give good reasons for a further postponement, with that statement I think the honourable Gentlemen on the other side who have asked the question might fairly be satisfied.

As Chairman of the Committee on the East London Water Bill I would just say a word. I am not going into the merits of the question before the Committee, but the honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite has hardly made a correct statement of what occurred in that Committee. The Committee expressed their view of the difficulties they were in with regard to the question of dealing with the Bill in the face of the Commission sitting, and at the request of the counsel for the company we adjourned until Monday week, and I reported that to the House in due course.

Not at the request of my company; after the expression of the opinion of the Committee it was adjourned.

The Committee had not adjourned till after the request of the counsel for the Company.

offered to postpone till 1st June the Motion—

"That Standing Order 194 be suspended in the case of the London Water (Finance) Bill."

After the discussion that has taken place I think I should state at once that I should have to inform the House that this Bill was not properly before them. It is in breach of Standing Order 194, and that will not be cured by the Motion that Standing Order 194 be suspended. It is not a proper course to introduce this Bill as a Private Bill, which by the Standing Order cannot be introduced as a Private Bill, and then to say that it is properly introduced, and that on the Motion that it be read a second time the Standing Order be suspended. The proper course is to bring it in as a Public Bill, if the Standing Order so requires it, and, having brought it in as a Public Bill, ask the House to take any course the honourable Member may think fit to take to carry out the object of the Bill; but I should be obliged to tell the House when it came on for Second Reading that I must decline to put it.

On the point of Order I think I follow you, Sir; understanding that the Bill cannot be introduced as a Private Bill, and therefore it cannot be proceeded with so far as the Standing Order has been suspended for the purpose. But if the Standing Order has been suspended, then the Bill either introduced as a Public Bill or in some other way with which you are familiar, in accordance with the forms of the House, it can then be proceeded with, and could be introduced owing to the suspension of the Standing Order. The Standing Order is first to be suspended, and then the Bill introduced and proceeded with.

If there were an Order made by the House for the Private Bill, suspending the Standing Order, then the Bill proposed to be brought in might be introduced, but that must be done before any steps are taken. That could not apply to this Bill.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the reason for the delay in sending to the clerks of unions, now the clerks of boards of guardians, the usual forms to be perfected before the payment of Parliamentary grants towards medical and educational purposes usually payable in February; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to deprive the several Poor Law Boards in Ireland of the grant payable in February, 1899, and which accrued between September, 1898, and February, 1899, before the new arrangements under the Local Government Board Act had come into operation?

At the request of my right honourable Friend I will answer this Question. There is, needless to say, no foundation for the suggestion in the second paragraph. The forms for a return of the medical and educational expenditure incurred by boards of guardians during the half year ended 25th of March were sent out yesterday. There has been no delay in the dispatch of these forms. Recoupment will be made when the required particulars have been furnished by the several unions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is in accordance with the regulations of the Royal Irish Constabulary for a constable serving, but not permanently residing in a county, to bid for houses or farms which are set up for auction in such county; whether he is aware that a constable, M'Whirtor, has recently bid for and purchased a house in Cashel, county Tipperary, offering a larger amount for the property than that tendered by the occupant of the premises; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter?

The Constabulary Regulations do not prohibit a member of the force from purchasing a house or farm, though if he purchased any such property in the county in which he was serving, the Regulations would not permit him to remain in that county. The constable named in the Question (Constable M'Whirtor) recently bid for a house at Cashel and was declared the purchaser. The occupant of the house did not, I am informed, make any bid for the premises.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give to the House any explanations of the continued retardation in the execution of Naval works; and what progress is being made at Gibraltar, as compared with the promises made to the House on the Naval Works Hill of 1895, 1896 and 1897, as well as in the Session of 1898?

It is not possible to give a full reply to the inquiries of the right, honourable Baronet within the limits of an Answer to a Question. For the explanation of the difference between estimates and expenditure in the year mentioned in the Question, I must refer the right honourable Gentleman to my Statement on the Estimates last year. The progress made at Gibraltar during the last financial year is described in the First Lord's Statement, circulated with the Estimates for the current year. It has fully come up to our expectations, and I see no reason to doubt that the contractors will finish the work within the contract time. The dates for completion are given in the Statement.

On behalf of Mr. Field, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have in contemplation the supplying of new rifles to the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if so, whether any special circumstances have caused such a policy to be desirable; whether he can state the precise difference between the rifle at present in use and that proposed to be substituted therefor; and in what respect is the new rifle supposed to be of more practical utility in Ireland than that at present in use; whether he can state how often during the past 10 years have the Royal Irish Constabulary been obliged to use their rifles in the discharge of their duty, and on what occasions; and what is the estimated cost of the new rifles, and from what fund is it proposed to be defrayed?

It is proposed to supply Martini-Henry carbines to the constabulary in lieu of the Snider carbines with which the force is now armed. The Snider carbines have been in use for nearly 40 years, and many of these weapons have become unfitted for use owing to incrustations of rust and other defects, which render them a source of danger to the men. The Martini-Henry carbine is a modern weapon, and is much less liable to get out of order than the Snider carbine. During the past 10 years the constabulary have been obliged to use their rifles in the discharge of their duties on 14 occasions—namely, twice at evictions, when the police and sheriff's officers were fired at, seven times on the occasion of moonlighting outrages, three times during affrays between water bailiffs and poachers, once during a riot, and once when a land agent and his police escort were fired at. The new carbine will be supplied by the War Department free of charge.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will grant a Return showing the number of certificates of exemption from vaccination allowed since the Vaccination Act of 1898 came into operation?

A Return on the subject of certificate exemption from vaccination has been issued to-day. It relates to all certificates of conscientious objections delivered to vaccination officers up to the 31st December last. It is too early to call for a further Return with any public advantage at present.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how the provisions of section 2, sub-section (5), of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898, permitting the use of electrical communications with lighthouses for private messages at reasonable charges are to be made operative; and whether it is intended to issue a scale of charges for the transmission of such messages; and, if so, when the publication of the scale may be looked for?

As the honourable Member is aware, electrical communication with light stations can only be made available for private messages, so far as they may be compatible with the efficiency and safety of the lighthouse service. This involves many considerations and communication with other departments. The matter is receiving careful attention, but I am unable to give any particulars at present.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state what course he intends to pursue with regard to the Regulation of Railways Bill?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can yet state definitely the course he proposes to take in reference to the Regulation of Railways Bill; and, in the event of his final decision being unfavourable to the Measure, will he withdraw the Bill at such an hour as will afford honourable Members an opportunity of expressing their sense of the circumstances that have led to this abandonment?

I am afraid I must abandon the hope of proceeding with the Regulation of Railways Bill this Session, but a Royal Commission will be at once appointed to make inquiry into all cases of accidents, fatal or non-fatal, to servants of railway companies and truck owners, with the view to adopting means to reduce the number of such accidents. The inquiry will not only embrace such matters as are dealt with in the Bill, but the adoption of any other safety appliances.

May I ask whether the right honourable Gentleman did not, in his reply to Mr. Maddison, promise to endeavour to pass the Bill through a Second Reading and refer it to a Select Committee?

Order, Order! That is raising a discussion on an answer given.

I should like to know whether the non-contentious clauses could not be passed?

Is it not a fact that according to the Return in the year 1898, 500 railway servants were killed?

Order, order!

I beg to ask whether the action of the Government is not an attempt to burke this question in the House?

Order, order! That is a complaint which cannot be made in this House.

Will the reference to the Royal Commission include all classes of accidents to railway servants, not to shunters only?

It will. At one time I had hoped to embody the so called non-contentious clauses in the Bill, but I have received so many indications that some of these clauses are contentious, and, having regard to the time at the disposal of the House, it will not be possible to pass it. As there is to be a Royal Commission, I believe it will not be disagreeable to have these clauses, as well as others, referred to.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education how many pupil teachers have been presented during the last three years at the scholarship examinations; how many have failed; and in how many cases have the Education Department used the powers under Articles 34 and 64 of the Code to disqualify any managers or any teachers from being entrusted with the training of pupil teachers?

Pupil teachers entering for the Queen's scholarship examinations are not distinguished in the departmental records from other candidates, and the numbers cannot at once be given. One set of managers have within the last three years been disqualified under Article 34, and inquiries have been made, and warnings given, in many other cases. There has within the same period been one case of suspension of the right to superintend pupil teachers under the note to Article 64.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the law of Scotland as to the tenure of office by Poor Law medical officers differs from that of England; and whether he would consent to lay upon the Table a Return showing the instances in which since the coming into operation of the Local Government (Scotland) Act of 1894, Poor Law medical officers have been dismissed or compelled to resign in consequence of a too conscientious performance of their duties?

The reply to the first paragraph of the honourable Member's Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Secretary for Scotland considers that it would not be possible to prepare a Return in the form proposed by the honourable Member.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the present total liabilities of the State in respect of deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks and the Trustee Savings Banks; whether these deposits are liable to withdrawal at call or at a short notice; and, if at a short notice, at what notice; what assets are held by the Savings Banks to meet their liabilities, and in what form; are the assets held in the shape of securities valued at the price at which those securities were bought, or are they valued at the market price of the day; what is the amount o. that part of the securities thus held that consists of stock which, as he states in his Treasury Minute of 11th April 1899, must in ordinary course be purchasable at par in or before 1923; and has any provision been made to provide for the constant diminution in value of these securities as thus contemplated as between their present market price and the par price at which he suggests that they must be purchasable in 1923?

I informed the honourable Member for Islington, in reply to a Question a 7th March last, that the total liability of the State to depositors in the Saving's Banks at the last date to which the accounts were made up was £173,780,000 in round figures. The legal notice of withdrawal from the Post Office Savings Banks is 10 days; in the Trustee Savings Banks it varies with the rules of the banks. The honourable Member will find a statement of the assets, valued at market price, in the Report of the Postmaster-General and Return No. 64 of 1899; they include £102,697,000 Consols. The total assets, valued at par, show, as I stated on 7th March, a surplus over the liabilities.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is still the case, as he stated on 16th April 1896, that the State actually incurs a loss by receiving Savings Bank deposits, and that the Government loses in order to enable depositors, who belong to quite another class than the working classes, to obtain a larger interest, for their money than they can obtain from the ordinary banks; whether he has carried out his undertaking, given on the same day, to carefully bear in mind this matter as well as his own suggestion that before long it might, become necessary for him to propose some alteration in the existing law, which might have the effect of preventing the abuse of the Savings Bank system; whether he has, accordingly carefully borne this matter in mind during the past three years; and whether he now intends to propose either any such alteration in the law as he then, suggested, or any other alteration in this respect?

I do not think that the first paragraph of the honourable Member's Question quite fairly represents either what I said in 1896 or the facts of the case; but I may say that, in considering the matter since that time, I have found reason to believe that the proportion of depositors in the Savings Banks who could not properly be considered to belong to the working classes, is smaller than I then supposed. If the honourable Member desires to know my views on the subject and the reason why I have not made any proposal with regard to it, he will find them stated in discussions that have since taken place on the Vote for making good the deficiency in the income of the Savings Banks—the last occasion was, I think, in February of the present year.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accepting the invitation of H.I.M. the Tsar to the Conference to consider the possibility of limiting armaments, Her Majesty's Government have followed the course adopted by Lord Derby in 1874 by instructing its delegate not to entertain in any shape, directly or indirectly, anything relating to maritime operations or naval warfare, and not to be led into any discussion which may, however remotely, affect those operations or that warfare; whether he can now state what conditions, if any, any been made by Her Majesty's Government in accepting the invitation to the Conference; and what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to secure this country against the adoption of any conclusions which might be calculated to impair the future development or the present exercise of the full naval power of Great Britain in time of war?

I fear I can only state, as I have already done in reply to a Question on the subject of the Peace Conference, that it is not expedient to make any public announcement as to the instructions to be given to the British delegates.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he has any objection to state the terms of reference submitted to the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the reorganisation of the War Office in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the late Under Secretary?

The Committee has been appointed to consider the numbers and constitution of the clerical establishment of the War Office, and to inquire how far it may be possible, by a letter distribution and devolution of work and by the amalgamation of subdivisions, to effect reductions in the present clerical staff.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the delay in proceeding with the construction of the railway from the Zambezi River to Lake Nyassa, the route for which was surveyed some time ago at the instance of Her Majesty's Government, is causing great inconvenience and alarm to the white inhabitants of the British Central African Protectorate; and whether, as the fate of the country may be said to depend upon this railway, he can give some indication as to the intentions of the Government in regard to commencing the work?

Some delay has occurred in furnishing the details of the survey which was undertaken on behalf of the Government. They have been reported on by the Crown agents, and the question of the railway will shortly be considered by Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any official inquiry has recently been made into the working of the Industrial schools in Ireland; what was the nature of the inquiry; whether the manager of the schools received any intimation that such an inquiry was being held; and whether any official connected with the administration of industrial schools in England visited Dublin in connection with this inquiry; and, if so, with what object?

An inquiry held in October and November, 1897, into a variety of matters connected with the administration and practice of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Office in Ireland. The Committee appointed to conduct the inquiry consisted of Mr. Holmes, the Treasury Remembrancer, Mr. Fagan, the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland, and Mr. Robertson, Assistant-Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Great Britain. The inquiry was an inter-departmental one, and no intimation of the holding of the inquiry was given to the managers of the schools.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is in a position to state if the Government has now decided to give any guarantee of any portion of the railway proposed by Mr. Cecil Rhodes to connect the Cape with Cairo, or of any other proposed new railway in Africa?

Before the right honourable Gentleman answers the question, may I ask whether his attention has been directed to a leader in the "Times" of this morning, and whether the statement there made with regard to the intentions of the Government with regard to guaranteeing a portion of the railway is correct?

I have not seen the article, and therefore cannot give an answer to that Question. We have no proposal now before us for a guarantee of any new railway in Africa. The proposal before us relates solely to the existing Bechuanaland Railway from Mafeking to Bulawayo, and communications are still proceeding with regard to it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence of two years' imprisonment recently passed, under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, upon Satyanath Mahapatra by the Deputy Commissioner of Singbhum, who himself instituted the prosecution; whether he is aware that the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur has, on being appealed to, set aside the conviction and directed a re-trial of the accused, on the grounds that the maximum punishment under the section referred to was one year's imprisonment; that the accused had not been given an opportunity of claiming a transfer of his case to another court; and that such a case should be tried by some competent magistrate other than the Deputy Commissioner; and whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?

I have received no information on the subject of the case to which the honourable Member's Question refers, nor have I observed any reference to it in the public Press. It would appear from the terms of the Question that if any judicial error was committed, it was set right on appeal, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the British mails to New York were dispatched from Liverpool on 12th instant by the White Star cattle ship "Cymric," and only arrived in New York on the 22nd, three days after the Continental mails, which left Southampton also on the 12th, and which arrived in New York on the 19th; that the Cunard steamship "Umbria," and another liner, which sailed three days after the "Cymric," reached New York the same day as she did; whether the Continental mails viâ Southampton do, on the average, arrive in New York in advance of the British mails sent from Liverpool the same day; and whether, as British business is by these arrangements seriously handicapped against Continentals, any alterations can be made in them?

The Postmaster-General has not yet received any information from the New York Post Office as to the times at which the vessels referred to arrived at New York; but, according to reports in the newspapers, the "Kaiser Friedrich," conveying mails embarked at Southampton on the 12th instant, arrived at New York on the 19th, between two and three days earlier than the British packet "Cymric," which carried mails embarked at Queenstown on the 13th. The reports also show that the Cunard packet "Umbria," which left Queenstown on the 16th instant, and the American packet "New York," which left Southampton on the 15th, arrived at New York on the same day as the "Cymric." The White Star Company, however, state that their steamer arrived off Fire Island at 1 a.m. on the 22nd—not at 10 a.m. as reported—so that the correspondence carried by her should have been delivered the same morning, whereas that carried by the two other vessels, which arrived in the afternoon would not be delivered in New York until the following Monday morning. Although the "Cymric" carried cattle from New York to this country, that fact does not affect her speed; and from this country to New York she is an ordinary passenger and cargo steamer and does not carry any cattle. She is not, however, regularly employed in the mail service, but had to be used on this occasion in place of the "Germanic," which sank in New York Harbour in February, and which, although refloated, it is not yet again fit for the mail and passenger service. She is, however, expected to resume her place shortly. It is the fact that the foreign packets starting from Southampton on the same days as the British packets leave Liverpool (i.e., the day before they leave Queenstown) more frequently reach New York before than after the British packets; but the correspondence carried from Queenstown includes practically letters posted a day later than that carried from Southampton. It should be remembered that, on the exceptional occasions on which a comparatively slow steamer has to be employed in the British service, the senders of the letters can, by using a special superscription, have them forwarded by another steamer.

Is it not the fact that the mails from Southampton arrive in New York two or three days before the mails starting from Liverpool?

I think I should be unwise to add anything to the reply I have just given.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Governments of the Cape, Natal, the Orange Free State, and the Transvaal have expressed disapproval of the recent introduction of native men and women into this country for the show called "Savage South Africa, in London," as injurious to themselves and the South African population, and whether the High Commissioner has conveyed to the Colonial Office his concurrence in that disapproval; and whether the correspondence between the High Commissioner and the Capo Government can be laid before the House?

The answer to both questions in the first part of the Question is Yes, and I may add that I entirely concur in their opinions. I do not propose to lay the correspondence before the House, but the honourable Member can see it at the Colonial Office if he desires to do so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at a recent meeting of the Committee of Management of the Queen's Jubilee Fund in Dublin the police pensioners, who are subscribers to the fund, had not proper representation; and if at future meetings of this Committee, at least one police pensioner from each county will be allowed to be present to take part in the deliberations?

The rules governing the Queen's Jubilee Fund of the Royal Irish Constabulary do not provide for the representation of pensioners on the Cmmittee of Management. Consequently pensioners were not represented at the meeting referred to. The fund is not a public fund, and the question of the representation of pensioners on the committee is one for determination by that body and the Board of Headquarters Officers.

I beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether, in view of the new issue of seven-day newspapers, amounting at present to an initial issue of one-half to a million, and the consequent Sunday employment of thousands of hands in their distribution, he will receive a deputation on the subject, so that the complete facts of the case may be laid before him, more especially as information has already been given to the Government on one side of the question by one of the largest of the Sunday newspapers?

I am quite in sympathy with my honourable Friend in deprecating any unnecessary increase of Sunday labour. In this case the facts appear to be in dispute. I do not know what action he suggests that the Government should take—nor, in fact, can the Government take any action. I shall be ready, however, to receive a small deputation, if my honourable Friend thinks he can supply me with reliable information on a subject which is of considerable public interest.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty will he explain why armourers and blacksmiths are not eligible in accordance with the. Queen's regulations to become engine-room artificers; and whether a blacksmith serving in the Royal Navy, and borne on the books, of Her Majesty's ships at Devon-port, has recently been examined with, a view to being appointed as an acting engine-room artificer; if so, will he state what was the result of the examination?

I shall be glad if the honourable Member will postpone this question.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the unanimous support given by Colonial Governments, through their Agents General, to the suggestion of the United Empire Trade League that wine produced in and imported from British Colonies and Dependencies should be exempt from the new duty, he will yield to the general desire and abstain from levying the new duty upon wine produced in and imported from the British Empire?

The Agents General of the Colonies have placed their views on this subject before me. The two Colonies practically interested in the increase of the wine duties appear to be Victoria and South Australia. I am considering the statements that were made as to the special circumstances of the wine trade of these Colonies and the mode in which it is affected by the rates of duty proposed. But that trade has grown up under a long-established system of equal duties which, even when increased, will be very small as compared with the Customs duty on wine levied by the Colonies named. The return to differential duties would be a change of great importance in our fiscal system, and even if the principle of such a change were accepted I do not see why the benefit of it should be extended to Colonies which levy a highly-protective tariff on the manufactures of the United Kingdom.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give an undertaking that the Irish Tithe Rent-Charge Bill will not be introduced till after Whitsuntide, and that it will not be introduced under the 10 minutes' rule?

I am afraid I must decline to give the undertaking asked for.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will grant the Return of Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales, with the number of scholars provided for and in attendance, and the particulars of income and expenditure, similar to the Return presented in 1894 (C. 7529) which has been placed on the Paper?

The Return asked for is a very costly one, and the particulars required, except as regards income and expenditure, are included in the annual Report of the Committee of the Council. But the propriety of granting the Return will be carefully considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is proposed to introduce a Bill this Session to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which inquired into the subject of Compulsory Shop Clubs?

I beg to refer the honourable Member to an answer given by me to a similar Question a week ago. I cannot see my way to introduce such a Bill this Session.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Société d'Etude des Chemins de Fer en Chine, otherwise the Franco-Belgian Syndicate, has, in the event of the contract with the American syndicate for the Canton-Han-kau line falling to the ground, a preferential right to obtain the said contract; whether Sir Claude Macdonald in October last requested the Tsung-li-Yamen to give the first refusal of the said contract to the Anglo-Eastern syndicate in the event of the agreement concluded with the American syndicate coming to an end from any cause; whether he can say how it is the Anglo-Eastern syndicate failed to obtain the right which they applied for, and why it was given to the Franco-Belgian syndicate; and whether such a proceeding is in accordance with the claims put forward by the Government on behalf of Great Britain in the Yang-tsze region?

have no information that the Belgian syndicate has acquired any reversionary rights in connection with the Han-kau-Canton line. Sir C. Macdonald requested the Chinese Government to negotiate first with the Anglo-Eastern syndicate in the event of the abandonment from any cause of the American agreement, to which the Yamen replied that in such event they would consider and deal with the matter.

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he is aware that the Franco-Belgian syndicate stated in their prospectus that they had obtained that privilege?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, between July 1898 and March 1899, 33 soldiers have been sent from India to the Pasteur Institute at Paris to be treated for hydrophobia; and, if so, at what cost to the State and with what result; and whether he will obtain the figures showing how many cases of death from hydrophobia have been reported in the Indian Army during the last ten years previous to these dates?

The reply to the first part of the honourable Member's Question is "Yes." The payments in this country on this account were about £10 a man, and the results have been, so far as I am aware, very satisfactory. I have no information as to the total payments in India. In the 10 years from 1888 to 1897 there were 23 deaths of British soldiers in India from hydrophobia.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Buisson baths have been established at various centres in India for the sudorific treatment of persons bitten by dogs supposed to be suffering from rabies; and whether a trial has been given to these baths by the Indian medical authorities; if so, with what result?

I am aware that Buisson baths have been established in India; but the opinions of the Indian medical authorities, so far as they have been received, are not favourable as to the efficacy of this form of treatment of hydrophobia.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it will be possible for bounty giving States, under the promised exemption of British goods from the Indian Sugar Duties Act, to render the Act inoperative by sending to this country goods intended for the Indian market, and trans-shipping them at London or Southampton into British vessels bound for Bombay?

My honourable Friend is mistaken in supposing that any exemption of British goods from the operation of the Indian Sugar Duties Act has been promised. That Act will be administered, necessarily, by the Government of India, who must deal with cases as they arise, by the light of experience and according to circumstances. I stated on the 18th, and again on 20th April, that, in view of the comparatively small amount of the export of confectionery from this country to India, and of the difficulty of estimating the quantity of sugar in a given quantity of confectionery, I did not think it likely that the Government of India would in this case insist upon their rights. But it is certain that they will grant no exemption which would have the effect described in my honourable Friend's Question, and it is equally certain that there would be no difficulty whatever in framing regulations which would effectively prevent any wholesale evasion of the duty as is suggested.

Can the noble Lord say how the Customs House authorities in India are to distinguish between goods sent in British ships in regard to the places where they come from?

Yes, sir. I believe it is the practice to state on the packages the original port of shipment.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the statement contained in the report of Major-General Hutton to the Canadian Government to the effect that a proposal has been, made by the Imperial Government that recruiting for the 100th Regiment (Royal Canadians) shall be open to British subjects in the Dominion of Canada, and that complete arrangements for carrying this out have been prepared; whether this statement was made by authority of the War Office; what steps, if any, have actually been taken in the direction indicated; and whether the early withdrawal from Canada of the 100th Regiment (Royal Canadians) is taken with a view of recruiting the regiment?

The Secretary of State has not yet received Major-General Button's Report, and the War Office has not authorised any such statement as that referred to in the Question. We are in communication with the Dominion Government as to recruiting in Canada, but the arrangements, which I am glad to say are progressing satisfactorily, are not sufficiently advanced for any statement to be made. The early withdrawal of the 1st Battalion of the Leinster Regiment from Canada will be in the ordinary course of reliefs.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a person named Wright, who, after having been dismissed from the post office at Leeds, was offered the alternative of resignation; and whether the complaint against him being of a character to justify the offer of acceptance of his resignation, some allowance could be made to him in lieu of the pension he had prone so far towards attaining, having served in the Department of the Post Office for a period of 24 years?

The case of Wright has been under consideration on several occasions since dismissal, but the Postmaster-General sees no reason to alter the view originally taken, namely, that Wright's conduct had been such as to render him unfit for further employment in the public service. In the circumstances it would be out of the Postmaster-General's power to give the certificate of good conduct, without which by law no pension can be given to a public servant.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, when he proposes to introduce his Bill restricting the sale of oysters from polluted layings?

A Bill is ready for introduction, and I propose that it should be introduced in the House of Lords.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the. Exchequer whether, when land tax has been paid by persons whose incomes do not exceed £160 a year by mistake, owing to ignorance of the law, the Board of Inland Revenue refuse to allow repayment of the amount of land tax so paid; and, if this is so, whether he will consider the matter and allow repayment of land tax to be claimed?

The power of the Board of Inland Revenue to grant relief from the land tax under section 12 of the Finance Act of 1898 is distinctly limited by the terms of the: section to cases where the claim to exemption or abatement of income-tax is established before the land tax is paid. There is no provision in the section for repayment of land tax, and the introduction of a, system for allowing claims for such repayment would largely increase the labour and the cost of applying the concession. If any persons have omitted to claim the benefit of the section during the past year they should take care to apply in good time in future years.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any money out of the aid grant under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, has been allotted to Voluntary schools in the following London parishes—St. George's, Hanover Square, St. Peter's, Eaton Square, and St. Michael's, Chester Square; and, if so, at what rate per scholar in average attendance?

In the financial year 1897–98 aid grants were paid at the following rates:—To St. George's, Hanover Square (Hanover Branch) National School, at 5s. per scholar in average attendance; to St. George's, Hanover Square, United National School, at 3s. 4d.; to Pimlico, St. Michael's National School, at 3s. 6¾d.; to Pimlico, St. Peter's National School, at 3s. 6d. In the financial year 1898–99 aid grants were paid to the two former school s at 6s. 1½d. and 3s. 4d. respectively, while no aid grant was paid either of the two latter schools.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the decision of the Post Office, that in cases where an officer has performed the duty of a superior officer continuously for more than nine months lie shall, during the continuance of such employment, receive the difference betwen his own pay and the minimum of the class in which he is doing substitute duty, provided that such allowance shall in no case exceed £20 a year, is being carried out; will he explain why two clerks at Manchester performed assistant superintendents' duties for 12 months, but were refused the minimum salary of an assistant superintendent for the three months in excess of the time.

The decision is being carried out. In the case of the two clerks at Manchester to which the honourable Member referred, it was under a. misapprehension that the decision was not acted upon. The matter is now being put right.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education what action has been taken by the Education Department with reference to the complaint of Mr. Edward Francis, of Flint, who has represented to the Department that his son John Oswald Francis was removed to a lower standard owing to non-payment for school stationery; whether the Department has taken any, and, if so, what action on the representation of Mr. R. T. Price that between the 17th and 20th February last his child, Maud Price, aged 9, was sent home twice with a message to bring to school the next morning money to pay for school stationery, and that on returning the following morning without the money she was caned; what action has been taken by the Department in the case of Mr. Edward Shaw, of 39 Mount Street, Flint, who has complained to the Department that his children have been sent home from school for money to pay for school stationery, and when the money was not sent the children were caned; whether in any, and, if so, which of these cases a charge of school stationery could be legally made; and whether such charge could be legally levied or not, do the Department sanction the punishment of children because their parents have not provided them with money to pay for school stationery?

The Committee of the Council are assured by the managers that John Oswald Francis was not removed to a lower standard for the caused alleged in the Question, but failed to obtain promotion owing to his low attendance and irregular attendance consequent upon employment in a grocer's shop. The Committee of the Council are also informed that Maud Price was absent from school from February 8th to February 21st, and therefore could not have been caned on the date in question. They are also informed that the children of Mr. Shaw were not caned for the cause alleged; but inquiry in the Maud Price and Shaw cases is still proceeding. The charge for stationery was legal in all the cases named, but was not compulsory. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the correspondent of the "Times" newspaper has been assaulted by Boers at Johannesburg because he has sent truthful accounts of the grievances of the Uitlauders to this country; and whether the Government propose to take any action in the matter?

The editor of the Johannesburg "Star" appears to have been assaulted on account of an article in that paper on the subject of the International Peace Conference. His assailant, who was a private individual, has been fined £20, and, as at present revised, I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Tsar has recently abrogated the free constitution of Finland in order to largely increase the Finnish quota of the Russian army?

A manifesto was issued by the Emperor of Russia in February last reserving for his decision the final specification of legislative questions common to the whole empire while leaving in force the existing rules for the publication in Finland of laws of local interest. I can express no opinion as to the object of the manifesto.

Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that it is proposed to increase the Finnish quota to the Russian army by 500 per cent.?

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the present First Lord of the Admiralty, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated, on 21st April 1887, that he had made a calculation that if the fixed charge of £26,000,000 per year for the National Debt as then proposed were steadily persevered with, we should redeem £600,000,000 at par in about 52 years, and £700,000,000 in 56 years, so that by the year 1943 the whole of the then present National Debt would be extinguished; and whether he has now made any similar calculation to show the effect, which will be attained in this respect if the fixed charge as now proposed of £23,000,000 per year be persevered with, and to show at what date under this diminished charge the present National Debt would be extinguished?

The high premium at which Consols now stand and the increased uncertainty as to their value in the future would make any such calculation as that to which the honourable Member refers so purely hypothetical at the present time as to be valueless. I believe that if matters remained as at present a fixed Debt charge of £23,000,000 a year would discharge the Debt in about 60 years—a term which Parliament has sanctioned in the case of municipalities. But I attach no importance to hypothetical calculations.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the disposal of the ancient ornaments has reported yet?

I propose to present the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the disposal of the ancient Irish ornaments to-day.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will undertake to give time for a discussion on the Resolution relative to University education in Ireland which stands on the Notice Paper?

No, Sir; I can make no promise.

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he intends to take any steps this Session to give practical effect to the views that he has so frequently expressed in his public speeches upon this Question?

May I supplement the Question by asking the right honourable Gentleman whether he has taken into consideration the fact that it is only by giving time for the discussion of this Resolution that the opinion of the House upon this Question can be taken this Session?

That, of course, is a self-evident proposition. With regard to the Question I do not think it is a matter that can be dealt with by question and answer across the floor of the House.

Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that opinion in Ireland, with the exception of that of a small number of Orangemen in Ulster—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to appoint the Committee on Municipal Trading?

Negotiations for the appointment of the Committee on Municipal Trading are in progress; but I cannot mention any precise date on which it will be appointed.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can make a general statement as to the time when Irish Business will be taken, and also further information as regards the Charitable Loans Bill, the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill, and the Bill for the establishment of a Board of Agriculture in Ireland, and the date upon which any of them will be introduced?

One of the Bills has already-been introduced.

Yes, but we do not know with regard to the Second Reading.

I do not propose to take the Second Reading of any of these Bills before Whitsuntide. As regards Irish Supply, I do not intend to take it before Whitsuntide either, unless the honourable Gentleman and others sitting in that part of the House express the wish that it should be taken. I rather imagine that it would be more convenient to the Irish Members that it should be taken after Whitsuntide.

Can the right honourable Gentleman give us some assurance that Irish business will be taken together at some part of the Session, or that these Bills will not be proceeded with at any stage before Whitsuntide? It would be inconvenient to Irish Members—it would be perfectly unfair to Irish Members—that they should not know when Irish business is to be taken.

The honourable Gentleman wilt see that I have already given him a negative answer with regard to the whole time between this and Whitsuntide.

As to the First Reading.

As to the First Reading. If any Bill is introduced it will be, of course, under the Ten Minutes' Rule, and any long discussion would, under those circumstances, be impossible.

That is what we object to.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what business he proposes to take next week?

I propose to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Monday next. Any remaining Government time will be devoted to the London Government Bill.

Does the Government propose to give Members an opportunity for discussing the questions raised under the Railway Regulation Bill, especially having regard to the fact that Members have given up a former opportunity on the understanding that the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee?

We cannot proceed with the Couplings Bill next week.