I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the approximate total number of officers and blue-jackets of the Royal Navy the naval barracks built, building, or proposed under Naval Works Bill to be built will accommodate; and what is the approximate total number of officers and men of the Royal Marine forces the Marine barracks built, building, or proposed under the Naval Works Bill to be built will accommodate.

The approximate total number of officers and men of the Royal Navy to be accommodated in the Naval Barracks, built, building, or proposed to be built, is 14,517. The corresponding number in the case of the Royal Marines is 7,433.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he can say when the contract time for the completion of the works on Keyham Dockyard extension expires; and what amount of work in proportion to the whole work has up to this time been done.

The contract time expires 30th June, 1903. Up to the present time rather more than one-fourth of the permanent works under the contract have been completed, in addition to the temporary works, including the coffer dams, stagings, railways, and workshops, etc.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that civilian labour is being generally displaced in Irish military barracks, and particularly in Cork, in the building trades, and replaced by military labour; whether the average wage of the district is paid to the military men employed on permanent work in the Cork barracks, as is required by the fair wages resolution of the House of Commons; and whether it is intended to continue the employment of military labour in place of the regular qualified tradesmen of Cork and other places.

Incidental repairs of barracks are, under the Queen's Regulations, entrusted as far as practicable to the artificers in regiments. The payments to them amount to from 2 to 3 per cent, of the whole sum expended on these services. They receive the rates of pay laid down in the Royal Warrant. But, since they also have board, lodging, clothes, and other privileges, it is not easy to compare their emoluments with the earnings of civil life. It is intended to continue the present practice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the condemnation by the Committee of the Peace Conference of bullets constructed to expand on impact, and the failure of Mark No. IV. ammunition at Bisley, the War Office will issue instructions that Mark No. IV. shall not be used in South Africa, and will take immediate steps to supply the troops in South Africa with other ammunition.

The hon. Member appears to be mixing up two distinct questions in respect of Mark IV. ammunition. As I have already stated to the House, no action will be taken in consequence of any discussion that may have taken place at the Peace Conference, until we have received the final report of our representative. But in consequence of the recent enquiry into Mark IV. ammunition, it is intended to use that ammunition at foreign stations for practice purposes only.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, as Sir David Chalmers' Report upon the disturbances in the hinterland of Sierra Leone has been for some time in the Colonial Office, he will consent to lay it upon the Table of the House before the Vote for that office comes on for discussion.

As I stated the other day, the Papers were laid in the week before last, and the printers will be urged to use all possible expedition in order that the Papers may be in the hands of Members before the Colonial Office Vote comes on.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, inasmuch as the Governor stated at the closing of the Newfoundland Legislature on the 19th July that no legislation had been asked for or enacted regarding the modus vivendi which expires this year, he has considered the situation which will arise in the absence of any Act of the Newfoundland Legislative enforcing the modus vivendi, and whether Her Majesty's Government propose in the absence of any such Act to take themselves, and without the assent of the colony, any coercive measures to enforce it upon the colonists; whether Her Majesty's Government have communicated or propose to communicate to the Government of Newfoundland the Report of the Royal Commission; and, if not, on what grounds; and whether he proposes before Parliament separates to make any statement with reference to the questions pending between France and this country in regard to Newfoundland.

The whole question of the fishery on the so-called Treaty Shore of Newfoundland is under the consideration of the Government in connection with the Report of the Royal Commission. I may observe that there will be time to obtain the necessary colonial legislation before the commencement of the next fishing season. The Report has not yet been communicated to the Government of Newfoundland. I do not expect to be in a position to make any statement before the close of the session.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the fact that the prohibition of the importation of spirits by the Niger Company into Northern Nigeria has been effective for the purpose, and has tended to the better government of the territory, he will continue the existing system of direct prohibition of importation; and whether he will maintain and, if possible, extend the Company's regulations by which no one is permitted to sell spirits unless he has obtained a licence costing at least £100.

I have already stated in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Western Denbighshire that the exclusion of spirits from Northern Nigeria will be maintained. The best means of controlling the sale of spirits in those parts of the territories now under the administration of the Royal Niger Company into which their importation is allowed will be carefully considered.

Is it not the case that, while the importation of spirits is now prohibited by legislation in Northern Nigeria, in future its regulation will depend on the Administration?

I am not aware whether it is prohibited by legislation, but the hon. Member may rest assured that the prohibition will be effective.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that the Governor of German South-West Africa has issued a very stringent edict prohibiting the extension of credit to natives; whether this edict and the introduction of the German Gewerbsteuer, or tax upon commerce, are specially directed against British Indian traders in the Gorman African possessions; whether he is aware that, in consequence of the imposition of the Gewerbsteuer, two Hindu firms have been recently driven to withdraw their operations from German South-West Africa; and whether he intends to move Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to represent to the German Government the injury inflicted upon a large number of British subjects engaged in trade in German possessions.

No information has reached Her Majesty's Government on the subject. Inquiries will be made in Berlin as to whether anything is known of this edict.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the case of Daniel Scott, a British sailor, imprisoned for seven months without trial at Bilbao, Spain, concerning whom inquiry was made on 6th July; and if Her Majesty's Government have been able to obtain his release.

The formalities in connection with the trial of Daniel Scott have not yet been completed, but he was released on bail on the 15th instant.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of proposing to the Signatory Powers joint action by the representatives of those Powers at the Sublime Porte, in accordance with Articles 61 and 62 of the Berlin Treaty, with the object of securing the release from incarceration in St. James's Monastery, Jerusalem, of the Armenian Archbishop and the bishops exiled from their sees in Asia Minor, all of whom are ecclesiastics of irreproachable character, and have committed no crimes under Turkish or other law.

I explained the circumstances attending the detention at Jerusalem of these prelates in my answer to the hon. Member's question on the 15th ultimo. I can only add that Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the facts of the case call for the issue of any special instructions to Her Majesty's Ambassador.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the Porte has liquidated the claims of subjects of Austria-Hungary and the United States for damage done to their property in Turkey; and whether, in these circumstances, the Secretary of State will con- sider the advisability of discontinuing verbal and written applications to the Porte, and will adopt other methods for securing payment, without further delay, of the claims of British merchants whose houses and shops were looted in 1896, and also of the pilgrims (British subjects) who were wounded and robbed by brigands in Turkish Arabia in the years 1892, 1893, 1895, 1896, and 1897.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. In reply to the second paragraph, I can assure the hon. Member that the claims mentioned have continued to occupy the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government, and are at the present moment the subject of negotiations with the Turkish Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Reports on the subject of University Education in foreign countries have been received; and, if so, when they will be distributed to Members.

Some of the materials have been received, but the papers are not yet complete for presentation to Parliament.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in the new lighthouse by the Fastnet, near Cape Clear, it is intended to provide oil gas; whether it is intended to use coal gas in the new lighthouse at Blackhead; whether it is admitted that the light of either oil or coal gas is superior to that of electric light in a fog; and whether, seeing that the largest lighthouse in the world is the gas lighthouse on Tory Island on the north-west coast of Ireland, it is intended that that type of light should in future be used in all lighthouses under the control of the Irish Lights Board.

It is intended to provide a powerful biform oil light at Fastnet and a mineral oil light at Blackhead. I am not prepared to express an opinion on the relative merits of oil or coal gas and electric light. I understand that the Commissioners of Irish Lights do not contemplate extending (at any rate, at present) the Tory Island type of light to all lighthouses under their control.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Irish Lights Commissioners has been called to the unhealthy and dangerous position of the lighthouse-keeper at the Chaine Monument, Larne Harbour; whether he is aware that the person in charge thereof for the time being cannot get any rest or sleep there; if he will state the height at which the keeper has to work this light and the length and breadth of space he has for his accommodation; and whether inspection and inquiry will be made in the interest of the health of the men in charge.

I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights, (a) that they are satisfied that the accommodation for the light keeper at the Chaine Memorial Tower, Larne Harbour, is not in any way unhealthy or dangerous; (b) that the keeper is not permitted to sleep whilst on watch, but can sit down if he wishes to do so; (c) that the height of the tower is about ninety feet, while the light-room is twelve feet high, and has a diameter of six feet four inches. It does not appear to me that any further inquiry is necessary.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the effect of Clause 13 of the Finance Act, 1899, in the operations of provincial stockbrokers who do not belong to any stock exchange, compelling them when buying stock for a client through a stockbroker to pay for the stamp a secon time; and whether he can do anything to relieve them from this hardship.

If the hon. Member will refer to the reply which I gave to a question asked by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness on the 14th instant, he will see that I have been considering whether it will be possible to devise a plan by which payment of the double duty may be avoided. I hope to be able in a few days to arrive at a decision in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would grant a Return showing the number of children working underground during the year ending 31st December last (or ending on any more convenient date) who were during that year between twelve and fourteen years of age; such Return to show also the educational standard passed by these children and the number of hours per week worked by them.

The statutory Returns made by owners of mines do not show separately the number of children between the ages of twelve and fourteen employed below ground, or give the other particulars mentioned in the question, so that the information for which the hon. Member asks could only be obtained by applying separately to every owner. As experience shows that complete returns can never be obtained except in cases where they are required by law, I am afraid that I do not see my way to granting the Return. I may, however, point out that the hours of labour for the children in question are definitely limited by the Acts, and it may be said generally that no boy is employed underground until he has passed the local standard of total exemption from school attendance.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the display of obscene pictures by means of the penny-in-the-slot machines on the shores of Southport, Blackpool, and several of the other popular seaside resorts; whether he is aware that these machines have been suppressed at Rhyl; and whether he could see his way to urge upon the various local authorities the necessity for suppressing these indecent exhibitions.

My attention had not been called to this matter, but I am aware that some of the pictures exhibited in mutoscopes on Rhyl sands were withdrawn, objection having been taken to them on the score of indecency. At Blackpool the police were instructed to visit and inspect the machines in question, but found nothing which would justify criminal proceedings. I have no reason to suppose that at other places the local authorities are backward in enforcing the law against obscene exhibitions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now communicated further with the London School Board and with the Education Department on the subject of making provision for displaced occupiers of houses acquired by the School Board in Bethnal Green; and whether he can inform the House of the result of such communications.

May I at the same time ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in accordance with his promise given on the 30th June, he has inquired into the allegation that the London School Board, by acquiring what is known as the Wood Street site in Bethnal Green in two portions, each consisting of less than twenty houses, evaded the obligation to re-house the persons displaced; can he now state the result of his inquiries; is he aware that, by the Educational Department Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill now before Parliament, the London School Board is seeking powers to acquire nineteen more houses in Bethnal Green; and what steps does he propose to take to prevent what appears to be an evasion of the law.

I am in communication with the Education Department and the London School Board on the subject referred to in the first paragraph of the question, but I have at present no information to impart. As regards the point raised in the third paragraph, I appreciate its importance, and I am considering, in consultation with the authorities concerned, whether there should not be inserted in this Bill pro- visions with special reference to the re-housing of persons displaced, or liable to be displaced, in Bethnal Green under the various powers taken by the School Board in recent years.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has approved a scheme submitted by the South-Eastern Railway Company for re-housing persons displaced under the powers of the company's Act of 1897, which scheme involves the demolition of some thirty-four or more houses inhabited by the labouring class near Abbey Street, Bermondsey; and, if so, will he say what steps he has taken, in view of the overcrowded condition of this district, to compel the South-Eastern Railway Company to provide accommodation elsewhere during rebuilding upon the site for the persons (some 300 in number) who will be thus turned out of their homes.

I have approved a re-housing scheme under the South-Eastern Railway Company's Act of 1897, and in order to carry it out some houses occupied by the labouring class near Abbey Street have to be demolished. These houses were not acquired under the Act, and there is no statutory duty upon the company to re-house their inhabitants. But I may say that the displacement of these persons has been one of the circumstances which I have carefully considered in settling the scheme. I believe that the scheme is calculated to do the best that circumstances will permit for the labouring class in this particular neighbourhood. It is a complicated question which I cannot go into now, but if the hon. Member cares to call at the Home Office some officer of that Department will be happy to explain the whole matter to him.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a Report of St. Olave's District Board of Works, from which it appears that there were hundreds of applicants, including forty policemen, for a four-roomed house in the district which recently became vacant; and whether he will very carefully consider the utter insufficiency of the existing house accommodation in Southwark when he is called upon to exercise his discretion in sanctioning schemes for the re-housing of persons displaced under statutory powers in that part of London.

The fact referred to by the hon. Member is but one instance of the sort of conditions which I have always to consider when any question of re-housing is before me. I need hardly say that, if a re-housing scheme in Southwark is submitted to me, I shall, as always in the past, take into consideration the state of house accommodation in the district affected.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what rules are laid down with regard to the granting or signing of certificates dispensing with the use of anæsthetics in vivisection experiments; whether there is any limit to the number of such certificates which one person may sign, or to the number of experiments upon different animals which may be performed by the person holding one such certificate; whether the Home Office authorises or allows certificates to be signed by the operator himself on his own behalf; whether Dr. Poore, whilst holding the office of inspector, has signed certificates in his capacity of professor of medical jurisprudence in University College, London; and whether there is any regulation requiring that the dates shall be specified for the performance of experiments under the various certificates dispensing with the use of anæsthetics, in order that the Home Office inspector may have knowledge of the time and place at which any experiment on living animals is to be performed.

All the conditions which are attached to the signing of the certificates mentioned in the first paragraph of the question are laid down by law, viz., Sections 11 and 12 of the Act of 1876. There is no limit to the number of certificates which an authorised person may sign; and the law places no limit on the number of experiments which may be performed under one certificate but it is the practice of the Home Office, in addition to the fact that all certificates expire on the 31st December of the year in which they are granted, to limit the number, and this is always done in the case of serious experiments in which the use of anæsthetics is wholly or partly dispensed with. The possibility indicated in the third paragraph would be directly contrary to the proviso in Section 11 of the Act. The answers to the last two paragraphs are in the negative.

Does Professor Poore sign the certificates?

I am informed that it is not the case that he does so.

Then how is it that the statement appears in the Report of the Inspector? Will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire as to its accuracy?

Yes. I was only aware five minutes ago that the Report Seemed to indicate this, and, of course, I have not had time to inquire.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state in how many prisons, local and convict, the treadmill and crank are now used in the discipline of such respective prisons; and whether it is the intention of Prison Commissioners to supersede these methods of punishment in all prisons in England, in view of the fact that no such instruments are employed in Ireland, Scotland, or any other civilised country; and, if so, can he state when their use will finally be dispensed with in English prisons.

Tread-wheels are used in thirty-three, and cranks in eleven, local prisons, but solely for productive purposes. Cranks have never been used as a form of labour in the four convict prisons. Occasionally in the past they have been made use of as a means of punishment for prison offences, but are now very rarely resorted to. I cannot at present make any promise as to the discontinuance of these forms of hard labour in the prisons where they exist.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many years has the convict. Mrs. Maybrick now served in penal servitude; and whether, seeing that her conduct in prison has been uniformly good since conviction, and that no extra punishments have been incurred by her through insubordination, he will take this case into his consideration with the object of recommending the gracious exercise of the Royal clemency in her behalf.

Mrs. Maybrick will have served ten years on the 6th of next month. I am not able to hold out any hope of exceptional treatment in this case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread and almost universal sympathy in America for Mrs. Maybrick?

I have heard of no reasons for exceptional treatment or clemency being shown in this case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case brought before the Pontypridd Police Court, in which the magistrates refused to grant the application of the Reverend William Griffiths, Ph.D., for a certificate of exemption under the Conscience Clause of the Vaccination Act, although Dr. Griffiths had tendered such evidence as entitled him to the exemption provided by the Conscience Clause of the Vaccination Act; and whether he will call upon the magistrates of the Pontypridd Police Court to furnish Dr. Griffiths with a certificate of exemption under the Conscience Clause of the Vaccination Act.

I am informed that it is the practice of the court in question to require some reason to be given on oath in support of a statement of conscientious objection; and that the magistrates, after hearing Dr. Griffiths, were not satisfied that he had a conscientious belief within the meaning of the Act. The question whether or not the magistrates exceeded their jurisdiction in requiring the applicant to give reasons is one of law which, I am advised, might be raised and determined in a superior court. I have no power to direct the magistrates to issue a certificate of exemption.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Return relating to margarine factories, ordered two months ago, is yet complete; and, if not, who is responsible for the delay in this matter.

The English and Scotch portions of this Return have been received and I am only waiting for that which relates to Ireland. I have asked the Irish Government to furnish it as quickly as possible.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether the Commissioners have definitely decided not to proceed further with the Wilby Town Estate Scheme dated 13th July, 1898, on the ground that it is opposed by the Wilby Parish Council. Whether he is aware that the intention of the Wilby Parish Council was not to oppose the proposed scheme but merely to criticise certain of its provisions; and whether, under those conditions and in view of the fact that the Wilby Parish Council, whilst maintaining its protest against the original scheme of 1869, is prepared to accept the new scheme as a compromise subject to certain alterations of detail, the Commissioners will reconsider the matter and allow the scheme to pass through its remaining stages.

(1) The Commissioners have stated that they will not proceed with the scheme. (2) The Parish Council have opposed the scheme as proposed. (3) The Commissioners cannot consider the alterations desired by the Parish Council to be matters of detail, but if they will now accept the scheme as a compromise without alteration the Commissioners will proceed with it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a local telephone exchange has just been established in Mullingar; and whether, in view of this fact, the postal authorities will meet the wishes of the people by erecting a trunk line to Dublin as soon as possible.

The Postmaster-General has not received any application for the extension of the trunk telephone system to Mullingar. In view of the distance between Dublin and Mullingar, the cost of the circuit would of course be very heavy; while the receipts would not be likely to justify the expenditure. It might, however, be possible to provide a circuit under a guarantee from the National Telephone Company, who have established the local exchange.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, will he explain why the departure of the letter carrier from Moyvore Post Office, in the County Westmeath, has been altered to 10 a.m. on Sundays, one hour after his arrival, although the inhabitants of the district petitioned against this alteration, by which they were unable to reply to their letters, unless by sending to one of the neighbouring post offices or letterboxes, thus involving further Sunday labour; whether he is aware that the petition was signed by the clergy of both denominations as it was impossible for the letter carrier to attend divine service anywhere, and that the neighbouring post offices and letter-boxes are not cleared till 2 p.m., or after; and whether, in the new arrangements the same privilege as to time of Sunday closing may be extended to Moyvore district as is enjoyed by those surrounding it.

No recent alteration has been made in the time of departure of the letter carrier from Moyvore Post Office on Sundays, and there is no trace of the receipt of any recent petition on the subject. The present hour of departure (10 a.m.) has been in force for some years, and is in accordance with the general rule under which rural postmen are permitted to return from the end of their walks on Sundays in the forenoon, in order to release them and all concerned from duty at an early hour of the day. There is an afternoon collection on the walk of another postman at two or three letter-boxes in the neighbourhood of Moyvore, which is an exception to the rule above referred to, but this does not appear to the Postmaster-General to afford sufficient ground for disturbing the Sunday arrangements at Moyvore.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether a revision of the Dublin telegraph staff took place last year in connection with the Tweed mouth Committee's Report, under which the clerks' class was increased by six with the authority of the Treasury given in May, and six sorting clerks were promoted to fill these positions on 15th September last, the appointments carrying the increased pay only from that date; whether, seeing that the usual practice in larger offices is that the increased pay is given to the promoted officers from the date of the Treasury sanction being given to make the appointments, he can say why the Dublin officers were not treated in the same way; and will he see that they are so paid.

In the circumstances, instructions have been given for these promotions to take effect from the date of the Treasury letter sanctioning the revision.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the inhabitants of Bellewstown asked for the establishment of a telegraph office about a year ago, and offered the usual guarantee asked for by the Post Office; and whether he can explain the cause of the delay, and say when the office will be opened.

The delay in establishing a telegraph office at Bellewstown has arisen from the unwillingness of the sub-postmaster to undertake telegraph work. A new sub-postmaster has now been selected. It cannot be stated definitely when the office will be opened, but no time will be lost in completing the extension.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state when the Return granted on the motion relating to Treasury and local grants to Irish Railways will be in the hands of Members.

As soon as the county borough of Dublin have replied to a question addressed to them, the requisite information will be in the hands of the Treasury, and the Return will then be issued without delay.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, at whose instance and for what reasons the Manchester Post Office recently gave sudden notice to the Lancashire evening papers limiting the despatch of telegrams relating to the test cricket match at Old Trafford to private messages; why the intimation was held back until almost the eleventh hour, thus subjecting the press to great inconvenience; and why the messages could not have been received at the nearest telegraph office instead of having to be sent three miles to the General Post Office in Manchester; and whether a similar intimation has been given with respect to the great golf match at Ganton, nine miles from Scarborough, where, contrary to previous usage, the Post Office refused to put up instruments on the ground.

The notice referred to was given in pursuance of instructions from headquarters. The reason for limiting the despatch of telegrams from the Old Trafford Cricket Ground last week to private messages was that the telegraphic facilities at the cricket ground office were inadequate to admit of the press work being telegraphed from the ground, there being only one wire. The Department does not itself provide extensions of the wires to cricket grounds, etc., but requires those on whose behalf such extensions are made to defray the cost and provide suitable office accommodation. Intimation that press-work could not be dealt with at the cricket ground was given to the principal news agencies as soon as the final decision of the cricket ground committee not to increase the number of wires was known, and at once to any reporters who gave notice of their intention to report the match. The press-work could not be dealt with at any telegraph office nearer to the cricket ground than the head office, as no office nearer to I the ground had sufficient facilities for the purpose. In the case of Ganton, to which the hon. Member also refers, no offer has been made to the Department to provide office accommodation on the golf ground, or to defray the cost of extending the telegraph wires. There has been no such refusal as that referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, in the event of a Bank Holiday occurring during an assistant postman's annual leave (such Bank Holiday being paid for as overtime), the officer is entitled to an extra day in lieu thereof.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he will grant a Return of the total number of rural postmen who have an allowance made to them for horse-keep in the form shown on the Paper this day.

The Return could be given, though the labour involved in preparing it will be considerable; and the information if given in the proposed form would be almost useless. The mere number of allowances at the different rates tells nothing unless the details of the work to be done are added.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, is he aware that an important telegram in reference to the trial of Sergeant Sullivan, of Mulranny, for alleged forgery, was despatched by Mr. William O'Brien from Westport Post Office to Mr. Valentine Kilbride, Dublin, the solicitor for the plaintiff, and was never delivered; what is the meaning of the explanation of the disappearance of the telegram offered by the Post Office in the letter of the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, that the telegram in question failed in transmission upon the wires between Westport and Dublin; has there been any similar failure in transmission upon the wires in other cases; and, if such failure occurred, why was not notice sent at the time to the sender; and, have the Post Office authorities inquired whether Sergeant Sullivan, the defendant in the action, was in Westport at the time the message was handed in, and whether he or any other member of the police force had access to the telegraph office on that day, or had any opportunity of ascertaining the contents of the telegram.

The telegram form shows that this message was apparently despatched from Westport to Dublin, but there is no trace of the receipt of the telegram in the Dublin office. It is a case in which it is difficult to decide where the blame for the failure rests, and the non-delivery is much to be regretted. There have been similar failures in transmission, but they are of rare occurrence. It is the practice, whenever a telegram fails to be delivered immediately, to advise the sender; but in this case it was not known before the attention of the Department was called to the matter by letter that failure had occurred. The Postmaster of Westport believes Sergeant Sullivan was not in Westport at the time the message was handed in. Neither he nor any of the police force could have access to the telegraph office, or in any way ascertain the contents of the telegram.

Is it not the fact that another telegram, sent by Mr. O'Brien on the same day, was delivered?

I believe so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman further inquire into this very disagreeable matter?

We have made all the inquiry the Post Office can possibly make. The only other inquiry that could be made, perhaps, is one that might be addressed to the constabulary authorities, as to the whereabouts of Sergeant Sullivan on that particular day.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether it has been the practice to send telegraph clerks from the Southampton office to perform special duties at Epsom, Salisbury, Ascot, and Henley when public events require additional telegraphic facilities, and will he explain why they are now excluded from participation in these duties, the telegraph staff being recruited from offices much more distant; and whether the Postmaster-General could restore the privilege to the Southampton clerks, seeing that, as compared with former years, they will suffer pecuniary loss.

It is the practice to send telegraphists from the Southampton office for duty in connection with special events. Four telegraphists were so sent to Salisbury for the race mooting held there on the 4th, 5th, and 6th instant, and two to Sandown Park on the 14th and 15th instant. The Southampton telegraphists are in no way excluded from participation in these duties when they can be spared from their own office. At certain times, however, it is found that they cannot be spared.

On behalf of the Member for North-East Lanark I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the way-leave powers delegated by the Postmaster-General to a licensee under the Telegraph Act of 1892 can be exercised without the consent of the local authorities in such case.

The Postmaster-General, by the agreement with the National Telephone Company of 1896, is required, at the request of the company, to authorise the company, within the areas already assigned to them, to exercise certain way-leave powers which are conferred upon him by the Telegraph Acts. These powers were, by Deed Poll dated March 23rd, 1899, delegated in a great number of places; and a, copy of the Deed Poll has been sent to each such place. In some places, notably Bedford, the local authority appears to have been advised that the way-leaves could be exercised without the consent of the local authority. That, of course, is not the case; and, under the Act of 1892 and the Agreement of 1896, the special consent of the local authority is required in each case.

May I ask whether the way-leave powers granted to the National Telephone Company by local authorities terminate with the licence of the company?

Certainly.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Clare, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of extra police in Clare, and what is their cost; and whether, in view of the peaceable state of the country, they can be dispensed with.

The number of extra police in the County Clare is forty men, and their cost to local rates amounts to about £1,350 per annum. These forty men are employed exclusively in affording special protection to certain individuals, a duty which cannot be performed by the normal or free force of police in the county; and so long as the necessity for such special measures continues to exist, the extra force cannot be dispensed with. I may add that there has been a reduction of 103 men in the extra force of Clare since the present Government entered office, and that this large reduction is equivalent to a saving to local rates of about £3,550 per annum.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have, at a large cost, constructed the railway to Baltimore, and whether the want of connection to deep water, as originally and subsequently intended, has interfered with the utilities of the line for the benefit of the fisheries; and whether he can influence the Congested Districts Board and the Cork and Bandon Railway to financially co-operate in having this railway perfected.

The plans for this railway, which was built by the Government at a cost of £56,700, did not include the provision of a pier as suggested. As regards the second paragraph, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to his previous question of the 10th inst. on the same subject.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, that the Local Government Board authorise a charge on the rates of Cork Union of £346 a year in payment for substitutes for dispensary doctors when on leave other than sick leave, the doctors having hitherto always paid their own substitutes. I beg also, on my own behalf, to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution recently adopted by the Cork Board of Guardians, protesting against the action of the Local Government Board in seeking to compel the payment of substitutes for dispensary doctors when on ordinary leave out of the rates; and whether, in view of the fact that this rule, if insisted upon, will place a new burden upon the ratepayers, he will suggest to the Local Government Board the desirability of re-considering their decision.

In reply to these questions, I have to say that the order for the payment of substitutes for dispensary doctors when on ordinary leave out of the rates was made, not under the Local Government Act of last year, but under the 8th and 12th Sections of the Medical Charities Act, 14 and 15 Vict., c. 68. So far as I have been able to ascertain, the practice of requiring the doctors to pay their own substitutes, which appears to exist in the Cork Union, is not the general practice in Ireland. If, however, it can be shown that it is the established practice in the Cork Union, and understood as such by the gentlemen appointed dispensary doctors in that Union, the Local Government Board are quite ready to consider whether, consistently with the terms of the new Dispensary Order, to which they attach great importance, some arrangement cannot be made to meet the case, whether by rearrangement of duties or otherwise.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the Local Government Board have issued no such orders as are mentioned in the question?

No; only general orders.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from the Castlerea Rural District Council on the subject of the sanitary charges of the towns of Castlerea and Ballaghadereen; whether he is aware that the spreading of these charges over the entire rural district, instead of as heretofore only on the places concerned and receiving benefit, has created a very strong feeling amongst the members of the council and the ratepayers generally; and whether he will comply with the desire of the council and the ratepayers in favour of making the sanitary expenses excluded charges, and leviable only upon the places receiving advantages from the works in connection with which they were incurred.

The memorial referred to in the first paragraph has been received. A Supplementary Order was issued on the 17th instant, restoring the former areas of charge for special expenses in certain cases, which include the Castlerea and Ballaghadereen Water Supply and Sewerage schemes.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain how it is that now, three years after the passing of the Land Act of 1896, complete Returns of the land rental and encumbrances to which the fortieth section applies have not been presented to the House as required by that Act; whether he could see his way to at once present to the House a portion of the Return, which has been in course of preparation during the past year, in order to expedite the work of solicitors and tenants entitled to purchase; and whether he would order an inquiry into the causes which have delayed Returns for three years which, according to the Act, ought to have been presented to the House at least two years ago.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Neither the Land Law Act of 1896, nor the Rules made in pursuance of Section 40 of the Act, require that the Returns in question shall be presented to Parliament. As regards the second and third paragraphs, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous question of Monday last on the subject.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed, in the next Census Act for England, to take a census of the people and their occupations every five years; and whether a similar Act will extend to Ireland.

I have no knowledge as to the matter referred to in the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what representation the Lord Lieutenant will give county district councils on the Fishery Conservators' Board if they become contributory to the amount of £25 and £50 respectively per year.

Section 37 of the Local Government Act enables a district council, at the request of a Board of Conservators, to contribute to the expenses of the Board, and it is further provided by the same section that the number of representatives of the contributory district council upon the Board of Conservators shall be fixed by the Lord Lieutenant. Obviously, the question of representation of a particular district council upon the Board cannot be determined until the council has become con tributory under the section, and every case of the kind must be considered on its merits.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there has been a decrease of salmon in the rivers Barrow and Nore for the past fifteen years, which has been estimated to be £30,000 a year; whether he is aware that this is mainly due to the destruction of spawning fish in the fresh water, and of fry by trawlers and drum nets at the river mouth; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held before the end of the close season, 15th April, at New Ross and Inistiogue to investigate the question and suggest a remedy.

The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries have no statistics as to the capture of salmon in the rivers mentioned. It appears to be a fact, however, comparing the quantities of salmon exported from Ireland to the principal English markets, that there has been a general falling off in the capture of salmon in recent years in Ireland. My information does not bear out the allegation in the second paragraph. I see no reason for directing an inquiry to be held in this particular case as suggested in the third paragraph; but I may remind the hon. Member that the subject of the inland fisheries and fishery laws in Ireland is about to be investigated by a Viceregal Commission.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state at what date the Sub-Land Commission may be expected to sit for the hearing of cases in the Clones Union; and can he also say when the Chief Commission will sit to hear appeals for County Monaghan.

The dates for the sittings referred to in the question have not yet been fixed. Sittings will, however, be arranged on as early dates as possible having due regard to the claims of other districts.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Cavan, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the great delay in fixing fair rents caused by the inability of farmers to supply the Sub Commissioners with certificates of valuation for standard years, in cases where holdings have been divided or consolidated holdings, with landlord's consent, have been separated since fixing last judicial rent; whether he is aware that the Irish Land Laws do not require the production of any such certificates; and if inquiry will be made with the view of providing some way of preventing the block at present existing in fixing fair rents in such cases.

Having regard to the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1898, and particularly of Section 55, a fair rent cannot be fixed unless the court is furnished with a certificate of the rateable valuation of the holding for the standard financial year, setting forth separately the valuation of the agricultural land and other hereditaments respectively comprised therein. In cases where holdings have been sub-divided or consolidated, even with the consent of the landlord, as indicated in the question, and when the provisions of the Valuation Acts have not been complied with, and the valuations of sub-divided or consolidated holdings have not been revised, the certificate referred to cannot be issued until steps have been taken under Statute 17 Vic, cap. 8, as altered by the Local Government (Adaptation of Irish Enactments) Order, 1899, to have the valuation revised at the next annual revision. When the Act of last year came into force the Land Commissioners issued a Memorandum to applicants to have fair rents fixed, in which they were informed that when circumstances such as those with which the question deals existed the Commissioners would be unable to fix a rent until steps had been taken by the applicant to have the tenement valuation revised.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Armagh I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the appointment of analytical chemists in Ireland to the poor law unions for the analysing of drugs, if he could state what qualification does the Irish Local Government Board require that they should possess, how many appointments have they sanctioned so far, and what is the full qualification of each chemist that has been appointed.

In view of the importance of the duties the Local Government Board require in the case of persons who are not already public analysts under the Food and Drugs Act, educational attainments equal to those possessed by such of the Fellows or Associates of the Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Ireland as have obtained the certificate granted by the Institute after examination in therapeutics, pharmacology and microscopy. The Board have sanctioned the appointment of one gentleman who possesses the foregoing qualifications but who has not hitherto acted as public analyst.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Report of the Trustees of the National Library of Ireland (Kildare Street) for 1898 will be laid before Parliament; and whether the provisions for the library, which have long been asked for, will shortly be carried out.

The Report will be presented to Parliament by the Science and Art Department, and will not pass through my hands. Perhaps my hon. friend would address his question to my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Council.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of a captain in Her Majesty's service, who was prosecuted and fined at the Coolock Petty Sessions, County Dublin, on the 10th instant, under the Peace Preservation Act, for having arms on his own land, on the ground that his holding was situated in a proclaimed district, namely the County of Dublin; and will he explain why the County Dublin, which is, and has for years, been absolutely free from all serious crime, is still proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act, and whether the proclamation of the County of Dublin will be revoked.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. With regard to the second paragraph, it is a fact that the County of Dublin is subject to a proclamation issued under the Peace Preservation Act of 1881, which makes the possession of firearms without a licence to keep the same, illegal. That proclamation was issued in December, 1881, immediately after the passing of the Act, and successive Irish Governments since that date have not seen their way to withdraw the proclamation. It is not the intention of the Government, as at present advised, to revoke it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on last Saturday a stone was flung through the window of the house of Rev. Wm. Peoples, of Templemore Avenue, Belfast, and that the persecution of this clergyman is still kept up in spite of the closing of his church; and why the police are not instructed to put a stop to such proceedings.

On the night of the 15th instant, the Rev. Mr. Peoples reported to the police that a small pane of glass in the window of his house had been broken. Mr. Peoples has been living in his house for the past four months, and has not during that period been subjected to annoyance. The stone was probably thrown by boys in rough play without any intention of breaking Mr. Peoples window. That gentleman has not, I am informed, suffered any annoyance since St. Clement's Church was closed four months ago. He moves freely through the district, and no particular notice is taken of him. The police have instructions to pay close attention to his house.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the opposition to the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill, he intends to proceed with that measure this session.

This Bill is one of those which I stated a few days ago would not be proceeded with if there is any serious opposition. I will make it my business to find out whether that is the case.

There will be considerable opposition. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill confers no public money on Scotland, whereas a similar Bill for Ireland gives £21,000?

It is not a similar Bill.