:I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state whether a training ship for boys of the Royal Navy is to be stationed in Harwich Harbour.

A plan to that effect is taking shape.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to a statement of Mrs. Farquhar, of 83, Dalmarnock Road, Glasgow, to the effect that in May last, after correspondence with the Admiralty as to the steps to be taken to secure the discharge of her husband, John Farquhar, who on 1st May had enlisted in the Marines and was serving on board H.M.S. "Northumberland," she sent £10 to the master-at-arms of that vessel, receipt of which was duly acknowledged, to procure his discharge; whether she has sent to the Admiralty documents in proof of her statement, but that, on the excuse that the £10 has been lost, her husband still remains undischarged; and whether he will take steps to have the case promptly settled, either by discharging Farquhar or returning the £10, for which his wife, a very poor woman, having had to borrow, it, is responsible.

The first intimation received at the Admiralty with regard to the matter referred to in the question was by a letter received from Mrs. Farquhar on July 20th. A report as to the circumstances, which was at once called for from H.M.S. "Northumberland," was received yesterday, August 2nd. It appears that the delay, as set out in the question, has been occasioned by the purchase money having been sent in Scotch notes, which were refused by the Accountant Officer of the ship and were subsequently handed to Farquhar, the husband whose discharge his wife was seeking. He states that he himself lost them while vainly endeavouring to get them changed into gold at the local banks. Under the special circumstances, though the necessary money has not been received by the Government, Farquhar's discharge will be sanctioned without any further payment.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that it is contemplated that no Civil Servants of higher rank than Second Division clerks are to be employed in the Army Ordnance Department, Pimlico, it is to be understood that the superior duties now performed by the storekeeper and the staff officers, and the regulations and estimates work until recently in the hands of the principal clerk, will eventually be discharged by Ordnance officers; and, if not, by whom they will be discharged; whether steps are being, taken to have the future Civil establishment in the Store and Factory fixed at the same time as the accounts are taken over by the Accountant-General; and by what date the whole re-organisation of the Clothing Department will be at length completed and the new clerical establishments settled.

The matter is still under consideration.

On behalf of the hon. Member for West Belfast I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the statement made in evidence before the War Office Re-Organisation Committee by the Lieutenant-General Commanding at Aldershot to the effect that he thought, and he believed he had sufficiently verified his opinion, that the whole system of reports, regulations, and warrants under which the Army now serves has grown up entirely for the benefit of the War Office clerks, and to find work for the War Office, rather than to provide control over the Army; whether during a period of ten years the officer referred to held a post of Quarter-master-General and Adjutant-General at the War Office, and whether during that period he made any official report respecting the office over which he presided to the same effect as the statement above referred to; and whether the facts are as stated by Sir Redvers Buller; and, if so, whether any, and what, steps have been taken to put an end to such a state of things.

The Committee on Decentralisation reported to the Secretary of State, and he laid its Report, with the evidence, before Parliament. The sentence quoted formed part only of one reply in the course of a long examination; and an accurate knowledge of Sir Redvers Buller's views can best be gathered by reading the whole of his evidence. In reply to the second paragraph, Sir Redvers Buller did not make any report with respect to the branches of the War Office over which he presided; his views on the clerical staff of the whole office were before the Secretary of State in 1895, when certain changes were under consideration. In reply to the third paragraph, the question is one of opinion and not of fact.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will state the extent to which the experiment to establish a system of verification of the ages of recruits for the Army was carried, and what means were employed; whether the general qualifications as to character, education, and re- spectability of the recruits whose ages could not be verified could compare favourably with those of the recruits who had no difficulty in producing satisfactory proof of age; and whether the immediate discharge from the Army can always be procured of boys proved to be under seventeen years who are prompted thoughtlessly by the allurements of the recruiting agency to give false statements as to their ages, such discharge from the Army taking place without punishment being awarded them from either a civil or military court.

Search was made in the registers at Somerset House, in Edinburgh, and in Dublin for the certificates concerning 18,000 recruits under the age of twenty according to the places of birth and dates given on attestation. Although a liberal margin was allowed for errors in date, 45 percent. could not be traced at all, and 15 percent. were very doubtful. The labour was very great and the result was not considered to be of sufficient value to justify its continuance. There is no record of the comparative characters of the men identified and those not identified. A boy proved to be under seventeen years of age is immediately discharged; but under Sections 33 and 99 of the Army Act he is liable to punishment for having made a false statement of age on attestation.

Did this inquiry take place lately?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if it is the practice of the Indian Government to treat Indian manufacturers of iron and of other products purchased by the Government on equal terms with British or Continental manufacturers as ordered by paragraph 28, of Resolution 185, January, 1883.

In November, 1895, I instructed the Government of India to be careful to avoid giving any preference to either English or Indian goods, as such, and so far as I am aware they have acted, and are acting, accordingly.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the importance of Her Majesty's Indian Empire, and to the fact that certain bishops of the Church of England in the colonies have recently adopted and assumed the style of Archbishop, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to amend the statutes affecting the Church of England in the East Indies, so as really to confer on the Bishop of Calcutta, as statutory Metropolitan Bishop in India, the style and precedence of an Archbishop.

I am well aware of the nature of the position of the Bishop of Calcutta as Metropolitan of India, and the suggestion contained in the hon. Member's question is not new to me. But there are many important considerations involved, and it is impossible for me at present to give any undertaking on the subject.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Major (then Lieutenant) J. H. Parsons, 7th Bengal Cavalry, who was appointed in July, 1884, to the Burma Commission as Supernumerary Assistant Commissioner, but was obliged to go home to England on sick leave in 1886; whether he is aware that in 1890 Major Parsons was offered an opportunity of returning to his post in Burma, which he declined to accept, whereupon his name disappeared from the list of Commissioners, but that in April, 1897, Major Parsons was replaced in the Burma Commission after an absence of eleven and a-half years, and in July, 1898, was appointed to the post of Deputy Commissioner, third grade, superseding all the officers in the fourth grade, who had given a continuous service to the Commission; whether, seeing that the Secretary of State for India cancelled the orders of the Local Government of Burma, and reduced Major Parsons to the post of a Deputy Commissioner of the fourth grade, will he explain on what grounds the Burma Government has appointed that officer to officiate as Deputy Commissioner, first grade; and what steps will be taken to enforce the orders of the Secretary of State for India, granting redress to the officers who had been injured by being superseded in their promotion in favour of Major Parsons.

I have to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 1st instant to the hon. Member for the Basingstoke Division, and which, I think, covers all the points in this question. As I then stated, the orders given by me appear to have been duly carried out, and the recent promotions of Major Parsons have not interfered and will not interfere with those of other members of the Burma Commission.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he could state the dates at which, within the next two years, notice should be given to the several guaranteed or subsidised Indian railways for the termination or revision of their existing contracts or agreements with the Government of India or Secretary of State; and whether due care would be taken in any revision or renewal of these agreements so to limit the new terms as to safeguard the interests of the Government and taxpayers of India.

Within the next two years notice of termination of contract may be given to one guaranteed Indian railway company, viz., the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company (on any day within six months after the 17th of August, 1899). The contract with the Rohilkund and Kumaon Railway Company for the completion and working of the Lucknow-Bareilly State Railway may be terminated on the 31st of December, 1900, or on the 31st of December in any subsequent year, by giving not less than twelve months' previous notice. In any revision of contracts with Indian railway companies the interests of the Government and taxpayers of India will be duly safeguarded.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that, at the Bloemfontein Conference, President Kruger strongly disputed the genuineness of the petition from the Transvaal submitted to Her Majesty, and asserted that over 23,000 Uitlanders had sent him a counter petition, the proposed Joint Committee will be instructed to inquire to what extent the franchise is really desired by British Uitlanders, and how many would be willing to forfeit their British nationality in order to obtain it, and also to inquire whether the Uitlander movement in the Transvaal is, as alleged, to any and what extent due to instigation of capitalists and their agents.

The inquiry will be confined to the details of the reforms required for giving immediate substantial representation to the Uitlanders. Full information is given as to the genuineness of the petition to the Queen on pages 184 and 224 of the Blue Book C. 9,345, and pages 46 and 60 and following pages of the Blue Book C. 9,404, as to the character of the counter petition on page 237 of C. 9,345 and page 22 of C. 9,404, and as to the nature of the Uitlander movement on pages 135, 163, and 207 of C. 9,345.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the monetary claims arising out of the disallowance of the Ordinance conferring certain concessions upon the British New Guinea Syndicate have yet been adjusted; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of the arrangement that has been arrived at.

The negotiations respecting the claims of the British New Guinea Syndicate have been carried on between the Syndicate and Governments of the three Colonies concerned through their Agents-Generals. I have not been informed that a settlement has been arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Royal assent was given to The Barba does Contempt of Court Act, 1891, under which all cases of contempt, except in facie curiœ, must be tried by a jury and a judge other than the one who may be aggrieved; and that, on the 19th May, 1898, Her Majesty, by Order in Council, assented to a similar measure passed in the Leeward Islands, he would instruct the Governors of the Windward Islands and the adjoining Crown Colonies under the control of the Colonial Office to pass a law on the same lines, so as to make legislation on the subject uniform in the West Indies.

I recognise the convenience of uniformity of legislation on the subject in the West Indian Colonies, and I will bring the matter under the consideration of the Governors of the Colonies referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been specially drawn to page 121 of the Blue Book on Sierra Leone, just issued, from which it appears that in one of the recent trials, viz., Regina v. Caulker, three witnesses swore to the prisoner having killed a Mr. Roberts with his own hand, whereas it appeared, on looking up another murder case which had been held by the Deputy Judge, that Roberts was killed by an entirely different person, and so the prisoner was fortunately acquitted. And, whether, having regard to the kind of evidence produced at these trials, he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the prisoners who were convicted, with a view to the extension to them in suitable cases of the clemency of the Crown.

Yes, Sir, my attention was called to the statement which appears on page 121 of the Blue Book to which the hon. Member's question refers. The evidence of natives requires very careful sifting, and the judge who tried the persons charged with murder, and who was especially selected for the purpose, exercised very great care. I see no reason to direct any general inquiry into the cases which have been tried, but if in any special case circumstances should be found to afford grounds for further inquiry, it will, of course, be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the fact that Sir F. Cardew, Governor of Sierra Leone, brought a very serious impeachment against the newspaper press and the community of that colony—viz., that of inciting the natives of the Protectorate to resist payment of the hut tax, and that Her Majesty's Special Commissioner, Sir David Chalmers, has reported that Sir F. Cardew has entirely failed to establish this charge against the people of the colony which he administers, will he consider the advisability of transferring Sir F. Cardew to some other sphere of employment.

The question of the effect of certain actions of individuals and of articles in the local press is a matter of opinion on which Sir D. Chalmers and Sir F. Cardew are not in full agreement; but even if Sir F. Cardew has, as I hope is the case, attached undue importance to these matters, it is not, in my opinion, a reason for putting a slight on a distinguished and zealous officer who has administered the government of the colony in most difficult and trying circumstances.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir David Chalmers recommended that the Insurgents' Temporary Detention Ordinance, 1898 (Sierra Leone), should be immediately repealed; and whether Commander Sir F. Cardew has admitted that this Ordinance could safely be repealed; and, if so, will he state why this course has not been taken.

The facts are as stated. No action has been taken under the Ordinance for some time past, and instructions will now be given for its repeal.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Bai Bureh has been deported to Accra; and, having regard to the fact that Commander Sir F. Cardew reported that Bai Bureh had fought us squarely and well, and recommended that he should be allowed to return to his people, will he state upon what grounds this recommendation has not been adopted.

I have not lost sight of the recommendation referred to; but, upon consulting the local authorities and Sir F. Cardew as to the date at which Bai Bureh should be sent back, I came reluctantly to the conclusion that it would not be advisable to allow him to return at present, and that in the meantime it would be better for Bai Bureh that he should be removed to Accra, where more liberty could be given him than in Freetown.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any decision has been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government with respect to the increase in the number of British Commercial Attachés abroad.

Her Majesty's Government, with a view to furthering British trading interests, have decided to appoint commercial agents in certain countries. Appointments will shortly be made in Russia, Switzerland, China and America. These agents will not have diplomatic rank, but will visit various commercial centres, and will be available for special consultation by British firms in respect of various, industries by payment of a moderate fee, such fees going to the Exchequer and not to the commercial agent, who will be paid by salary. The appointments will be made experimentally for two or three years.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Secretary of State is acting on the recommendations, in respect to Foreign Service messengers, contained in paragraph 20 of the final Report of the Ridley Commission, other than the recommendations as to salary and age which he has accepted.

The Secretary of State in filling up the appointment of Queen's Messenger is ready as a general rule to give the preference to gentlemen, who have served in the Army or Navy, though not necessarily on half-pay or in receipt of pension, but he does not hold that the recommendations of the Commission deprive him of the power of appointing suitable civilians. The Secretary of State will also take care that the candidates selected possess a colloquial knowledge of French, are able to ride, to keep simple accounts, and are pronounced medically fit. The office of Queen's Messenger is included in Schedule B of the Order in Council of June 4th, 1870, and is therefore not one for which an examination is obligatory.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when it may be expected that the lighthouses which the Porte is said to have agreed to construct in the southern portion of the Red Sea will be commenced, and if any arrangement has been entered into or is pending for authorising the collection of dues in respect of such lights; and whether the annual surplus of the Egyptian lights revenue, amounting to £45,000, is considered available for this purpose, or if such surplus can only be applied to the reduction of dues on Egyptian lights in conformity with the Convention between Great Britain and Egypt; in the latter case when a reduction may be looked for.

As regards the first paragraph of this question there is nothing at present to be added to the answer given to the question of the right hon. Member for the North-east Division of Manchester on the 27th of July ultimo. The sum available for the construction of the proposed lighthouses in the Red Sea is the accumulated amount, about £80,000 sterling, to which reference was made in reply to my hon. Friend's question of July 29th. I would, however, remind him that the dues were reduced by 30 per cent, on September 1st, 1897, and the revenue derived from them has fallen from £E110,000 in 1896 to £E87,000 in 1898. The engagement on the part of the Egyptian Government to reduce the Egyptian light dues by £E40,000, to which the hon. Member alludes, is contingent on the application of the customs tariff to all the Powers. This contingency has not yet arisen.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government have received a petition from the British merchants in Constantinople, dated 9th May, 1898, praying for an early settlement of their claims against the Turkish Government for losses sustained by them in August, 1896, during the pillage of Pera, Galata, Stamboul, and Hasskein by a mob; whether Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Sublime Porte has reported that the mob in question was organised by and worked under the orders of Turkish officials whose names are known to the Ambassador; whether the Secretary of State is aware that two British firms at Constantinople have been compelled to suspend payment in consequence of the magnitude of their losses on that occasion, and that other firms are in financial difficulties from the same cause; and whether, seeing that no attention has been paid by the Ottoman Government to the note verbale, addressed to it by Sir Philip Currie on 24th March, 1898, Her Majesty's Government will now consider the advisability of liquidating the claims of the petitioners and recovering the sum paid from the Ottoman Government from the profits which will accrue by the conversion of the Cyprus Tribute into Two and a-half Per Cent. Consolidated Stock.

The petition has been received. Her Majesty's Ambassador has not made the Report stated, but Her Majesty's Government consider that there are grounds for holding the Turkish Government liable to make compensation in certain cases. Her Majesty's Government are aware that the losses suffered on the occasion have caused serious embarrassment to several of the sufferers. They will continue to press the claim, but no arrangement has yet been made of the nature suggested in regard to the surplus revenue of Cyprus, and, consequently, no assurance can be given on the subject.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the unsatisfactory relations which for some time have existed between Mr. H. C. Cumber batch, Her Majesty's Consul at Smyrna, and the members of the British community in that city; whether he is aware that Mr. Cumber batch is Chairman of the Committee of the Seamen's Hospital, which has made grave charges against the personal character of the British medical officer of that city; can he state whether these charges have been disproved or withdrawn; and whether Mr. Cumberbatch still performs consular duties at Smyrna, and enjoys the confidence of Her Majesty's Government.

The Secretary of State is not aware that unsatisfactory relations exist between Her Majesty's Consul at Smyrna and the members of the British community there. Charges against the personal character of the surgeon of the Seamen'sHospital were brought before the Hospital Committee, of which the Consul is the ex-officio chairman. The Judge of the Supreme Court at Constantinople eventually investigated these charges, and pronounced them to have been without any foundation. Mr. Cumberbatch still performs consular duties at Smyrna, and enjoys the confidence of Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to Department Circular No. 17, dated 8th February, 1899, promulgated by the Treasury Department of the Bureau of Navigation at Washington, United States of America, reciting an amendment in the Federal Laws of 1884, by an Act approved 21st December, 1898; whether, under the amendment referred to, it becomes unlawful to pay any seaman wages in advance of the time when he has actually earned the same; also, whether any shipmaster paying such an advance to seamen becomes liable to heavy fine and six months' imprisonment; whether any treaty exists between Great Britain and the United States exempting our national shipping from the operation of American domestic legislation, which is in conflict with British law, or otherwise; and whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to negotiate with the United States for the protection of British shipowners and seamen in regard to advances, which are legal in this country, and especially against the exaction of what is called "blood money" by crimps in lieu of such advances.

My attention has been called to the Circular issued by the Treasury Department of the Bureau of Navigation at Washington. The questions affecting British shipping which arise in connection with the United States law referred to are receiving the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Pontefract, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that recently the City Chamberlain sentenced two boys, serving as apprentices to Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, to fourteen days" solitary confinement at Bridewell for trifling offences connected with the breaking of their indentures; whether he will state to the House by virtue of what authority the City Chamberlain has jurisdiction in such matters, and whether the procedure followed is similar to the procedure of other courts; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to ascertaining if such jurisdiction and procedure is applicable to existing conditions.

The City Chamberlain has an ancient customary jurisdiction in connection with the Mayor's Court to adjudicate on disputes between masters and apprentices, and commits apprentices to the Bridewell for misconduct in accordance with a, scheme approved by the Master of the Rolls (under 52, George III. c. 101, and. the Charitable Trusts Acts). I am not aware of any reason for dissenting from the view expressed by my predecessors that the Chamberlain's Court is distinguished for its impartial administration and care of the rights of apprentices. I may add that the Bridewell is not a prison coming within the provisions of the Prison Act., nor is it in any way under the inspection or control of the Home Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 19 of the 4th Report of the Committee on Public Accounts; and whether, pending the future legislation therein referred to, he proposes to take any measures to enforce the better collection of parental contributions towards the maintenance of children detained in reformatory and industrial schools.

A Bill containing provisions relating to the parental contributions referred to was introduced into and passed the House of Lords this session. I am sorry that it was impossible for any further progress to be made with it, but I may say that the inspector and his agents are instructed to use every effort to keep up and improve the present standard of collection; and that, even with the law as it stands, the increased energy devoted to this matter has not been without success.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider, before granting further powers to the Lancashire Sea Fisheries Committee, the cost already incurred, and the loss suffered by the fishermen.

The only application from this Committee for further powers at present before the Board of Trade is one for sanction to a bye-law for limiting the kind of nets or instruments to be used in fishing for shrimps or prawns in a certain part of the Mersey estuary. A public local inquiry will be held in regard to this, and any representations that fishermen or others interested may make to the inspector will receive the careful consideration of the Board of Trade. As regards any applications that may hereafter be made I can only say that due regard will be had to the interests of all those who may be affected by them.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state if the 210th Section of the Merchant Shipping Act, which deals with the accommodation of seamen on board ship, applies to Lascar and other native seamen in the same manner as it applies to seamen engaged on board British vessels registered in ports of the United Kingdom; and if he is now in the position to give the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in accordance with the promise made some months ago.

Yes, Sir. The Board of Trade are now in possession of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown with regard to the point to which the hon. Member refers. The opinion is to the effect that the Board have acted properly in declining to allow any deduction from tonnage in respect of Lascar crew space which is not in accordance with the requirements of Section 210 of the Merchant Shipping Act; further, that the question whether proceedings should be taken to enforce these requirements is one for the consideration of the Board of Trade under all the circumstances of the case, among which are the provisions of Section 25 of the Imperial Act of George IV., 4 c. 80 and the conflicting provisions of the Indian Merchant Shipping Acts. At the moment, I can only say that the matter in all its bearings shall receive very careful consideration, and that I have already placed myself in communication with the India Office with a view of securing, if possible, an assimilation of the Indian to the Imperial law on the subject.

May I call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question? I want to know whether the Law Officers of the Crown advise that the company are breaking the law in not providing for Lascars the same accommodation as the British seamen.

Obviously I cannot give any further answer in the unavoidable absence of my right hon. friend.

I have been promised an answer to this question for over four months. I shall take an early opportunity to call attention to the matter unless I soon get one.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain to the House upon what statutory or legal authority, and under what case decided in a competent court of law, the Board of Trade issued their letter to the Warwickshire County Council dated 26th January, 1895, marked T.S.H 86, stating that brewers' casks in use which did not bear any permanent representation upon the cask itself, by way of marking or otherwise of its capacity or of the measure of its contents, were to be considered as exempt from obligation to the Statute and the operations of The Weights and Measures Act, 1878, under Section 22.

In December, 1894, the Warwickshire County Council asked for the "views" of the Board of Trade upon the subject, and in January, 1895, the Board wrote the letter referred to in the question upon the advice of their solicitor. I do not admit that the hon. Gentleman's question gives an accurate resumé of that letter.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that light dues have been levied against vessels engaged in inland navigation and in areas not lighted at the expense of the General Lighthouse Fund; and, if so, whether he will make such alterations as may be necessary to relieve these vessels from this tax.

The question whether light dues should be levied on vessels exclusively engaged in areas not lighted at the expense of the General Lighthouse Fund has been brought to my notice. I am advised that such vessels are not exempt under the Act, and can only be exempted by Order in Council. This claim to exemption is only one of several which have arisen since the passing of the Act, and I propose that they shall all be very carefully considered as soon as we have a little more experience of the operation of the Act.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state when the Order for the Light Railway from Fraser burgh to St. Courts will be issued.

The Board of Trade understand from the promoters that they will apply for confirmation of the Order as soon as they have settled with the Treasury the terms of the agreement for an advance of money from the State.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that three passengers on an electric tramcar in Dublin, on Sunday last, were injured by the breaking of the electric wires, which was caused by a passenger pulling the trolly rope in mistake for the bell rope to stop the car; whether he is aware that Mr. Mahoney, the magistrate before whom a police charge was brought arising out of the accident, censured the tramway company for exposing the public using the trams to the danger of pulling the trolly rope by mistake for a bell rope, and also censured the Board of Trade for having sanctioned such a dangerous arrangement; and whether he will cause a departmental inquiry into this matter, and see that the trolly rope is so protected that it cannot be interfered with except by the officer in charge of the car, and that proper arrangements for stopping the cars are placed on the top as well as within them.

The Board of Trade have entered into communication with the company with reference to this matter. When their reply is received I will decide whether an expert inquiry will be useful. In the meantime I can express no opinion on the subject.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the local authority for the county borough of Huddersfield have made a regulation that after the 26th July, 1899, no swine shall be moved into the county borough of Huddersfield from Ireland; and whether he will endeavour to have this regulation rescinded.

I have seen the regulation to which the hon. Member refers. It is made under similar circumstances to those which led to the making of the West Riding regulation with regard to which the hon. Member questioned me on Tuesday, and the answer I then gave is equally applicable on the present occasion.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the amount of the sum deducted in each case from the amount payable to Kent, Sussex, Brighton, Hastings, Middlesex, Hertfordshire, and the Isle of Wight out of the Local Taxation Grant, to provide the £87,000 taken from the grant under the Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Bill.

The share of the counties and county boroughs named in a sum of £87,000, distributed in the proportion of what are known as the "discontinued grants," would amount in the case of Kent to £2,636, East Sussex £868, West Sussex £404, Brighton £307, Hastings £107, Middlesex £2,445, Herts £753, and the Isle of Wight £276.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state the amount of the sum deducted in each case from the amount payable to the counties of Bucks and Berks, and the county boroughs of Reading, West Ham, and Bournemouth, out of the local taxation grant to provide the £87,000 taken from the grant under Tithe Rent-Charge (Rates) Bill.

The shares of the counties and of the first two county boroughs named, in a sum of £87,000, distributed in the proportion of what are known as the "discontinued grants," would be £630, £619, £139, and £551, respectively. The figures for the newly created county borough of Bournemouth are not yet available.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agri- culture what progress has been made with the extirpation of rabies in England since his last statement; and whether he can now say when it will be practicable and expedient to revoke the muzzling orders which are still in force.

Perhaps I may be allowed to give the number of cases of rabies known to have occurred in Great Britain since 1896, the year prior to the commencement of our operations against the disease. In that year 436 cases were confirmed; in 1897, 151 cases; in 1898, 17 cases; and during the present year, so far as it has gone, only one case has been confirmed. With regard to the revocation of the muzzling orders, we have now made arrangements for obtaining the same security against the introduction of the disease from Ireland as exists in the case of foreign countries, and as soon as these arrangements arc in effective operation I hope to be in a position to withdraw the Orders from the Midland and West Riding areas, to be followed at no distant date by the revocation of those in force in Lancashire and the metropolitan area, if no further cases occur.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he now proposes to take any steps to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission on tuberculosis as regards what the Commission held to be the most important part of the inquiry, the elimination of the disease by the provision of guaranteed tuberculin, and the services of qualified veterinary surgeons gratuitously or otherwise; and whether, in any case, the Board of Agriculture will prepare and distribute a clear and concise statement of the method of elimination recommended by the Commission, and of the results of the adoption of this method in Denmark and other countries, and on certain estates in the United Kingdom.

Since the hon. Member last called my attention to this matter, nothing has occurred which would suggest that there is any general desire on the part of agriculturists that the Government should gratuitously provide tuberculin and the services of a veterinary surgeon for the purpose of enabling stock owners to test their animals for tuber- culosis, and in these circumstances I could not fairly ask the Treasury to supply funds for the purpose. With regard to the issue of literature on the subject, I may remind the hon. Member that the Royal Agricultural Society recently gave extensive circulation to a very concise and practical leaflet, but I propose during the recess to bring up to date our information as to the methods of dealing with the disease, and the results obtained in Denmark and other countries, so as to enable me to determine whether we can usefully supplement the particulars already in the possession of agriculturists on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a communication, addressed to his Department by the Sunderland Board of Guardians, calling attention to the fact that there are upwards of 300 unions in England and Wales in which machinery included in the various hereditaments is not rated, thus reducing the amount received from Imperial and other taxation; and what steps, if any, he intends to take in the matter.

I have seen the communication referred to in the question; but the matter is not one with respect to which the Local Government Board have any authority to interfere. If a person is aggrieved on the ground that a particular hereditament is assessed too low, because the value of machinery which ought to be included in the assessment is not included, he can object to the valuation list before the Assessment Committee, and if he does not obtain relief he can appeal against the rate.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of instances in which Assessment Committees have allowed rifle ranges to be exempted from local rates; and whether he will make any representation, by circular or otherwise, to the local rating authorities in cases where this exemption has not been granted.

The Local Government Board have no information on the subject referred to in the question, nor have they any authority to intervene with regard to it.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the circumstances disclosed at a recent inquest as to deaths at a London hotel, and other instances in the past few years of alleged danger to life from improperly prepared or packed tinned meats, fruits, vegetables. and other articles of food; what precautions are now taken in the way of inspection, or otherwise, to check these risks, both as regards imported and home-produced tinned articles of food; and whether further steps will be taken in the interests of public health.

The Local Government Board have from time to time made investigation into the circumstances of injury to health and danger to life by reason of the consumption of various articles of food, including cases of poisoning by tinned meats and other articles. The method of investigation in these cases is now well known, and it would appear that in the case to which the hon. Member refers the inquest has been adjourned in order that further analysis may be made. Power is given by the general law for the inspection and examination of articles of food deposited for the purpose of sale, or preparation for sale, and intended for the food of man, and it does not appear that further steps than those being adopted in the special case referred to, or than those applicable to the subject generally, are required.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Peckham Division of Camberwell, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the numerous accidents that have lately been caused by motor cars; and whether he will take steps to compel all drivers of motor cars to stop until horses and carriages have passed when requested to do so by the persons in charge of them.

No representations have been made to me as to numerous accidents caused by motor cars, and ample powers are given already under regulations made by the Local Government Board (Article IV., sub-section 8, of the Light Locomotives on Highways Order, 1896) to give effect to the object of the hon. Member. The article provides that every person shall, on the request of any police constable or of any person having charge of a restive horse, or on such constable or person putting up his hand as a signal for that purpose, cause the light locomotive to stop and to remain stationary so long as may be reasonably necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that Sorters White, Eastop, Woodbridge, Nicholls, North, Dyer, Davidson, and Kennedy, attached to the east central section General Post Office, have not received twenty-one days' annual leave although they have completed five years' service; and whether they are entitled to this period of leave under the Tweed-mouth scheme, seeing that two sorters attached to the east central section of exactly identical service with the first four mentioned have received it, and that with the exception of these two all the sorters granted leave in October, which carries with it a twenty-one days' leave without question, are juniors to the officers mentioned.

The eight sorters referred to had not completed five years' service when the period arrived which they had selected for annual leave. As regards the latter part of the question the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. Leave in October does not carry with it "a twenty-one days' leave without question"; and no officer completing five years' service (say) in November would be granted twenty-one days' leave in October.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he will consider the case of Thomas Cooper, rural postman of Pease down St. John, near Bath, who, notwithstanding the announced policy of abolishing the system of fixed wages, is still kept on the fixed scale of 16s: weekly, whereas a second, rural postman at the same office is on scale and is receiving 19s. weekly, although he does an hour less duty daily.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that a policy of abolishing fixed wages for established rural postman has been adopted. Such is not the case, inasmuch as fixed wages are paid to rural postmen working from many of the smaller post offices. Pease down St. John is one of those offices, and Thomas Cooper is rightly paid fixed wages of 16s. a week. The other rural postman at the same office is on an obsolete scale rising to 19s. a week, for which fixed wages of 16s. will be substituted on a vacancy.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, will he explain why the mails are not delivered in Fintona, County Tyrone, on Sunday mornings before 10 a.m., although they are despatched from Omagh, six miles distant, at 6 a.m.; and whether he is aware that the Great Northern train for Bundoran leaves Fintona on Sundays at 9.10, and that great inconvenience is caused to many inhabitants of Fintona by not receiving their letters before the departure of that train.

As stated in answer to the hon. Member's question of the 19th June, the mails are due at Fintona on Sundays about 9 a.m., and the delivery commences at 9.15. There being no early morning train to Fintona on Sundays, the mails have to be forwarded by road from Omagh. They are sent by the mounted postman leaving Omagh at 6 a.m., and reaching Derrabard, about 2¼ miles from Fintona, at 8.10a.m. From Derrabard the mails are conveyed by a foot messenger to Fintona. The train leaving Fintona at 9.10 a.m. on Sundays only runs during the summer, and few passengers go by it. No great or wide spread inconvenience is therefore caused through the letters not being delivered on Sundays before the departure of this train.

Is it not the fact that Omagh is only six miles from Fintona? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it takes over three hours to convey the mails that distance?

I think the distance is nearer eight miles. Letters have to be delivered on the road, and that, I think, sufficiently accounts for the delay.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, has anything been done to redress the balance of rural deliveries in the district of Carrickroe, County Monaghan, where great dissatisfaction prevails with the system which provides for one and the same townland a four-day delivery, in certain parts, while in other parts providing for only a two-day delivery; and, whether, if this system cannot be improved, he will revert to the old methods of delivery.

The correspondence for the district in question is very small, and the service which has been granted to each part is of the greatest frequency that the circumstances at present permit. But fresh returns of the correspondence shall before long be taken, and if it is found that a more frequent service can be given, arrangements shall be made accordingly. If the present system cannot be improved, any of the residents who desire it can, as formerly, have their letters left at the Carrickroe Post Office to be called for.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, seeing that the sub-post office at Coughing, near Mullingar, has been abolished since last May, it is intended to re-establish the office; whether he is aware that the people of the district are greatly inconvenienced by its discontinuance, as their only means at present of purchasing stamps is to meet the letter carrier at a specified time and place on the public roadway; and whether steps will be at once taken to establish the office once more at Coughing, where it is understood there is more than one properly qualified person ready to undertake the duties of the position of sub-postmaster.

It is not intended to re-establish the sub-post office at Coughing, near Mullingar. A house-to-house delivery has been afforded throughout the district, and an office is no longer needed as a place of call for letters. The Postmaster-General is not aware that the residents are greatly inconvenienced by the closing of the office. The sale of stamps at the Coughing office was small, and the supply carried by the postman is believed to suffice for the ordinary wants of the neighbourhood. The Postmaster-General sees no reason for establishing an office once more at Coughing.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state the precise process or arrangement by which it has been decided to erect a statue to Oliver Cromwell within the grounds of Westminster Palace, in addition to the bust of Cromwell already placed near the foot of the grand staircase leading to the Committee Rooms; whether any sanction has ever been given by Parliament for the erection of either of these two memorials; and whether the present House of Commons has had or will have any opportunity of expressing its opinion in the matter.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will also favourably consider the request in the third paragraph of the question, in order that the electors of this country may have an opportunity of taking note of those who are engaged in this, idiotic opposition to honouring the memory of England's greatest ruler?

Order, order! The hon. Member is not in order in applying the language he has used to a question which appears on the Paper in the name of another hon. Member.

I did not apply it to the hon. Member, but to the opposition. I will be glad to exchange it for any Parliamentary equivalent.

I have already stated on several occasions that the offer of a statue of Oliver Cromwell was made to, and accepted by, the late Government, and a site for its erection chosen by my Predecessor at the Office of Works. The Government on their accession to office in 1895 were asked whether they would adhere to the action of their predecessors, and they agreed to do so. The bust of Oliver Cromwell, which is admitted to be a very fine work of art, was presented to, and accepted by, the First Lord of the Treasury in the name of the House. It has not been customary, nor is it necessary, to obtain the formal sanction of the House to gifts of this character.

Has my right hon. friend had his attention called to the fact that there is a far more suitable site in Marylebone Road, in the neighbourhood of Baker Street, where there is a chamber specially reserved for malefactors?

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give us the name of the generous donor?

No; I am not.

Is he ashamed of it?

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has been called to the case of John Cumming, fisherman, Embo, who on 28th June last was sentenced at Tain to pay a fine of £5, which is the maximum which any police or summary court in Scotland can impose in the very worst case in which the option of a fine is allowed; whether he is aware that, prior to paying the fine, Cumming was compelled to pay a sum of £3 10s. for alleged damage to the cell in which he was confined without any citation being served upon him, or an independent valuation made; and, whether, as Cumming was fined the maximum penalty, the authorities will repay the £3 10s.

The statement contained in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is not quite correct, as the maximum fine under the Burgh Police Act, 1892, is £10. I am informed by the Procurator-Fiscal that John Cumming was tried on the 29th ultimo, and was represented by an agent. The evidence fully supported the charges of serious assaults found proved, and the magistrates gave the accused the option of paying a fine out of compassion, and in respect of his calling as a fisherman, and his statement that he was robbed in the train of his earnings. The Procurator-Fiscal also informs me that the accused was very violent in the police cells, and that the amount acquiesced in and paid for by him for smashing the furniture will not, according to contract prices, now submitted, be sufficient to cover the loss. This matter rests with the county authorities, and I can give no assurance as to repayment.

Will the Lord Advocate have an independent valuation made of the damage?

I believe the valuation made was accurate.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, if his attention has been called to the working of the present arrangements for compiling the list of voters for School Board elections in parishes outside the metropolis, and outside boroughs, under Section 29 of the Education Act, 1870 (33 and 34 Vic., c. 75, s. 29), and under the second schedule of the Act of 1873 (36 and 37 Vic., c. 86, Schedule 2); and whether he will consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps for making the register of parochial electors also the register for the purposes of School Board elections.

My attention has been called to the matter by the question. The suggestion of the hon. Member cannot be carried out without legislation, which it is impossible at this period of the session to contemplate.

I beg to ask Mr. Solicitor-General, whether the scheme of distribution in connection with the Covent Garden Theatre Fund, recently promised by Mr. Attorney-General, will be presented before the close of the session.

After careful consideration a scheme was formulated under the direction of the Attorney-General in May last. It would in all probability have already received the sanction of the court, but for unexpected opposition raised by the defendants in the suit. The matter stands in the judge's list for next Monday.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the position of road contractors in Ireland in connection with the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898; and whether a contractor for the maintenance and repair of county roads, as holding a place of profit under the council, is disqualified from holding the position of collector of poor rate; and, if so, will the attention of the Local Government Board be directed to the position of these contractors.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I must ask the hon. Member to give a concrete case, as the answer will in some degree depend on the terms of the scheme under which the collector has been re-employed. The attention of the Local Government Bill is being directed to the matter, as there is some doubt whether it is provided for by this Order of the 3rd of July last.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the business of guardians as a local authority under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1894, which was transferred to the County Council by the Local Government (Ireland) Act, has, by an Order of the Local Government Board of the 19th July, 1899, been retransferred to the guardians as District Council; and whether the Local Government Board has power to make an Order overruling an Act of Parliament; and, if so, whether the rights of clerks of unions for loss of office as existing officers are preserved.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the negative. The Board's Order of the 19th July does not refer to the business of the guardians under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, which was transferred to the County Council by Section 6 (b) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898; but it empowers urban and rural district councils to appoint inspectors of dairies, milkshops, and cowsheds in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1896. The rights of clerks of unions to compensation for loss of office are not interfered with by the Local Government Board's Order above referred to.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the nominal penalties recently imposed in cases of milk adulteration at a petty sessions in County Cork; and whether it will be possible for similar penalties to be imposed, in like cases, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill of the present session.

At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Bill referred to in the second paragraph contains special provisions prescribing penalties for offences committed under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, the penalties in most cases being maximum sums which may be abated in the discretion of the magistrates.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one of the cases referred to, in which the milk was deficient in 30 per cent. of fat, the merely nominal fine of 5s. was imposed? Would it be possible for a similar type of penalty to be imposed in like cases under the Bill passed during the present session?

I believe so.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Meath, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether valuers in the Land Purchase Department of the Irish Land Commission are permitted to make private valuations or not; whether he is aware that on the Garnett estate, in the Land Judge's Court, a Mr. Thomas Roberts, one of the valuators of the Irish Land Commission Court, Purchase Department, made private valuations for the solicitors having carriage of sale, Messrs. Lonfield and Company, which caused the proposed arrangements to purchase by the tenants to fall through; and whether this gentleman, being a small incumbrancer on the property, was permitted to do so by the Land Commission; whether this Mr. Roberts, who is considerably over sixty-five years of age, will be continued as a Commissioner; and whether, in view of the contemplated sale of the portions of this estate in the hands of the encumbrancer and the recent advertisements of sale proposing to create tenancies and divide it into small areas from three acres to 150, the Congested Districts Board be consulted with a view to their purchasing this estate.

All valuers in land purchase cases for the Land Commission are now Assistant-Commissioners. Assistant-Commissioners paid by annual salary are not permitted to make valuations of land, save in the performance of their duties for the Land Commission. Prior to his appointment in 1897 as a salaried Assistant-Commissioner, Mr. Thomas Roberts, who is an incumbrancer on the estate referred to, was Receiver over that estate. On his appointment in 1897 he resigned the Receivership, and states that he thereupon handed over his books and papers connected with the estate to the new Receiver. He further states that at no time did he inspect the estate for the purpose of valuing it or any part of it for sale, and never made any valuation for the solicitor having carriage of the sale. As to the last paragraph, if the estate referred to is in a congested district, a point upon which I have no information, any proposal that may come before the Congested Districts Board for its purchase would, of course, be considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the case of Delacour v. Healy, heard at the Castletown Roche Petty Sessions on the 27th ult., and to the action of the magistrates in refusing to adjourn the case; whether he is aware that the adjournment was sought to enable the defendant to produce documentary evidence of his yearly tenancy, then in the possession of the clerk of the union, and that a decree for possession within fourteen days was granted on the ground that he was a caretaker; and if he will refuse to permit the police to execute this decree until an opportunity is afforded to the tenant to produce the evidence of his yearly tenancy.

I believe the facts are correctly stated in the first and second paragraphs. I am informed that it was proved that the summons in the case had been served four days before the hearing, and that the magistrates considered this was ample time in which to obtain any documentary evidence from the clerk of the union. The decree was directed for execution to a special bailiff, and not to the police. I have no authority to put a stay on the execution of the decree.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any regulation exists by which members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police may be compelled to deal for such goods as they may require at particular shops; and, if not, whether he will inquire whether any compulsion in that direction has been attempted in the district of Kilmainham; and, if he finds that there has been, whether he will take steps to put a stop to it.

No officer of any rank in the Dublin Metropolitan Police is permitted directly, or indirectly, to interfere with the members of the force in the purchase of goods that they require for their private use, and they are not required to deal with particular shops. A letter, bearing no signature, was recently received by the Chief Commissioner to the effect that an officer had influenced one of the men at Kilmainham Police Station to change his butcher, and on inquiry it was ascertained that there was not a particle of foundation for the allegation.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as both the majority and minority Reports of the Royal Commission on the Licensing Laws recommend a reduction in the hours of sale of intoxicating liquors on Sundays, he will consider the desirability of introducing a measure next session to carry out these recommendations, and thus effect a much needed reform.

In answer to my hon. friend, I have to say that the Report, or, rather, Reports, of the Royal Commission deserve, and will receive, our most careful attention, but I am not in a position to pledge the Government with regard to legislation on any of their recommendations at the present time.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the proposal to discontinue the high level observatory on Ben Nevis for want of funds, if he is aware that of the £15,000 granted to the Meteorological Council by Government for scientific investigation, nearly £1,000 is taken as payment for the Council for managing the grant, whilst the secretary also receives £800; that a sum is being annually set aside by the Council in order to provide for a superannuation fund, which now amounts to £2,000, and that upwards of £3,000 has been sunk in the high level observatory at Ben Nevis, the benefits accruing to science from the expenditure of such money being probably lost if the cycle of observations is not completed; whether conditions were imposed by the Government on granting this sum for scientific research that the money should be devoted exclusively to that object, and, if not, whether such conditions could now be imposed; and if he will cause steps to be taken so that the annual grant of money may be made direct to the Scottish Society in place of going through the intermediary of the Council, thus avoiding recourse to private charity for the upkeep of the only observatory possessed by this country at the high level of 4,400 feet.

The Government have no information as to the details of the expenditure of the Meteorological Council except such as may be derived from their report, and in that report no mention is made of any expenditure for superannuation. Their expenditure is, of course, annually audited. The council, I am informed, are overhauling their expenditure, and I trust that the result of that operation will be that more of the funds given by the State will be available for carrying on observatory work in the United Kingdom. As regards the second paragraph of the question, it is a condition that the grants should be applied exclusively to meteorological work, and no doubt the Controller and Auditor-General would call attention to any misapplication.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that the Meteorological Council have disregarded the recommendation given last year by the Government to afford the Scottish Meteorological Society the necessary support to maintain the Ben Nevis Observatory, he will, failing other action, bring further pressure to bear on the Meteorological Council, or increase the grant to that body by the few hundred pounds necessary to keep up the observatory as a national one.

The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as regards the facts of this case. He seems to imply that pressure has been put by the Treasury on the council on former occasions with regard to the devotion of their funds to this or that purpose. The Treasury have carefully abstained from any action of that sort. The responsibility for spending their £15,000 rests, and must rest, with the Meteorologial Council.

Seeing that a private donor has come forward with funds to enable the observatory to be carried on for another year, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries during the recess to ascertain whether he would be justified in proposing next year a small grant of a few hundred pounds in aid of the observatory?

It is not for me to say the Meteorological Council do or do not carry out the functions entrusted to them to the best advantage, but I confess I think a Government Department is even less qualified to deal with a strictly scientific matter.

When does the Chief Secretary propose to take the Lords' Amendments to the Irish Agriculture and Technical Instruction Bill, which we may expect down to-morrow, as the Report stage is being taken to-day?

It will not be possible to consider the Lords' Amendments to the Bill before Monday or Tuesday, because to-morrow must be devoted to the discussion of the Report of Supply.