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

laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Bills comprised in the list reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely—

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:— West Ham Corporation Bill.

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

"That this House is of opinion that it is undesirable to sanction a Bill to enable a London vestry to build upon allotment gardens, which serve the purposes of an open space in a densely populated district." In doing so, he said he was very much surprised that the London County Council, which had hitherto put themselves forward as champions, and, in fact, had been the champions of open spaces in London, should have taken this course and tried to destroy about eleven acres of open space in one of the most densely populated districts of the metropolis. He was also surprised when he was told that there were gentlemen in that House who had been accustomed to speak in favour of open spaces, and who had been among the greatest advocates of such spaces in the past, and had done great benefit to London by insisting upon their being maintained, who were now going to speak in favour of a scheme which, in his opinion, would destroy one of the most important open spaces that existed. He wanted to know why the London County Council had taken up this position, and what there was behind the Bill of which they had no knowledge, because he could not find in any shape or form that the London County Council had anything whatever to do with the Latchmere allotments. It had nothing to do with them at the present moment; the property belonged to Lord Spencer, and it was only given by him to the parish for certain uses. The effect of the proposal of the London County Council would be to divert it from those uses. And why? Evidently the London County Council did not want to do certain work themselves; they wanted the vestry of Latter sea to do it, but they thought that as the Battersea Vestry might not be able to launch the matter successfully in the House of Commons, they had better father the scheme and bring it forward. A scheme very similar to this was promoted in 1887, and the opposition to it was so strong that it was never brought up for Second Leading; it was, in fact, laughed out of the House of Commons, which would not have it in any shape or form. If the Battersea Vestry wished to build houses for the working-classes, surely there was plenty of land in Battersea to be obtained for such a purpose, and why then should the vestry not obtain that land in a proper way instead of endeavouring to filch it from the people and depriving them of their open spaces? He was told that if the House of Commons should decide in favour of his Amendment, the effect would be to destroy the whole General Powers Bill of the London County Council. Well, that was not his affair. If they chose for any improper or wrong reason to father a scheme which was not acceptable to the House, they must take the consequences. But he would put this to them. If they would withdraw this particular clause—this particular objectionable power to take this land for' these purposes—from the Bill, he would offer no objection to their Bill going through. He was only objecting to it on this, and on no other ground. He could not sec any reason why they should father this scheme at all. Why should it not be brought forward as a separate measure, and then it could be dealt with on its merits in the House of Commons? In 1876 the House of Commons discussed this question, and Parliament laid it down as a rule that common land allotted for public purposes should not be diverted from such purposes except for recreation grounds and gardens. Now, if it was the case that this land could not be used for allotment purposes, lot it go hack to its original uses; let it be dealt with as a common open space, but do not try and deprive the people of seven and a half acres of land, and allow them only four acres for an open space. They were told that the only object of the Bill was to got rid of the claims of the allottees who were in possession of the land. In the notice hon. Members had received, it was admitted that there were prohibitions, from erecting habitations upon this land, and the vestry also admitted that unless they could get this Bill passed, they would not be able to do as they wished with the land. They wanted to remove the restrictions which now rested upon it; they wanted to get rid of the legal restrictions, and he was opposing the Bill in order to prevent them doing so. It was said that the allottees were not particularly anxious about this matter, but then they were poor men who had not the power or money to appeal to the House of Commons in order to defend their own interests, and to fight for their own rights. That being so, they ran the risk of being dispossessed. There were, he was told, 108 allottees holding the land at the present moment, and of these 108 no fewer than ninety-two had petitioned the House of Commons to prevent this open space being taken away from them. It would be stated that some of this land was not used for allotment gardens, hut that rubbish was shot upon it. His answer was that the vestry were acting in an illegal manner, and that they had no business to throw any rubbish upon this land, which was to be set apart for garden allotments, and if the vestry pleaded that they were doing an illegal action, and that in consequence thereof they should be allowed to alter the purposes to which this land was originally devoted, he did not think that such a plea would commend itself to the House of Commons. It was all very well for them to seek to get rid of their legal liabilities in order that they might do what they liked with the land. They said they were quite willing to bring the matter before a Committee of the House of Commons to decide upon the scheme in its entirety, but he would point out in reply to that that a Committee would have no power whatever to go into any alternative scheme. Its duty would be to examine this particular proposal, and to say whether it was a proper one. These eleven and a half acres are situated in one of the most densely populated parts of London—a part lying between Clapham and Wandsworth and the Thames. It was a very lowly situated neighbourhood, and it was important that it should have air in the same way as other parts of the metropolis. It would be just as right to give powers to take a part of Hampstead Heath or Battersea Park to be built on as it was to suggest that this open space should be utilised for the, purpose of building workmen's dwellings, and he hoped that the Members of the House would not allow any such arrangement to be carried out. The House of Commons would be taking upon itself a great responsibility if it should deprive London of what was known as one of its "lungs." Home Members representing constituencies in the south of London were, he understood, going to speak in favour of this scheme, and no doubt, in view of the over crowed nature of their constituencies they would like to see these dwellings built, but it was their duty, notwithstanding such a desire, to strictly preserve the lands allotted in the past to be retained as open spaces. The vestry, in their statement of the reasons for bringing forward this Bill, made a singular remark. They said that they were perfectly prepared to agree to the abstract proposition in favour of open spaces. Well, he never yet met a thief who was not also willing, when brought before a magistrate, to say that he was quite prepared to agree to the abstract proposition that stealing was wrong, so long as it was not applied to his own case. It seemed to him that the London County Council were putting forward a similar abstract proposition, and were asking the House of Commons to accept it. He hoped the House would remain true to its ancient traditions, and would prevent this space being taken from the people.

hoped that the House would consent to the motion of his hon. friend, because he was of opinion that the action now taken by the London County Council was one unworthy—he would not say of the County Council-hut unworthy of London. It would in fact set a very bad precedent. He was very glad to hear his hon. friend speak of the London County Council as having been champions in the past of open spaces, and he hoped that the House would that day encourage the County Council in the course which up till now it had adopted. It had put forward year after year, with pardonable pride, a statement of the number of acres that had been secured for open spaces for the people of London, and he would ask the London County Council now to withdraw this proposal, because if they did not do so, and if they succeeded in carrying the present scheme they would hereafter have to publish the fact—that while they had secured so many acres in such and such a district as open spaces for the public of London, they had also in the parish of Battersea diverted so many acres from such a purpose, and therefore their total must be reduced to that extent. It will be sold, on behalf of the London County Council, that this space in Battersea was unfit for allotments, because the Battersea Vestry had shot rubbish on the ground. It was perhaps unfit, and it probably had become unfit by reason of the vestry having thus shot rubbish upon it, but if they had not done so the ground would, no doubt, have been fit for allotments. He trusted that the rational zeal of the London County Council for the housing of the working classes would be encou- raged, but that it would take this form—not to provide houses in which people are piled seven layers high on top of one another, but to persuade the working classes to take advantage of the rapid and cheap means of locomotion provided by the County Council to live a little way out of London. It was stated that the free holder—not the present Lord Spencer, but Lord Spencer's predecessor—handed over this space, under the Poor Law Relief Act, for the use of the poor.

And only for that.

And if he were not mistaken, the present Lord Spencer had not parted with the freehold, he wished to be informed whether the London County Council had done his Lordship the courtesy to ask him whether be intended or wished to part with it.

I am told that the land reverts to Lord Spencer if it is not used for the purposes to which it was originally dedicated.

feared chat a Bill like the present would override Lord Spencer's rights as a freeholder. For reasons which seemed to him to be excellent, he should vote for the motion of his hon. friend, and he trusted it would prove acceptable to the House.

said he had very little difficulty in subscribing to the abstract theory promulgated by the hon. Member who had moved the rejection of the clause as to the necessity for the House of Commons to be very careful about parting with open spaces. All the hon. Member had said approving the County Council's efforts on behalf of parks and open spaces he cordially endorsed. But the hon. Member did not tell the House of Commons that it was in the interests not only of open spaces in London but of open spaces in Battersea especially that this clause had been introduced into the Bill. He would not associate himself with any movement that had for its object the deprivation of a single acre of open spaces in London. He had had the pleasure for fifteen or sixteen years of working with Lord Meath on behalf of both the Commons Protection and the Metropolitan Gardens Associations. But even in the promotion of these excellent, objects it had been found necessary to use discrimination at times, and he thought he would be able to show that in this particular case such discrimination was not apparent. What were the facts? They had in the parish of Battersea eleven acres of land miscalled allotments, and more than half of that acreage was at present used by the local authority as a slop shoot. What the parish of Battersea wished to do—and men on both sides of politics, including the overseers, were unanimous in supporting it—was that instead of a portion of this land being used as a slop-shoot and the remainder being devoted to the cultivation of consumptive cabbages, as well as constituting a rendezvous, for dead dogs and cats, nearly four acres of it should be converted into a recreation ground for children, five acres should be used for the erection of artisans' dwellings, not piled one on top of the other to the extent of seven stories as had been suggested, but workmen's cottages of two or three tenements only, and that the remaining two acres should be utilised as roads. In order to bring that about, the London County Council had included the scheme as a passenger in its General Powers Omnibus Bill. He wished at once to say that the Battersea Vestry unanimously supported it, so did the overseers and the local clergy as represented by Canon Clarke, while the Parks Committee of the London Comity Council and the Housing and Small Holdings Committees of the same body also approved it. If the facts were known there would be no surprise felt at the proposal to utilise five acres of this land for artisans' dwellings. It might not be generally known to the House that the land was situated only 300 yards from Battersea Park, which was 200 acres in extent and two and a quarter miles round. Seeing that such a park was so close to the Latchmere allotments, there surely was no pressing need for the land to he retained as an open space. More than that, in Clapham Common they had another 220 acres of open space, and at Wandsworth a further 183 acres, all in the same parish. In addition, they had three small recreation grounds and five or six gymnasiums, covered or open. He now came to the suggestion that the allottees were strongly opposed to the scheme. The hon. Member had made much of a petition he had got from those allottees.

I had nothing to do with getting it.

I didn't say you had.

You said I had got it.

Well, the hon. Member made much of a petition supposed to come from the allottees, and he said that of 108 allotment holders ninety two had petitioned against that clause. Well, he examined the tenants' book at the Town Hall on Saturday last and found that out of ninety-two signing the petition thirty-seven only were genuine tenants and the remainder were not allottees at all. The hon. Member had suggested that this was a densely populated district. Now he shared with the hon. Member for Clapham the distinction of representing the parish of Battersea in that House, and he strongly resented the suggestion, as he was sure his colleague would do, that Battersea was either in-sanitary, overcrowded, or densely populated. He would prove this by simple figures. The Central District of London had 9,150 persons per acre of open spaces. West London had 943 persons per acre, while Battersea had only 286 persons per acre of open spaces. How then could it be said that Battersea was densely populated and in-sanitary, or that it wanted more open spaces, seeing that it contained more such spaces than any other parish in the whole county of London? Thanks in no small measure to that fact they had one of the lowest death rates in the whole Metropolis. With all these advantages why should this particular piece of land be reserved as an exclusive nuisance for ninety-two persons? He appealed to the House of Commons, in view of the increasing necessity to do something for the housing of the London poor, to allow this clause to pass, and, instead of allowing these eleven acres to be used as dung heaps and slop shoots, to convert a small portion of the land into a recreation ground and to devote the remainder to the erection of cottage property for the artisan and labouring classes, which was especially needed in that district, in view of the fact that the London and South Western Railway Company were about to pull down no fewer than 680 houses. He did not believe that any injustice would be done to Battersea by the proposal contained in this clause, and he therefore hoped that the House would reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Uxbridge.

said he was extremely sorry to find himself opposed to the hon. Baronet the Member for Uxbridge in this matter. He was sure that if the hon. Member only knew the real facts he would see that he had been acting under a misapprehension, and one which would be natural to anyone not familiar with Battersea. Could ho, for instance, locate the spot at which the land was situated whereon it was suggested workmen's dwellings might be erected without building on the Latchmere Allotments? The hon. Baronet must surely have been misinformed by those who alleged that an alternative site existed. He, having some knowledge of Battersea, opposed this motion for several reasons. In the first place he was a resident of the neighbourhood, and had cognizance of the needs of the people, and he was perfectly sure that one of the things most desired was additional land for the housing of the poor. The Latchmere allotments were only 315 yards from Battersea Park, and they were within half a mile of Clapham Common. They were also within measurable distance of Wandsworth Common, and the parish was therefore exceptionally well situated as regarded open spaces. They had a greater need for houses for the working classes, for there were two schemes on foot, one of which would dispossess many of the railway men now living at Nine Elms, a district described by Charles Booth as one of the poorest districts in London. A number of gas men would also be deprived of their homes by a projected improvement, and anyone who knew what it was for a man to stand eight hours before a retort would not think of suggesting that he should be called upon to travel ten or twelve miles into the country in order to get to his home. It was in the interests of his own constituents, and of some of the very poorest among them, that he asked the House to reject the motion of his hon. friend. If the hon. Baronet would like to get an idea of the real character of these allotments he would be very glad to entertain him at luncheon one morning and drive him over to see them, for he was sure he would then realise that he had been acting under a misapprehension, and would withdraw this motion. In 1887, when the question came before Parliament, he—the hon. Member for Clapham—was vicar's churchwarden at Battersea, and in such capacity supported the scheme, and wished he had then been able to lift up his voice in Parliament on its behalf.

said that the public had at present no right to stand on any part of the area referred to. Owing to the proximity of Battersea Park it was not required as an open space, but under the Bill additional dwellings would be built on it, and a real open space of four acres would be provided for cricket. The motion of the hon. Member, if carried, would destroy the whole Bill, which would be a great misfortune to London. He was, therefore, surprised that the hon. Member was not content in moving his Instruction instead of going to the root of the Bill. The discussion was premature, and he did not think any hon. Member would support the motion.

said that Part 7 did not allude exclusively to the question of allotments. The latter part referred to other land for other purposes.

If the Instruction is opposed it must go over to another day.

I withdraw Sir.

said the object of the Bill was to amalgamate eight or more important undertakings into one gigantic concern. Powers were asked to establish some central generating stations and to link up the scattered portions of the area of supply, the latter object involving the laying of new lines and the consequent breaking up of streets in six districts in London, in which at present the company had no locus standi whatever, namely Islington, Shoreditch, Battersea, Lambeth, Bermondsey, and White chapel. At present Shoreditch supplied its own electricity, and yet the people of that district would be required under the Bill to submit without any compensation to the inconvenience of having their streets broken up, and to the company occupying spaces on the streets, not for the purpose of supplying Shoreditch but some other district beyond it with electricity. The company ought not to have such powers without the sanction of the local authority. There were other considerations connected with the Bill of an even more important character. The company was really trying to drive a coach and six through the existing electric lighting code and if it succeeded other companies would follow in its wake. The passing of the present Bill would practically mean the repeal of the electric lighting code. At present a company could not obtain powers to supply electric lighting without the consent of the local authorities, though it was within the power of the Board of Trade to grant such powers by Provisional Order to be confirmed by Parliament if the local authorities withheld their consent unreasonably, but only in very exceptional cases did the Board of Trade override the wishes of the local authorities. Therefore, no company had a right to invade the area of a local authority without their consent. The company was breaking faith with the local authorities who might desire to exercise their powers of purchase, because the present Bill would render such powers illusory. The local authorities really consented to the various undertakings on the understanding that they were to he separate and self contained, in order that the option of purchase might be capable of being exercised. The Bill would practically render that option illusory, because under it several areas would be supplied by one generating station, and instead of several undertakings there would be one gigantic concern. One section of the Bill was very insidious. It provided that the company might make and publish one annual statement of accounts for the whole of its undertakings instead of an annual statement for each separate undertaking. That was in effect a repeal of Section 9 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, and was of vital importance, be cause it would upset the deliberate policy of Parliament, and throw great difficulties in the way of the option to purchase being exercised. The promoters of the Bill appealed to the recommendations of the Joint Committee of 1898, but those recommendations were to a great extent discredited by the rejection of the General Powers Distribution Bill last session. Similar proposals had already been submitted to Parliament. A Bill substantially the same—indeed, almost identical—with the present Bill passed its Second Beading last session, but the; Committee subsequently found that the preamble was not proved. The preamble in the present Bill was identical with that which was rejected. Under such circumstances was it right to read the Bill a second time, and to put the local authorities to the expense of resisting it before a Committee? In these circumstances, having regard specially to the fact that the company had its opportunity last session, and failed to satisfy the Committee of this House that the statements made in the preamble were well founded; and these statements being identically the same in the Bill now before the House, he thought he had shown good grounds why the House should reject its Second Reading, and he moved accordingly.

said he supported very strongly the motion for the rejection of the Bill, which seemed to him, like many others, an attempt to evade, or rather to override, by private legislation, the general law of the land, and especially in this case to escape the provisions of the Electric Lighting Acts, which required the consent of the local authority for the purpose of carrying out their provisions. The powers sought by the Bill were extremely strong. In the first place, by applying the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, it proposed to take property compulsorily and also water rights from the Regent's Canal, and yet in almost the next clause it was sought to escape from the provision of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act which secured that where there was severance the whole property should be taken. That was, of course, a clause which would be a great disadvantage to landowners. Then the Bill authorised the breaking up of streets, not only to lay the mains, but to alter and repair them from time to time. He need hardly point out the inconvenience of different authorities undertaking that work. But in the present case an exceptional injustice was to be perpetrated, because powers were sought to break up the streets in districts, not of supply, where a benefit was to be given and where a burden might on that account be submitted to, but in the intervening districts, which had no interest whatever in the work. Then the Bill evaded the provision of the Electric Lighting Act by which the consent of the local authority was necessary if the proceeding adopted was by Provisional Order, except that there was a right of appeal to the Board of Trade on the ground that the local authority was unreasonable. Again, he would point out that if a company elected to proceed by Bill instead of Provisional Order, it was only fair that they should be brought under the same Standing Orders of the House as those that regulated tramway companies, under which the consent of the local authority must be obtained if procedure by Bill was adopted. This was a matter of infinite importance in local government. Local authorities supplied electricity themselves, and there was no valid reason why their streets should be under any other jurisdiction than themselves. It had been argued that these large means of producing electricity were beneficial. Electrical experts, however, hold that beyond a certain point of capacity there was no advantage whatever in these large aggregations of power: but that, on the contrary, they were a source of some disadvantages. Then it was an evil that these powerful private companies were able to exercise a pressure upon consumers which was at variance with public policy. There was a case within his own personal experience the other day in which a large and powerful company said to all its consumers that they must submit to take a changed current of 200 volts or pay the maximum charge of 8d., whereas the current might, and ought to be, supplied at 4½ d., as in the City of London and elsewhere. The local authorities were those which had the interests of the community most at heart, which were representative of the consumers, and which were most disinterested in the matter, and their consent and approval ought to be required instead of being dispensed with as was sought to be done under this Bill.

said that all the reasons—if they could be called reasons—given for the rejection of this Bill afforded, in his view, no ground for the House departing from the ordinary principle of referring the Bill to the ordinary Committee. None of the grounds put before the House by the mover and seconder was the House perfectly competent to discuss; whereas a Committee could proceed to ascertain the merits of the whole question. The House itself could not take evidence on the merits of the case, or to disprove the allegations of the hon. Member who had spoken, and it would be an intrusion on the time and attention of the House if he were to attempt to do so. It was said that one of the clauses of the Bill was an attempt to override the law of the land, because it adopted the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act as to compulsory powers for taking property. He did not see how that was; it was only a provision to take advantage of a general Act passed in 1845 for the purpose of obtaining land for public purposes. The seconder of the Amendment suggested that while seeking for compulsory power to take land, the company asked to be exempted from the ordinary conditions that if they wanted one piece of land they must take the whole. But that was a matter of detail which the Committee could best deal with. There were an ample number of precedents given by the House, in Acts of Parliament passed in former years in which this exemption was granted; and he saw no reason why exemption should not be allowed in this case. But even if there were no precedents, the Committee might be trusted to do its duty. Another point taken was that the Bill exempted the company from the obligation, under the Electric Lighting Act of 1892, to render separate accounts for each undertaking, but when the Bill came before the Committee, if sufficient reason was not given why the company should not render separate accounts for each undertaking, the Committee could impose that condition. Then there was an objection that power should be given to the company to break up the streets in intervening districts. At the first blush, that did strike one as being a little strong; but Parliament, in its wisdom, had already granted such power to private undertakings, and he saw no reason why identical facilities should not be given in this case, so that the undertaking could be carried out in the most economical fashion and on the most approved system. At all events, whether this power "was right or not, it was a matter which would get equal justice from the Committee as from the House. He asked the House to pass the Order for the Second Beading and allow the Bill to go to the Committee.

said that as a representative of what was called by the Bill an "intervening district," he wished to say a few words in support of the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and South Islington. It was a matter of regret to him that this Bill had been put down for that day, and that it could not have been postponed until after the decision of the House on other Bills which raised the same principle and which came on next Thursday. This Bill raised the question of intervening areas, which was a vital matter that the House of Commons ought to closely safeguard. If a local authority came to the House of Commons to get power to supply electricity, it was confined to its statutory area, and very properly too. And if a private company came to the House and asked for powers to override the general law, and to break up tike streets of a district which they were not going to supply with electric light—all for the profit of the private company and at the expense of the ratepayers of that area—then that was a principle the House ought to oppose. Another objection was that a conference of the local authorities of London had met and decided with unanimity that the Bill was against the general interests of the highways and streets administration. Last year the Committee of the House of Commons threw out the Bill, and would not have anything to do with it, because it invaded the principles which had been laid down with respect to areas. The Bill sought power to pull down workmen's houses, but its housing scheme was very defective and did not comply with the Standing Orders. He further objected to the Bill because it sought to abstract water from the river Wandle (which never had as much water as it should have) and was against the interests of the taxpayers. There was not a single clause in the Bill about the failure of electric lighting which had taken place. Recently there had been in Marylebone, Kensington, and Westminster a deficiency of electric light supply, and there was no remedy as against the company. The House ought not to allow any electric light Bill to go through, unless there was some protection for the electric light consumer in the event of the electric supply failing. If the company got the powers asked for, it would use them in the most arbitrary fashion. Its conduct in his own district had been referred to by Lord Justice Vaughan Williams as "lawless and highhanded."

said that in November the new municipal bodies would come into existence. Great things had been hoped of the new bodies, and not the least of them had reference to electric lighting and electric power facilities. The question of electric lighting had lately occupied a great measure of public attention. In many districts applications had been made to take over the electric light and power plants as part of the municipal undertaking, and facilities had been afforded for doing that where the electric light and power plants had been purely local concerns. Obviously a new difficulty would be introduced into the matter if the local plants were to be amalgamated, and the municipal authorities had to deal, not with a local concern, but with one great amalgamation. He could not entirely free his mind from the suspicion that one of the underlying motives of the promoters of the Bill was to "head off'" municipal competition. To some extent he was justified in that view by the fact that in many districts in the East of London companies had obtained powers and had gone no further. As the new municipalities would blossom forth in November, he urged upon the House not to allow this company to create an amalgamation which would make the acquisition of electric plants by local authorities more difficult, if not impossible. In his opinion the now municipal governments would, if given a fair chance, be able to establish a useful, economical, and possibly profitable, local electric plant, and he hoped that the House would allow the Bill to go over at any rate for the present.

said he had no interest in the Bill. It was urged that the Bill should be thrown out because a Bill for general electric powers had been thrown out last year. In last year's Bill he took some interest. Great objections were entertained to it by municipalities because powers were given to the company to use compulsory powers in areas in which the municipalities had already set up their electric light. That was a very different thing from the present Bill, which simply sought to extend the powers already granted to the company. The head and front of the Bill's offence was that it desired to take power to carry its mains through districts which had an electric system of their own. It did not seek to compete with local municipalities. This Bill differed from other Bills that had been before the House in that, in addition to electricity for the purpose of lighting, it embraced electricity for the purpose of motive power. He ventured to suggest that the House should not refuse the Bill a Second Beading.

said his name appeared on the Bill, although he was not interested in the company promoting the Bill. He did not know that he should have risen but for the remark which fell from the hon. Member for Battersea when he said the company was coming to the House to over-ride the decision of Parliament. The hon. Member spoke of this company as being desirous to break up the streets of districts which it had no power to supply with energy or electric light. During last session two electric lighting companies obtained Bills which gave them power to pass through districts to which they were not authorised to supply light or energy. This particular company supplied districts on the north and south of the Thames, and they were not able to get from one district to another without going to Parliament for powers. The consequence was they were obliged to establish generating stations, and were not aide to economise in the way they desired in the interests of the public. The Bill only facilitated the distribution of electric energy in districts in respect of which Provisional Orders had been obtained. They would not interfere with any right or power possessed by any municipality or local body. As to the desirability of local authorities supplying electric light or energy, they would have been in darkness still if electric lighting had been left to local bodies, and it was owing to the enterprise of these companies that they now possessed so good a light. Athough

said this Bill was substantially the same as the one introduced last session, therefore he thought they were entitled to have some indication of the views of the Government on this measure. This Bill contained identically the same principle as that dealt with in the very much larger and far-reaching measure which would have to be discussed when they came to deal with the Bill for generating electricity. That was a principle which the House ought to decide before adopting this Bill. He did not think they ought to do anything which would handicap the new municipalities about to be formed. This company would never have been given powers upon previous occasions if the House had thought they were endeavouring to set up a large monopoly and establishing a great rival to local authorities. Under the circumstances he hoped the House would reject this Bill, in order that the general question might be considered.

Can the First Lord of the Treasury give the House any fresh news from the seat of war?

I have no news except that already in the hands of hon. Members.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the proceedings of the Committee about to inquire into the administration of the Royal Patriotic and other funds will be conducted in public, and will be open to the representatives of the press.

This is a matter which must be left to the Committee, as such matters are always left to committees, but I do not think the Committee will desire secrecy as regards their proceedings.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state approximately the number of officers and men killed and wounded up to the present time in the war in South Africa, and also the number of prisoners in the hands of the Boers.

In the absence of my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the questions addressed to him to-day. The total casualties reported up to 24th February are as follows:—

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Royal Proclamation warning British subjects against trading with the burghers of the Transvaal Republic has not had the practical effect of stopping the transhipment of wool from Delagoa Bay, but that such transhipment is freely taking place in German steamers to the detriment of English vessels; whether a British shipowner who engaged with a neutral to carry wool, the property of a neutral trader, from Delagoa Bay to Port Natal would be contravening the proclamation above referred to; and whether any fresh instructions will be issued to the commandant at Port Natal.

The proclamation prohibiting British subjects from trading with the enemy does not affect neutral ships. The question whether any particular act amounts to trade with the enemy by a British subject must be decided in accordance with the circumstances of each case as it arises. It does not appear that any fresh instructions to the commandant of Port Natal are necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trade in wool with Delagoa Bay is undiminished, and that the only effect of the proclamation is to transfer that trade from English to German ships.

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Corporal Whiteley, of the Tasmanians, serving in South Africa, bravely rescued a dismounted comrade under heavy fire, and brought him safely out of danger; and whether he has been recommended for the Victoria Cross; and if not whether his commanding officer will be asked to report on his conduct.

No report or recommendation on this matter has as yet been received from Lord Roberts.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of the question.

He is one of your colonial friends.

I have said that no report of this alleged act has been received.

Will the hon. Gentleman kindly read the question? I ask if he will call for a report.

No, Sir, the matter is one which rests entirely with the commanding officer.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a supply of anti-typhoid lymph for vaccination is placed on board all transports conveying troops to South Africa.

Anti-enteric vaccine is placed on board all transports proceeding to South Africa.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of ordering more traction engines with hauling gear to hoist guns on difficult positions; and whether the traction engines now in use are armoured.

Traction engines with very powerful hauling gear have been ordered in addition to those already in South Africa. Some will be armoured.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can say if the recent expression of Her Majesty the Queen's desire that Her Majesty's old soldiers would reenter Her Majesty's service applies to men of all ages and ranks; and, if not, whether In; will state the limit of age or exceptions of rank.

They must be on the date of re-enlistment between the ages of twenty-two and forty-five. These particular's were fully given in the notice that has been issued.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state whether as many as eighty civilian veterinary surgeons have been engaged by the military authorities since the outbreak of the war in South Africa r whether any commission has been gazetted in the Army Veterinary Department for nearly a, year; and whether there are now twelve vacancies for which there are no candidates; and, under those circumstances, will he consider the advisability of meeting the wishes of the officers of the Army Veterinary Department by placing them on the same footing as regards military titles with all other non-combatant branches of the service.

Eighty civilian veterinary surgeons have been temporarily engaged since the outbreak of the war. There are at the present moment twelve vacancies in the Army Veterinary Department. The conditions of service in the Veterinary Department are under consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers, irrespective of rank or service, applying personally to see the Military Secretary or his Assistant Military Secretary with a view to employment in South Africa, are refused an interview, and that the messengers have orders not to take the cards of officers so applying to either of these officials; and can he arrange for some modification of this refusal to grant interviews, in view of the deficiencies of officers in South Africa.

The number of officers applying for interviews with the Military Secretary and Assistant Military Secretary at a time like the present is such that if these officials were to grant interviews in all cases it would be impossible for them to attend to their duties, which already occupy their time very fully. In ordinary cases the objects of the applications can be stated without difficulty in writing. The statement that messengers have orders not to take the cards of officers applying personally to either of these officials is not correct.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether further information of the arrival of fresh guns in South Africa enables him to give any further details to the House of the respective number of guns in use by the British and Boer forces.

I do not think that I should be justified in giving the information for which the hon. Member asks.

I have only asked for a correction of the information which the Under-Secretary of State for War gave to the House three weeks ago.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the disadvantages of bright-coloured uniforms on active service as shown in the present South African campaign, the War Office would consider the desirability of issuing to the troops in England, Regulars, Militia, and Volunteers now clothed in scarlet, an undress uniform available for active service of khaki or grey or some similar colour.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the heavy parcel post charges to the Cape of Good Hope, namely, a minimum of 9d. per pound; and whether he will endeavour to make a reduction in the case of the small parcels of comforts for the troops in South Africa which arc transmitted by their relatives during the war.

No general reduction in the parcel postage rates to South Africa can be effected without the concurrence of the Cape Government, by whom the sea service is provided; but the Secretary of State for War is considering whether any additional facilities can be afforded for the transmission of parcels addressed to the troops serving at the front.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government have a large sum of money in hand intended to be spent on the construction of rifle ranges available for Volunteer practice; if so, whether he is aware that there is a suitable site at Machynlleth, in the county of Montgomery, and what steps are being taken to secure the same; and whether the Government are prepared to allocate a portion of the above sum to the purchase of this site and construction of a rifle range thereon.

A considerable sum of money is being provideed to assist Volunteer corps in the provision of ranges. Nothing is known at the War Office of the site referred to, but the General Officer Commanding will be requested to furnish a report.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the uniform grant to Volunteer officers barely covers half the cost of full uniform, the Government is prepared to consider the advisability of increasing the grant.

The allowance of £20 to Volunteer officers for outfit was only intended to be a grant in aid and not to cover the total expenditure.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, out of existing funds, a certain amount could be allocated to encourage cadet corps in schools; and whether the War Office would consider the advisability of consulting with the Education Department with the view of introducing sergeants to teach boys drill in all elementary schools.

There arc no funds at present at the disposal of the Secretary of State for War, out of which money could be allocated to cadet corps. The suggestion made in the second paragraph of the question has already been adopted.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will ascertain from the general officer commanding the manoeuvres at Gibraltar last April whether any experiments were made with the Brotherhood depression range finder, and will he state the result of those experiments; and is he aware that, as the result of a trial made at Gibraltar by permission of the Governor, there were twenty-four direct hits out of twenty-seven shots at various ranges at a moving object.

Yes, Sir. A letter will be sent to the general officer commanding at Gibraltar to inquire into the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that it is difficult to abstract information from the 200 pages of the Annual Accounts of the Ordnance Factories, he can arrange, for the year 1899-1900, to have added to the Report an abstract of the number and cost of the guns and other war material which have been manufactured or passed through the factories in a completed state.

Before the hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask if he has seen the question of which I sent notice to the Under Secretary for War—namely, whether the Admiralty object to the re-publication of the war material figures asked for by the hon. Member, and which were published a few years ago?

I have no information on that point. To prepare such a statement would add very much to the labour and cost of preparing the account—over 300 men are constantly employed on the work already. If the hon. Member requires information upon any specific point, I will do my best to obtain it for him.

Would it not be possible to have the Report published in less time than eleven months after the end of the year to which it refers?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that foreign Governments prohibit the publication of the routes followed by their submarine cables, as, for example, in one of the agreements (specification as to manufacture of cable) between the Société Géné rate des Télégraphes Sous-marins and the French Government in reference to the cable between New Caledonia and Queensland; whether our own submarine cable lines are shown on the Admiralty charts, as, for instance, on those of Lisbon, Sierra Leone, and Delagoa Bay; and whether he will consider if it might be better in future cases to omit British cables, and to indicate them only, according to the practice of foreign Governments, on special private charts to be supplied to the commanders of men-of-war.

The right hon. Baronet is under a misapprehension in thinking that telegraph cables are never marked on foreign charts. The same principle appears to govern the action of foreign Governments in this respect as has guided Admiralty action—namely, that whore there is more chance of interruption from ships anchoring over the cables than there is any advantage to be gained in Avar by attempting to conceal the position of the cables they are shown on the plans or charts of approaches to ports. On the plans mentioned in the question the cables are shown for the above reason. The action suggested in the last paragraph has already been taken for such stations as it appears desirable.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Colonial Office has been called to the terms on which the New Caledonia-Queensland cable was laid for the Société Général des Télégraphes Sous-marins by the Sociéte´ Général des Téléphones; and whether the agreement between the companies purports to place relations with the public at the Queensland end of the cable under regulations made by the French Ministry of the Marine, and shows the French Submarine Cable Company to be bound to act in conformity with the directions of the French Government in all matters which concern connections with other lines, the company being bound to have none but French directors.

I have no information as to the terms of the arrangement between the Soeiété Général des Télégraphes Sousmarins and the Société Général des Téléphones, but the conditions mentioned in the hon. Member's question were laid down in the French law of 1893, under which the establishment of the cable was authorised.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when re-commissioning vessels built previous to 1898, all inflammable woodwork fittings will be replaced by others which are non-inflammable.

No, Sir; it could not be done.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state what colonies up to the present time 'have received loans under the Colonial Loans Act, 1899; what amount has been lent in each case; and in which cases, if any, interest exceeding 2¾ per cent. per annum has been fixed.

No advances have as yet actually been made under the Act of last session; but agreements have been come to, under which Mauritius and Seychelles will receive the amounts specified in the schedule of the Act, Jamaica £318,000, Barbados and St. Vincent the sums, less than those given in the schedule, which may be actually required to be lent to planters at 2¾ per cent.; Cyprus £60,000 at 3 per cent., and £354,000 at 3¼ per cent. In the case of the other colouies, and of the balance of the loan authorised to be made to Jamaica, no final arrangements have as yet been made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has had complaints lately from the West Indies; whether he is aware that planters are being ruined owing to the sugar bounties which are given by foreign nations; and whether any legislation may be expected shortly to counteract these disadvantages.

For years past there have been constant complaints from or on behalf of the West Indies as to the effect of the bounty system on the sugar industry. The condition of things has lately improved owing to the countervailing duties imposed by the Government of the United States.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken by the Governor of Gibraltar to enforce the statutory powers conferred upon him for the exclusion of destitute aliens from the town and garrison of Gibraltar; how many' licences were granted in the year 1899 to aliens applying for permission to' reside within the fortress; whether any recommendations were made, by the Gibraltar Committee in 1898 with reference to this subject in connection with overcrowding and sanitary reform; and what are the objections to communicating to the House a summary of the general conclusions arrived at by the Committee, omitting all reference to any recommendations relating to armaments and defence works.

The provisions of the aliens Order in Council are strictly enforced. Permits of residence to aliens are only granted on the application of a respectable inhabitant, who is responsible if the alien is incapable of maintaining himself. In 1899, 3,820 permits were issued and 3,240 given up. On 31st December last there were 2,839 persons living in the fortress on permit, and 364 in the bay. The Committee made, no recommendation except that the law should continue to be strictly enforced. It would be undesirable to give the conclusions of the Committee without giving their report, which, as I have already informed the hon. Member, is confidential.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the cost of collection of hut tax in the British Central Africa Protectorate in the year 1898-9, when the tax amounted to £12,648, as compared with 1897-8, when the tax collected was £8,083; and is the tax paid in the form of labour or otherwise; if in labour, how many days' service are enforced, and what is the amount of tax per head.

(1) It is difficult to say what the cost of the collection of this tax is. The staff of assistants, who are charged amongst other duties with that of collecting the tax, was raised in 1898 by four, the commencing salary being £150. (2) Hut tax regulations were published in the British Central Africa Gazette of August 20th, 1894. The tax is fixed at 3s. for each hut, payable in sterling coin on the 31st December. In cases of necessity the collector may accept any marketable stock or produce in lieu of coin. The regulations do not touch labour in any form.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affair's whether he has seen the statement made some days ago in the Senate at Madrid by the Spanish Minister, Senor Silvela, to the effect that before the war with the United States in 1898 the British Government had consented to let Spain have 8,500 shells which had been manufactured at the Maxim factory in Plasencia, Biscay: and whether Spain accepted the offer: and, if not, can he, state what has become of the shells.

I have not seen the statement. There is no record of it at the War Office.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire, as the Standard has declared that the statement was made in the Senate at Madrid?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to communicate with regard to the alleged attack upon the British Vice-Consulate at Sidon.

The two sons of the Vice-Consul were attacked and insulted on the 17th inst. The police interfered and protected them to the Consulate. The crowd was dispersed, and subsequently the Vali, at the request of the Consul General, sent a body of gendarmes under their colonel to investigate the matter and seize the offenders.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the next Blue-book will be issued containing papers relating to China.

Papers relating to China are now being prepared, and will be issued as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report, which he promised in reply to a question last Tuesday to call for by telegraph from Her Majesty's Consul at Lorenzo Marques, regarding the ill-treatment of a number of British Indian refugees from the Transvaal by the Portuguese military authorities, and their compulsory deportation to India instead of to their homes in Natal, has been received; and, if so, will he state the contents of the Report.

The telegram has been received. Her Majesty's Consul reports the Indian refugees lived in a camp while waiting for the steamers to take them away. The camp was necessarily guarded by Portuguese soldiers. A person employed by the relief committee lived for some time in the camp, but reported no case of abuse. The Indians were sent to their declared homes, and none who were Natalians were sent to India. Her Majesty's Consul adds that no case of proved robbery or abuse was reported to him.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the tentative appointment of commercial reporters in various foreign centres, in accordance with the statement made to the House towards the close of last session.

Commercial agents have already been appointed in Russia, China, and Central America. The appointment of two more commercial agents, to be stationed in Switzerland and the United States, will shortly be made.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that two British mercantile firms, trading at Constantinople, have been compelled to liquidate their affairs in consequence of the financial losses caused by the disturbances and robberies which took place at Stamboul, Haskeny, Pera, and Galata in August, 1896; whether repeated representations have been made by the British Chamber of Commerceat Constantinople in regard to the delay in settling the claims of Her Majesty's subjects residing in Turkey, under the protection of the Capitulations, who suffered loss of property at the time of the massacres; and what steps the Government propose; to take for the purpose of securing payment of the claims which have been certified as fair and reasonable by the British Ambassador.

Her Majesty's Government are aware that the losses sustained on the occasion referred to have caused serious embarrassment to several of the sufferers, and that representations have been made by British merchants at Constantinople. The claims have been pressed on the attention of the Porte, and will continue to be so pressed; but Her Majesty's Government cannot undertake to do more than act in concert with other Powers who are equally concerned.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the matter of the bankruptcy of Mr. E. T. Hooley the liabilities amounted to £1,549,071, and that in the course of the nineteen months during which the estate of the bankrupt has been in the hands of the official trustee only one dividend of 2s. in the £ has been paid to the creditors; and whether he can state what is the cause in the delay in the winding up of the estate.

The estate is not in the hands of an official trustee, but of a trustee elected by the creditors acting under a committee of inspection. The trustee reports that he has notice of claims amounting to £1,524,505, but that he expects to reduce them by rejection to the extent of about two-thirds. He explains the delay in winding up the estate by the exceptional difficulties attending the investigation of those claims, and by the necessity of awaiting favourable opportunities for the redemption and sale of freehold and leasehold estates and other assets held in mortgage by secured creditors. The mortgaged properties are stated to have included upwards of 200 buildings in course of erection, some of which were not completed till last autumn, and cannot be advantageously disposed of till the spring. The trustee expects to gazette notice of a second dividend before Easter.

had on the paper the following question:—To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of sailors and firemen discharged from British registered vessels at Hamburg, Antwerp, and Rotterdam during each of the following years, i.e., 1897, 1898, and 1899; whether he can state the number of sailors and firemen engaged in British vessels at the same ports and during the same years; and whether he can state the percentage of foreigners so engaged. On being called upon to put the question, the hon. Member said: I have received information, in reply to this question, from the right hon. Gentleman; but as I consider the matter of great importance, I should like to ask him if he is willing to supply it in the shape of a Return, so that it may be put on the Table for the benefit of Members who want to know the percentage of foreigners engaged on British ships in foreign ports.

There is a return which sets out clearly the number of foreigners employed on British ships. If I were to make returns of all the information for which the hon. Gentleman is continually asking me, I should he compelled to lay on the Table very much more than the House would care to have,

May I, in anwer to the tight hon. Gentleman—

Order, order!

Will the right hon. Gentleman furnish other hon. Members with a copy of the answer, because we are equally interested, although from a different point of view?.

I shall be very pleased indeed to let any hon. Gentleman who cares for it to have a copy of the answer. It is perfectly impossible to take up the time of the House by reading out all the figures for which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough asks me.

Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, may I ask him whether the information with which he has furnished me applies only to foreigners engaged on British ships in the United Kingdom, and not to those engaged in Continental ports.

The hon. Gentleman will see from the answer exactly what it is. I have given him a complete answer to the question.

I shall call attention to this matter to-night after twelve o'clock.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the recommendations of his Department, embodied in a Report by the late Major Marindin, issued in January, 1897, as to the necessity of properly laying out Anstruther Station on the North British Bait way system, so as to afford the usual facilities for passing trains and avoid needless danger to life and property, has yet been carried out; and whether the provision of a second platform at this station, as suggested by the Board of Trade inspector, has been made; and, if not, what steps he intends to take to make the company carry out the recommendations.

No, Sir: I regret to learn from the company that the directors have not come to a decision as to the alterations at the station. The Board cannot compel the company to make these desirable alterations, but I am in communication with the company on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how often within the last two years the Physiological Laboratory, University College, London, has been visited by the Government inspector: is he aware that Mr. R. E Lloyd. B. Sc., in the Journal of Physiology, dated 2nd February, refers to experiments which be made upon three cats and four monkeys, the animals being allowed to linger for two months before death ensued; will he ascertain whether these experiments were made without the use of anæsthetics and, if they were, will he say when a certificate enabling Mr. Lloyd to dispense with the use of anæsthetics was granted z and whether any of these experiments were made in the presence of a Government inspector.

The Physiological Laboratory at University College was visited by the Government Inspector three times in 1898, and once in 1899. During the last quarter of 1899' no experimental work was being carried, on there. As regards the last three paragraphs of the question, I think, the article in the Journal of Physiology has been misunderstood. It does not appear that Mr. Lloyd performed any experiments on living animals at all; and he refers in the paper only. so far as his own work is concerned, to microscopical examination of some brains removed after death from animals upon which experiments had been previously made under, anæsthetics by a. person, holding the proper certificates.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state in what respect the valuation of deer forests in Scotland which are let differs from those which are not let; and if, in making the valuation, the number of stags which a forest can carry is considered, will he state by what evidence the assessor is guided and what is the valuation set on each stag.

The valuation of a deer forest which is let is based upon the conditions of the lease; and that of a forest which is not let is based on the information which the assessor derives from the proprietor or his factor and from any other available sources, as well as by comparison with other forests which are let. The value set on each stag ranges from £15 to £20, varying according to locality, facilities of access, and other such considerations.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that about a month ago an engrossing clerk in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, was summarily dismissed on the ground of defective eye sight, and that he died shortly afterwards in Morningside Asylum a pauper lunatic; and whether it is the practice of this Department to summarily dismiss officials under such circumstances; and if so, will arrangements be made to grant temporary leave of absence in similar cases, as in other public Departments in England.

I am informed that it is true that an old engrossing clerk of the Register of Sasines recently died in Morningside Asylum. This clerk was not summarily dismissed, but had been continued in the office for many years until his writing had become illegible and a source of danger to the public records. The Department has at all times shown to its staff whatever kindness and consideration it was possible in the interests of the public service to show.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board on what grounds the Board gave their consent to the recent application of the Registrar General to unite the West Maidstone sub-district with the East Maidstone sub-district against the unanimously expressed opposition of the guardians of the Maidstone Union; whether this course was adopted on the advice of the Local Government Board's inspector; and whether he will now take steps to give effect to the wishes of the guardians in the matter.

The consent referred to was given by the Local Government Board in the belief that the proposed change would be for the general convenience of the public. The reply to the second paragraph of the question is in the negative. The wishes of the guardians could only be met by a fresh order being made by the Registrar General with the sanction of the Board, and he would be exceedingly unwilling to issue such an order. The new district is co-extensive with the parish and borough of Maidstone, and the Registrar General believes that the area is well within the capacity of a single registrar, and that the union of the two sub-districts will effect a reduction in in the cost of registration payable out of local rates.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, having regard to the fact that doubts exist as to whether the proposed charter for the University of Birmingham will empower the university to grant degrees in theology or other subjects not recognised by the statutes as subjects for degrees, the Government will state what is intended to be the effect of the charter in this matter, and will advise Her Majesty so to amend the charter as to make it clear that this cannot be done.

It is not possible for me to state what the provisions of the charter will be; they will be determined by Her Majesty in Council.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the affixing to the wall inside of the Board school of Church Coppenhall, Crewe, the parish almanack containing announcements that confessions are received every Sunday evening, when the rector will be found in church, and at other times by appointment, asserting the doctrines of the Apostolic succession of the clergy of the Church of England, advocating prayers for the dead, and deprecating the use of the word Protestant as applied to the Church of England; and whether the Education Department will interfere to have these placards removed.

My attention has been called to this almanack by the question of the hon. Member. The Education Department does not seem to have any power to interfere in the matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is according to the law?

That is not the question. It may be quite according to law, but the only things the Education Department has power to prohibit are a catechism or a formula. The almanack is neither the one nor the other.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, having regard to the fact that a large percentage of the young men who enlist in Her Majesty's Army are subsequently rejected on account of bad teeth, will he consider the expediency of arranging for a fully qualified dentist to attend periodically at each school under the control of the Council for the purpose of inspecting the teeth of all lads over the age of ten, so that they may be encouraged to take such steps as are necessary for the preservation of their teeth.

The Committee of Council regard this as a matter for the consideration of local authorities and managers of schools: but the suggestion of the hon. Member shall be considered.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in the appointment and proportionate allotment of members of the Consultative Committee, under the Board of Education Act, 1899, due regard will be had to the fact that this Committee is to be concerned with the registration of 60,000 elementary school teachers, and not with the registration of teachers in secondary and higher places of education alone: in what proportion the bodies of teachers in secondary schools and the body of teachers in public elementary schools are to be represented on the Committee; and whether care will be taken to ascertain that the persons to be nominated as representative of the said bodies respectively are likely to be considered suitable for the purpose by the said bodies before the nomination is actually made.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. In answer to the second paragraph, I may say that no persons will be placed on the Committee expressly as representatives of the teachers in secondary and elementary schools respectively. The function of the Committee will be to advise the Board on such educational questions as may be referred to them, not to advance the views of any outside body. Every effort will be made to secure the appointment of persons suitable for that purpose.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he could introduce (billing in elementary schools as part of the boys' education.

Drill or suitable physical exercises are according to the code a condition of the higher grant for discipline in all schools for older scholars.

Will care be taken that in the future the drill is such as to fit the children for service in the Army?

In great towns it is done, but, obviously, it would be impossible in a country village, where there were only perhaps thirty children taught by a schoolmistress, to have military drill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in the sale under the Land Acts of part of the William Butler estate in Galway.

Any delay that has hitherto taken place in the proceedings for the sale of this estate is due, I am informed, to the tenants themselves, who would not cooperate with the solicitor having carriage of the sale in arranging for the settlement of the rental. All substantial difficulties have now been overcome, however, and a request under the 40th section of the Land Act of 18% will very shortly be issued.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland does he intend to introduce during this session a Bill to amend the Charitable Loan Funds (Ireland) Act, 1843.

I hope to be able to introduce at an early date a Bill similar to that brought in last session.

Before Easter?

I hope so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution passed by Cavan County Council, recommending that in all Irish speaking districts the knowledge of English and other useful subjects shall be imparted through the medium of Irish, and in places not Irish speaking it shall be lawful to teach Irish as a remunerated subject. And whether he can state if it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the resolution.

The resolution referred to has been received, and has been brought under the notice of the Commissioners of National Education. As I have already stated, the matter is entirely one for consideration by the Commissioners, who are the proper authorities to deal with it, in connection with the revision of the school programme shortly to be carried out.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he will call for a report from the receiver of the Annaly (County Longford) estate into the allegation made by tenants living in the. parish of Rathcline, County Longford, that he had induced them to sign undertakings to purchase the holdings on the understanding that the purchase proceedings would be concluded in two years; whether he is aware that only a small portion of these tenants have had the promise; fulfilled; and can he indicate in what way these tenants can now obtain redress.

I have more than once endeavoured to explain to the hon. Member that a receiver appointed over an estate awaiting sale in the Landed Estates Court is an officer of that court responsible to it, and liable to be removed or punished by it, for any misconduct or neglect of duty of which he may be guilty. The Executive have no control whatever over him, and it would be an unwarrantable interference with the authority of that court to make the inquiry suggested. If the tenants have anything to complain of in the conduct of the receiver they have only to bring the matter before the Land Judge, from whom I am certain they will obtain any redress to which they may be entitled.

If substantial complaint is made will the right hon. Gentleman call for a report on the conduct of this officer?

Certainly not. I have no right whatever to do that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will introduce a Bill for the reconstitution of the Irish Lights Board, in order to bring the Board into harmony with the representative principles of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.

This question should more properly be addressed to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, the Board of Irish Lights being under the jurisdiction of the Department he represents. There is no analogy between the Local Government Act and the statutory powers under which the Irish Lights Board are constituted.

Is the Irish Lights Board maintained as a costly fossil or as a useful body?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is it the intention of the Government to permit poor law unions to contribute to the expense of national education under the Act of 1875 as heretofore; if not, will the teachers in contributory unions be secured the incomes they have hitherto enjoyed: and if unions that have been contributory are prepared to continue so, will the Government recoup them from the new grant as they formerly were recouped from the Customs and Excise Grant.

The Board of National Education have in contemplation a scheme of reform under which, if adopted, results fees would be abolished. In that event the Act of 1875, which only enables guardians to contribute a certain proportion of the results fees, would have to be amended to enable guardians to contribute in another form if that was ultimately considered desirable. As was explained by my right hon. friend in his answer to a question of the hon. Member for East Donegal on the 13th instant, arrangements have been made under which the teachers will receive direct (out of the sum of £78,000 voted by Parliament) the sum which was formerly refunded to boards of guardians of contributory unions. The financial details of the scheme are still under consideration, but the intention is not to prejudice the interests of the teachers.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Commission has fixed an appeal sitting for Counties Leitrim and Longford, to take place at Carrick-on-Shannon on 13th March, and remainder of unheard cases at Mullingar on 14th March; whether he is aware that of the fifty-five County Leitrim cases listed for hearing at Carrick-on-Shannon only forty-six are proposed to be heard at Carrick, and the other nine to go to Mullingar; whether he can explain why the 176 cases from County Longford are to be taken past the county town to Mullingar to be heard there, to the inconvenience of the parties and for whose convenience these arrangements are made; and whether he can represent to the Chief Commissioners the advisability of the sittings for Leitrim being held in Carrick-on-Shannon, and for Longford at the county court-house in Longford town.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The second paragraph is based on a misapprehension. All the cases from the County Leitrim are entered for hearing at Carrick-on-Shannon. The list from this county consists, nominally, of fifty-five cases, but nine of these cases are duplicates—appeals having been lodged by both landlord and tenant, so that the number of distinct cases from the County Leitrim to be heard at Carrick is only forty-six. None of the Leitrim cases will be heard at Mullingar, as the hon. Member appears to suppose. With regard to the cases from the County Longford, the town of Mullingar, where they are listed to be heard, is only distant from the town of Longford one hour by rail, and the majority of those cases refer to holdings situated between Mullingar and Longford. The Commissioners, after careful inquiry, considered that Mullingar would be the most convenient place to dispose of these cases; but, consistently with the despatch of public business, every arrangement possible will be made to prevent persons attending from being unduly delayed at Mullingar.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can give the House any information with regard to the murder of Mr. William Bird, an Irish landlord, who was shot at Bantry on Saturday last; and whether it is a fact that a branch of the United Irish League was established in Bantry the Sunday before.

On a point of order, may I ask whether the concluding paragraph of the question just put, conveying as it does an insinuation, is not an improper one, and one which under ordinary circumstances the hon. Member would not be allowed to place on the Paper.

I was not aware of the character of the question which the hon. Member for Belfast intended to put. He ought to have given notice of the question.

I suppose I may be allowed to ask the Attorney General whether he has any information concerning the murder of Mr. William Bird, on Saturday.

Yes, Sir, unfortunately Mr. William Bird seems to have been murdered in his own rent-office at two o'clock in the day.

May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is aware of a single instance in which a member of the United Irish League has advocated outrage.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture for Ireland whether, taking into account the outbreak in England of foot and mouth disease, pedigree cattle can be imported into Ireland from England and Scotland by the Congested Districts Board or private individuals.

In consequence of the outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in England, the importation from Great Britain into Ireland of cattle, as well as of sheep and other ruminating animals, and also swine, has for the present been suspended. In view of the highly infectious nature of the disease, and of the rapidity with which it spreads, it is felt that it would not be safe, at present, to grant any permission for the importation into Ireland of pedigree or other cattle from any part of Great Britain.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of acres of land purchased by the Congested Districts Board in the province of Connaught since the Congested Districts Board Act came into force, dividing them into the number of acres already striped and in the hands of tenants; the number of acres unstriped and in the hands of the Congested Districts Board, and how long have the Congested Districts Board been in possession of such lands; the number of acres striped and in the possession of the Congested Districts Board, and how long have such lands been in the Board's possession; and how many acres have been purchased within the last two years.

The number of acres purchased by the Board in Connaught down to the present date is 136,884. Of these the number of acres apportioned and in the occupation of tenants is 106,591. The acreage in the occupation of tenants though not yet apportioned is 4,069. The number of acres apportioned but still in the Board's possession is 1,060, of which 688 are now ready for occupation. And there are 25,161 acres not yet apportioned. The number of acres in the province purchased within the past two years and comprised in the foregoing figures is 128,989, the greater proportion of which, namely, more than 91,000 acres, is made up of one property the Dillon estate. Of the 25,161 acres not yet apportioned, it must be borne in mind that the more apportionment is a work that occupies very little time. Considerable delay is often entailed in the execution of the conveyance of the fee-simple, not to speak of the large amount of work involved in connection with fencing, the construction of accommoda- tion roads, and the erection of new houses to replace those unfit for habitation.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what is the result of the consideration which last session he promised would be given by the Cabinet to the subject of the increasing disparities in the representation of the people in Parliament; whether he is aware that the Registration Returns of last autumn show a still further increase in such disparities; and whether, without going to the extent of bringing in a Redistribution Bill in the present session, the Government intend to institute or will consent to some form of preliminary inquiry into and ascertainment of the facts upon which any future Redistribution Bill must be based, and which preliminary inquiry must necessarily take considerable time, probably a whole session.

The facts to which my hon. friend alludes are well known. I do not think that any investigation such as he desires really would throw any light upon the topic he wants to discuss, and as he does not suggest a Redistribution Bill this session I do not think that any further steps need be taken.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering that it is twenty-nine years since a Royal Commission reported on our coal supplies in the United Kingdom, the Government will appoint another Commission to consider the subject, as the questions of their extent and cost have again become of pressing national importance.

The subject to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a very interesting one, but unless it can be suggested that some practical issue would come from the inquiry he suggests, it seems hardly worth while to appoint a Commission in order to investigate the matter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state when the Army Estimates will be taken.

had a similar question on the Paper.

The Army Estimates are not yet printed. In any case, the House must make further progress with the Navy Estimates before the Army Estimates can be taken.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Russian Government has made a proposal to appoint a Consul General at Bombay; whether there are any British Consuls anywhere in Russia east of Batoum; and whether, before agreeing to the appointment of a Russian Consul General at Bombay, the Government will require the acceptance of a British Consular representative at some suitable place in Eastern Russia.