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 Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—

, having been called upon, began to address the House—

Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene in order to make an appeal to the promoters and opponents of these Water measures to postpone the consideration to another day, as the Irish Members have obtained this day, by arrangement with the Government, for the discussion of the financial relations between Ireland and England.

Order, order! I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that he cannot take advantage of this permitted interruption to raise a debate on a motion for adjournment.

I had no intention of promoting a debate; I simply desire to point out that this day has been obtained by the Irish Members for the discussion of a grave Irish matter, after many difficulties and prolonged negotiations with the Government. I am sure that when the First Lord of the Treasury gave the Irish Members this day the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that a large portion of the sitting, perhaps three or four hours, would be devoted to a discussion on contentious private Bills. It would be a matter of grave injury to the Irish Members to take from them any of the precious time which they have obtained at so much trouble for the discussion of this question. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen interested in these Bills to postpone them for a few days, and to remove them from a position into which by some mischance they have got.

I would point out that the Bills have been set down for Second Reading "by order." Surely that ought to settle the matter.

What does the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill propose to do?

I hope that under the peculiar circumstances if I reply to this appeal I shall not lose my right of speech on the Bill itself. The London Water Bills were put down before any arrangement had been arrived at with regard to the Irish question. Neither the promoters nor the opponents of the Bill are therefore responsible for the present position. It will be remembered that there was a good deal of disappointment owing to the repeated postponements of the Bills last year, and I undertook that there should be no further postponement of the matter this year. However, I am quite in the hands of the House, and am prepared to shorten the debate or postpone it. I will take the course the House deems most convenient.

It is entirely by accident the Bills were put down for to-day. This is really the third postponement, and if we do not go on now it would be extremely hard upon those hon. Members who have come down to-day. We have already lost a quarter of an hour, but as far as we are concerned on this side we will promise not to unduly prolong the debate.

Some of our men have been brought from Kerry.

I cannot allow any further debate on this matter. It is not strictly in order. The question put by the hon. Member for Waterford has been answered.

Go on, then. A very inconvenient course has been taken, and one which will not conduce to the progress of debate. Our men have come from Kerry; those men have come from London. A penny 'bus fare against a £5 note.

It is my duty to see that the ordinary course is followed, and that the Orders of the House are carried out. The Order is that this Bill shall be now read, and that must be done unless there is an agreement to put it off.

We only get an Irish day once in a blue month.

again essayed to speak, but his voice was drowned with cries of "Divide."

On a point of order, can I move, without any remarks, that the Bill be read a second time?

I have already put that question.

I would appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to guide the House in this difficulty.

again rose to speak, and was received with Nationalist cries of "Divide."

I hope hon. Members will not drive me to a course which I should be extremely sorry to adopt. But I shall have to enforce the rules of the House, and such a course must deprive Members of the opportunity of discussion altogether.

Go on, then; go on.

I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, respectfully, in view of what has taken place, whether it is not in order to cry "Divide."

It is not in itself disorderly to cry "Divide"; but the cry may be so raised as to become disorderly.

, speaking amid great interruption, said: I will occupy the shortest amount of time possible. I have no option now but to go on. I am not a free agent, but am in the hands of the House. It is not possible for me to withdraw the motion, for I gave a promise that I would not further postpone the Bills. I am in an unfortunate position, having to speak amid great interruptions. I do not know whether the Government will consent to postponing the Bills, seeing that they put the Irish debate down for this day. Perhaps the President of the Local Government Board can give the House some advice in the matter.

I hope, if I respond to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman, I shall not be precluded from speaking later in the debate.

The right hon. Gentleman can do so by the indulgence of the House.

Then I may say it appears to me that this is a question to be settled, not by the Government, but by the promoters and opponents of the Bill. So far as I am individually concerned I should have thought they would have had no objection to the adjournment, but I am bound to say that after the attitude of hon. Members below the gangway on the Opposition side the position is entirely altered. Hon. Members opposite have attempted by threats [Nationalist cries of "No"] to coerce the House of Commons and to prevent debate upon a subject which the House has ordered to be debated this afternoon. In these circumstances if the House was to yield to the coercion of hon. Members below the gangway, I cannot imagine a proceeding more ill-calculated for the future good order of the House.

The sense of fairness of the House will allow me to say a few words. We had considerable trouble in getting a day from the Government. It now appears that these Bills were set down before the appointment was made, and it is clear that the Government, either intentionally or unintentionally, has taken an unfair advantage of the Nationalist Members. I feel sure, especially after what was said last evening, that the Leader of the House is in no way responsible for it. I and my colleagues have no desire to use threats or coercion; but, naturally, having brought Members from the most distant parts of Ireland for the discussion of a very important subject, on a day given by the Leader of the House, we feel sore at finding that another debate is to take place which will destroy the value of the concession made to us by the Government. The House will see the reasonableness of our demand that this debate should be adjourned, so that the promise of the First Lord may be kept in the spirit as well as the letter.

Send for Balfour.

In the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury I can give the House the positive assurance that there was no idea on the part of my right hon. friend that the day given to the Irish Members should be curtailed. I have reason to believe that the debate on these Water Bills will not take long if it is allowed to proceed, and I am sure my right hon. friend will not allow the Irish Members to be in the least damnified by these proceedings.

I hope to be able to shorten the discussion on these Bills, and will at once proceed with the task of moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which deals with the question of the purchase of the London Water Companies. The necessity for a long debate has been obviated to a large extent by the Report of the Royal Commission which was recently issued. The Commission was asked whether it recommended increased control, and the Report of that Commission is distinctly in favour of purchase, and in consequence it is not necessary on the present occasion for me to argue that question. For ten years in this House I have argued it, and the question of purchase is a foregone conclusion—[Interruption.]

On a point of order, having regard to the repetition of this scene, will the Government send for the First Lord of the Treasury?

here entered the House, and Mr. STUART resumed his speech; but his remarks were not intelligibly heard in the Gallery, owing to the noise proceeding in all parts of the House.

As I understand it, the question has been put from the Chair that the Bill be now read a second time. That being so, is it not competent for a motion to be made that the debate be now adjourned?

There is nothing to prevent any Member who is in possession of the House from moving such a motion, but there is no right on the part of a Member to interrupt another Member in order to move the adjournment.

I am most anxious that this scene should not continue, but I think the question could be settled by the First Lord of the Treasury if he would intervene and suggest the postponement of these Bills for a couple of days. Such a postponement could do no harm to the promoters or the opponents, and it will have the effect of enabling the First Lord to keep his word to the Irish party in the spirit as well as the letter.

I am not sure, but, as a direct application has been made to me by the hon. Member, with the permission of the House, I might say how the matter stands, so far as the Government is concerned. What the hon. Gentleman has stated to the House is absolutely correct to the letter. There is no doubt whatever that, when I arranged with hon. Gentlemen opposite and the House that to-day should be devoted to a discussion of the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland, I intended that, so far as in me lay, it should be a full Parliamentary day. But the hon. Member for Waterford has forgotten one circumstance, which I recall to his recollection, and that is that the private Bill business of the House is in no sense under the control of the Government. I am not sure that that is a good system, but it is one which has long obtained in the House. The Government is never consulted and is never even informed as to the particular day on which the promoters of private Bills had arranged to bring them on. The result has constantly been that great inconvenience had arisen, certainly to the Government, and I think even to the House, by some important debate of national interest being postponed for hour after hour in consequence of a wrangle over a private Bill or set of Bills. If it rested with the Government to arrange private Bills for the general convenience of the House these accidents would not occur. The hon. Member for Waterford will see, therefore, that the position in which he finds himself is only a repetition of the position in which Governments constantly find themselves when an important discussion is to come on.

But we have only one day.

When the Government say, with regard to their own business, that such and such a Bill will be taken as the first Order on such and such a day, it is always understood to mean that that is subject to the exigencies of private business, over which the Government have no control. That is the broad position as regards Parliamentary business, and I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that I have neither overstated nor misstated the case. As to the particular case now before the House, my own view is that the promoters of these Bills would do well, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to consent to a postponement, unless it can be shown that either the promoters or the opponents will suffer some substantial and incalculable loss by such a postponement. I have no power of controlling their action, but that is my view, having regard to the fact that a large section of the House understood that this day was being giving over to them as far as the Government could give it to them.

The promoters have already made that offer.

The hon. Member for Waterford will see that it is impossible to do anything more than make the appeal which I am now making to the promoters and opponents. Personally I hope that appeal will be met on both sides of the House, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, this is not a matter in which the Leader of the House has, or ought to have, any control.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, I am still in possession of the House. I can only say, under the circumstances, I most heartily respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. I may say that this Bill was adjourned on several occasions last session. I was much found fault with, and I then undertook to proceed with it when it next came on, but under the circumstances, if the House desires, I will move the adjournment of these Bills. I am sure my own personal position in the matter will not be found fault with, for I have done my best to carry out what I believe to be right. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until this day week.

When this date was selected for the Second Reading of the London Water Bills I can assure the hon. Members from Ireland that we had no sort of conception that this day had been allocated to them. We took every care we could at the time to fix upon a day for the general convenience of the House, and we had not the least idea that this day was given up for Irish business or we would certainly have avoided this day. These Bills have been too often postponed, not only in this session, but in other sessions, and we understood definitely and positively that they would be taken when we came down to the House this afternoon. I doubt very much whether the Leader of the House quite understands what our position in this matter is. I should have been only too glad to conform to the agreement, and I would not have had a word to say if—

It was discussed yesterday.

As one of those responsible for fixing this day for the Second Reading of the Bill, I had not heard a single word of remonstrance from any Irish Member. These Bills are important to us, and we were prepared to discuss them to-day with the greatest possible brevity. What happened? We have now got to a quarter to four and not one single step forward has been made. Really, if the hon. Gentleman opposite had trusted us a little more, it is probable that by this time we would have gone a considerable way towards the Second Reading. Personally, I should like to say to the House that I believe, if they would give us their kindly indulgence, we might finish both these Bills in a very short time. What I wish the Leader of the House to understand is that we feel we have done nothing inconsiderate or irregular, and that we have every possible desire to give every kind indulgence to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. But we come here to find ourselves interrupted at the very outset of the time set apart for private business. I do not want to inflame passion; but, undoubtedly, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford must know that the attitude of his supporters has been provocative in the extreme We are now asked to acquiesce in the wish of the Leader of the House. But to a great extent that conclusion has been arrived at by clamour and tyranny. It will be a bad precedent, and for my part I wish that the Bill set down for to-day had been proceeded with.

I would appeal to hon. Members on that side of the House who represent Ireland to give us three-quarters of an hour. In that time all our Bills would be finished. Now the Leader of the House apparently is going to give way, because we have been coerced by a certain section of the House. If business is to be conducted in that way, it will be open for any section above or below the gangway to prevent any private business from going forward.

As one who has lodged an opposition to one of these Bills, I hope the House will agree with the feeling of the First Lord of the Treasury. I cannot forget that the Irish Members could have taken a great deal of the Budget night, and that they did not take that course. It was really an honourable understanding that they should have this day for themselves. I cannot help thinking that neither party knew in the least that these Bills were down.

I really must protest against the course proposed. As a London Member I have to say that we are as numerous as the Irish Members.

We have not stolen your Parliament. (Interruption.)

The only difference between us and them is that we are supporters of the Government. [Interruption.] We have come here on this important question of the water supply of London, and for any section of this House—[Cries of "No section," and interruption]—to come down here—[Cheers, and interruption]—and simply to make a noise and prevent English legislation being carried out is, as my hon. and gallant friend says, a great scandal. I do think the House is coming to a very low ebb indeed. [Hear, hear, and interruption.] Of course, when a day was given to the Irish Members, and I must say it was a very great concession to give—[Cries of "Oh!" and renewed disorder.] There is no other section of the House that have got a day.

We had a Parliament instead of a day, and you robbed us of it. [Cheers, and interruption.]

I do say that it seems a regular outrageous scandal that we should be treated in this way by a certain section of the House.

It is no section.

I don't know what the hon. Member means by "no section."

We are the Irish nation. [Cheers, and disorder.]

It is certainly a section that has not set an example in the way of the orderly conduct of business. [Renewed interruption.] It is not a section whose loyalty should give it privilege, and I say emphatically we ought to protest against this, and I hope we will decide against it. The time has not yet come when the House of Commons is to be dictated to by a rabble. [Interruption, and cries of "Withdraw!"]

The hon. Member will see that the expression is not one which he ought to have used.

If you, Sir, rule that this is not a rabble, I will withdraw the expression.

That is not a proper form of withdrawal, and I must call on the hon. Member simply to withdraw the word.

Upon your ruling, Sir, I will withdraw the word.

I am not sure that I shall be able to contribute anything material to heal or cool down the passions which have unfortunately been stirred in this debate, but I will endeavour to do so, and I cannot help thinking that hon. Members will for a moment give me their attention. There are two quite distinct and separate cases before the House. One of these cases appeals to hon. Gentlemen opposite and I think a good many on this side. The other case appeals to my hon. friends the Members for West Islington and Chelsea, and others who take that side. I think there is justification in both. Let me state what I understand to be the case of my hon. friends first. They say in the first place that they took all the ordinary steps, and more than all the ordinary steps, to let it be known that these important private Bills would come up to-day, and that when they came up to carry out their Parliamentary duties in the matter they were met by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who without justification interrupted them with great clamour, and threatened that no further proceedings should take place, and if further proceedings were attempted the speakers would not be allowed to be heard. I was not in the House when these most regrettable threats were made, but at all events I understand they were made, and consequently my hon. friends on this side of the House cannot be said to be without justification in the protest they have made. Having stated, not unfairly, what the case of my hon. friends is, let me state to the House what the case of the other side is. There is no justification for such threats, which are most regrettable. In fact their only possible excuse is that they were made in the heat of passion, when expressions escape us which sometimes we are sorry for afterwards. When my hon. friend who has just sat down states that it was a mere matter of favour to give the Irish Members an opportunity for discussing the financial relations, he had not the full circumstances of the case before him. What exactly occurred was this. It appears that every Member has the right on Budget night to put down a motion, and that motion is in order if it be relevant to any question connected with finance. The result of that is, that but for the courtesy and consideration of hon. Members it would have been impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before the country his Budget proposals, not only to the great inconvenience of the House, but very likely great loss to the national Exchequer. In this particular case the loss to the Exchequer would probably have been calculated by hundreds of thousands of pounds. Under these circumstances the Irish Members undoubtedly, to use a vulgar expression, had the Government in a cleft stick. They had a mortgage on the Government time; they had a bond for the full liquidation of which they were entitled to ask. Under these circumstances I cannot honestly say that it was a matter of favour to grant the Irish Members a day. When, therefore, the Irish Members found that there was the prospect of a debate which would take a long time—which, in previous years, had taken a long time—a sense of grievance naturally arose in their minds. In the heat of passion some threats were made, and some expressions were used which ought not to have been used. But I must ask my friends to consider the position in which the Government is placed. I quite agree that they have reasonable grounds of complaint. I quite agree that when the debate was interrupted by threats a natural and legitimate sense of grievance arose. That, I think, must be admitted on all sides. But that feeling is met by a not less legitimate grievance on the part of hon. Members opposite, and I cannot help thinking that under the circumstances the House would be well advised in accepting the motion which has been made by the hon. Gentleman.

I do not know that it is necessary to say a word in support of the appeal made by the right hon. gentleman, but I have one advantage which he does not possess to the full, namely, that I have sat through the whole of these proceedings. It is evidently, on both sides, a mere matter of misunderstanding from beginning to end. The Irish Members suddenly discovered that this important private Bill was to come on in front of their motion. Hon. Members opposite say that if they had had three-quarters of an hour it would have been sufficient. We know by long experience of what hon. Members are capable, and that the discussion on a private Bill, which excites strong feelings—almost hereditary strong feelings—in the way that this Bill does, might go on until it occupied nearly the whole sitting of the House. It was perfectly natural for the Irish Members to be alarmed as to their prospect. It may be said that they should have noticed that the Bills were down "by Order" for to-day, and raised this point before. But Members must remember that notices of private business do not attract the same attention as notices of public business, and apparently it was not until last night they discovered this fact. In that case what are we to do? It is quite impossible, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the Irish Members can, with any show of justice, be deprived of a full night for their discussion. On the other hand, Members who are interested in the London Water Bill divide themselves into two classes: those who are in favour of the Bill are quite willing that the debate should be postponed; therefore, the matter rests with the opponents of the measure. How can they expect the House to look upon them with any great sympathy if, after all that has occurred, they insist on going on with the Bills to-day? I would therefore appeal to them in the strongest fashion not only to allow this motion to be carried, but to agree to it without a division. ["No, no!"] I would point out that they have no fault to find with the way in which the hon. Member behind me has behaved. If this motion is lost, my hon. friend will lose the chance, which he certainly deserves as well as any Member of this House, of taking part in the discussion. Though that is a small and personal point, I think it is one of some weight, and I trust that hon. Members, in addition to all other considerations, will not be guilty of a certain discourtesy to my hon. friend who has had a rather difficult part to play to-day.

As a Member who signed a circular suggesting that hon. Members of this House should vote against this Water Bill, perhaps I may venture to appeal to some of my hon. friends not to divide against the motion which has been made for the adjournment of the debate. As I understand, if there had been no altercation at the opening of this discussion, the interest of those who are opposed to these Water Bills would have been equally served by a discussion on some subsequent occasion. Indeed, I apprehend they would have been better served than to-night, because the Irish Members would probably not be here, and we should make a still better division list than on the present occasion. It seems to me that it is to our interest to have an adjournment, and I believe that everyone would have taken that view but for the way in which the matter has been pressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. But our true consolation in such a circumstance as this is in another direction. We can console ourselves by the reflection that it was due to the action of the Unionist Members that there was not in existence a Parliament which would habitually demean itself as hon. Members opposite have done. No one can sit in this House for very long and hear Irish Members discussing public business without coming to the conclusion that the whole of the proceedings of a Home Rule Parliament would be an absurdity and a scandal. That may do something to induce us to agree to this motion.

I sincerely trust that neither the House nor any part of it will be influenced by the remarks of the noble Lord who spoke last, but I hope the House will respond to the greater claim which the First Lord of the Treasury has to make an appeal to it. The right hon. Gentleman has earned the right to make that appeal by the work he has done not only for his country, but as Leader of this House, and he has appealed to us, not from the motive or for the reason the noble Lord assigns, but in the interests of public business, and for the efficiency of good government, and, above all, for the dignity of the House of Commons. I trust that in the interest of that dignity the appeal of the First Lord will be responded to by the most intelligent Members who support the Government.

I have sat here undergoing considerable pain in view of all the circumstances of the case, and it is utterly impossible for any hon. Gentleman, be he a young Member or an old Member, to look upon these scenes with anything like complacency. As usual when there is any uproar and unrest, there are several parties to blame. In the first place, no doubt, hon. Members from Ireland have somewhat misjudged the situation with regard to the debate on the Water Bill. I can assure them, as one who is considerably interested in this London water question, they have completely misjudged the time that the debate would have occupied. We were entering upon a discussion of great moment to this metropolis. At the same time, the question had arrived at such a stage that the dealing with it, to use a common expression, lay in a nutshell. The Report of the late Royal Commission had brought the whole matter into so narrow a focus that anything like a lengthy debate was impossible. I might also mention that just when entering the House I was consulted in the lobby by a number of hon. Members of this side of the House who are considerably interested in this question, and we came to an agreement that not one of us should utter a single syllable during the debate. Therefore I contend that I am right in saying hon. Members opposite completely misjudged the prospects of the debate. At the same time, I acknowledge that they may have had some ground for a sense of soreness—for a feeling that they had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House something which was in reality a sham. But unhappily they proceeded on most unwise lines to urge their protest on the House, and I am bound to say they treated hon. Members on this side of the House with great want of courtesy. We are not disposed to be impatient with hon. Members from Ireland. I know that, so far as my public life is concerned, not one of those hon. Gentlemen can say I have ever treated them unfairly. We have listened to speeches from those benches during this session which have given many of us great pain, but we have listened to them with patience, and neither in this House nor out of it have we said one word against them. Therefore, I think they should treat us with a little more patience than they have done on this occasion. Their method of interrupting this debate has, no doubt, created vast irritation on these benches, and I am not surprised that a number of my hon. friends are very likely prepared to vote against this motion. If they like to do so as a protest, surely no man of common sense can object to their conduct. But I would make one appeal. There are other things to consider besides this irritation. There is your position in the Chair, Sir. I dislike to see you put to the strain to which you have been put to-day. As one who loves all the precedents which surround the Chair in which you sit, I venture to make an appeal to hon. Members—on your behalf, as one of the best representatives who has sat in that Chair, and on behalf of my right hon. friend the Leader of the House, as one of the best, surest, and most straightforward guides. On these grounds I venture to appeal to hon. Members to let this scene end, and to allow this debate to be adjourned.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any investigation is to be made into the charges against Lord Methuen brought by Colonel Gough and other officers; and whether an inquiry demanded by Colonel Gough has been assented to by the War Office.

No charges have been brought against Lord Methuen by Colonel Gough, or any other officers. Colonel Gough has been informed that an inquiry will be held into his case, but that it cannot be held while the officers who will have to report are actively engaged in conducting operations in the field.

As a matter of fact, is Colonel Gough not at present at home?

I do not think that arises out of the question.

Very well. I will put it to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the authorities of the War Office has been directed to the statement in Lord Methuen's despatch, with reference to the battle of Magersfontein, that General Wauchope had told him that he quite understood his orders, and made no further remark; and has Lord Methuen been asked whether Major-General Wauchope expressed his difference of opinion as to the scheme of operations which, in obedience to his commanding officer, he was ordered to carry out.

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what explanation, if any, has the War Office to offer for the interval that has elapsed of more than two months between the battle of Magersfontein on 10th and 11th December, and the writing of the official despatch describing that battle by Lord Methuen, which is dated 15th February; whether it is the practice that despatches describing engagements should be written by officers in command immediately after the engagements have been fought, when the leading incidents are fresh in the memory; was Lord Methuen requested to furnish his despatch with reference to the battle of Magersfontein by the military authorities at home both by cablegram and letter; how often were these requests made to Lord Methuen, and what are the dates on which they were made; and what were Lord Methuen's replies either by telegram or by letter thereto.

I regret that I am unable to reply in detail to the hon. Member's questions. I may, however, point out that a despatch is a formal document submitted by the officer in command, from which subordinate reports should, as a rule, be excluded. Sir R. Buller originally sent home a communication from Lord Methuen which covered a number of such reports, dated 4th January. Lord Roberts was accordingly asked (6th February) to direct Lord Methuen to embody these in a formal despatch.

Then am I to understand that the despatch dated 15th February is not the original despatch sent by Lord Methuen, but an amended despatch?

The hon. Member is to understand that this is a despatch, and that the previous communications were not despatches.

Well, but were these previous communications from Lord Methuen? I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. Am I not entitled to press this question?

Order, order! The Under Secretary has answered the question on the Paper fully, though not perhaps to the satisfaction of the hon. Member.

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that during the siege of Kimberley Mr. Cecil Rhodes' organ, the Diamond Fields Advertiser, was suppressed by the military authority on account of its attacks on British generals, and that Mr. Cecil Rhodes, owing to his interference with the local military authority, was threatened by such authority with arrest, and by whose orders was it that the arrest was not carried out.

We have no knowledge of these incidents.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the declaration made by Sir Alfred Milner is intended to mean that forfeiture of landed property by the Transvaal Government made after the 10th October, 1899, for non-payment of ordinary taxes, or for any other cause, will be annulled by the British Government, or whether that declaration is intended to apply only to non-payment of war tax; and if the latter is the meaning, what facilities, if any, are to be afforded to British subjects to pay the ordinary taxes and to obtain receipts, having regard to the fact that the ordinary channels for such purposes are not available.

The notice issued on 26th January covers cases of confiscation for the non-payment of ordinary rents or licences, as well as those for failure to pay the new War Tax. The War Tax must not in any case be paid, but Her Majesty's Government raise no objection to the payment of ordinary rents or licences under contracts made prior to the commencement of the war.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say by what means or by what conduit persons owing ordinary taxes can pay them, and to whom?

No, I do not think it is my business to suggest by what conduit or how they should pay taxes to the Transvaal Government. If the rates of pay are subject to contract prior to the war Her Majesty's Government will not take any proceedings Against them.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the total num- ber of pairs of barbed wire nippers which have been supplied to units or despatched in bulk to the Forces in South Africa; and does the War Office contemplate sending out a substantial addition to the supply now at the Cape.

8,688 pairs have been sent out or supplied to units. All demands from South Africa have been more than complied with, but further supplies will be sent as they are received from the trade.

Have any complaints been received about these wire nippers?

Not that I know of.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any reports have been received from South Africa to the effect that the boots supplied to the infantry have again proved to be of inferior quality; and whether large reserve stores of boots are now stored there, and whether more will be forwarded.

The foreign service handsewn steel-billed boot and the hob-nailed boots received from India and Egypt have proved satisfactory for infantry; but Lord Roberts has complained of the home-pattern clump-soled boot. We have sent out, in round numbers, 108,000 home and 132,000 foreign pattern; and more will be sent as fast as they can be procured. The hand-sewn boot trade seems to be an expiring industry, and we are endeavouring to obtain a pattern of machine-sewn boot which shall be equally suitable for home or foreign wear.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in September, 1890, there was an exhibition by the firm of Gruson, of Magdeburg, Prussia, of quick-firing guns and of carriages adapted for being easily got in and out of position, and that General Joubert and his staff attended on behalf of the South African Republic; and whether he has any information as to the purchases then made on behalf of the said Republic.

The exhibition was attended by British officers, who duly made their reports; in these it is mentioned that General Joubert was present. It is not known whether he made any purchases at the time.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the desirability of placing a distinctive mark upon the remainder of the present year's coinage, or upon some portion of it, as a record of the war in South Africa.

I am afraid I cannot entertain the suggestion of my hon. friend. It has not been the practice to make alterations in the designs of the coinage in order to record the wars in which this country has been enaged, and I do not know of any reason for making an exception in the case of the war in South Africa.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Transvaal Refugees' and other War Funds, to which our Indian fellow subjects have subscribed, will be available for the relief of the wives and families of the killed and wounded amongst the Indian camp followers, who have been and are serving with Her Majesty's troops in South Africa; and, if not, whether he would use his good offices to enable this purpose to be achieved.

I have been in communication with the Patriotic Fund Commissioners, and am informed that arrangements are being made for the grant of relief to the wives and families of Indian camp followers incapacitated on account of service in South Africa.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can now state why a cablegram sent on the 14th February last by Mr. Mackarness, chairman of the South Africa Conciliation Committee, to the South African News, Cape Town, recording a resolution passed at a Liberal Conference in London, was stopped by the Government Censor at Cape Town; and why no notice of its having been stopped was given for more than a fortnight to the sender.

The military authorities at Cape Town have full discretion to censor any telegram, and there is no intention to interfere with their exercise of that discretion.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if Her Majesty's Government will communicate with Lord Roberts with a view to obtain at once the release from the Boers of such prisoners as those who were wounded at Glencoe and left at Dundee under the Geneva Convention, proposing, if he is unable to obtain the release of all upon conditions, to obtain at least the release of those who are in need of special medical or surgical treatment, upon their giving their word under certain conditions to place themselves again at the disposal of their captors.

A communication has been made to Lord Roberts in the sense suggested by my hon. friend.

In the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty I beg to ask the Financial Secretary a question of which I have given private notice, as to whether the attention of the Admiralty has been called to a statement in the public Press, that three cheers for the Boer Republics were given by the sailors of the German battleship "Deutschland," at Portsmouth, under the eyes of their own officers, and whether there is any confirmation of this statement.

Yes, Sir, the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty has been, called to the statement contained in my hon. friend's question. He has caused inquiries to be made at Portsmouth, and as the result of those inquiries, he believes the report to be a pure fabrication without any foundation whatever.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether officers of the Reserve who have retired on a gratuity earned during past service, and who have now volunteered for duty with the Royal Reserve battalions, have been informed that a deduction will be made from their pay on a calculation according to the value of such gratuity, and whether notice was given of such deduction before their services were accepted; and whether officers who return to mounted duty with reserve battalions will receive a proportionately larger allowance for the provision of horses and saddlery than those returning for company duty.

I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Militia officers who have served in the Army, and retired on receipt of gratuity, subsequently joining the Militia, are now on embodiment mulcted at the rate of 5 per cent. on such gratuity, thus reducing the pay in the case of a commanding officer who had served in the Army by £60 to £70 a year, as compared with one who had never served.

No officer is allowed to draw both retired pay and full pay; and it has always been held that the gratuities given to officers on retirement are a commutation or capitalising of retired pay. Therefore, unless a deduction is made, it is held that the officer who retired with a gratuity is unfairly favoured as compared with the officer who retired on a pension. But the question is now being again considered. In reply to the second paragraph of the question of the hon. Member for Bath, mounted officers receive higher rates of pay to cover their greater expenses, and no special allowance will be made to them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the desirability of giving further encouragement to the formation and efficient maintenance of cadet battalions, he will in the new Volunteer Regulations consider the desirability of giving to these battalions, besides the official title and the loan of rifles and camp equipment, to which Government assistance is now limited, a capitation grant for each cadet complying with conditions of efficiency, a grant for camp attendance, and a gratuitous issue of ammunition, ball and blank, and travelling expenses to a range for at least one annual attendance.

This question of cadet battalions has been thoroughly considered, and it has been decided not to increase the assistance now given.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the cadets who passed for Sandhurst in June last will receive their commissions, having regard to the fact that they have had six months military training and are generally older than the public school boys who have been given commissions at the age of eighteen.

The cadets at the College who joined last August should leave next June. No commissions have as yet been given to the public schools, nor is it intended to give any until the course at Sandhurst shall have been completed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in selecting officers for the post of Inspector-General of Auxiliary Forces and Recruiting, it has been the practice to attach more weight to their general efficiency as staff officers than to their special knowledge and experience of the Auxiliary forces; and whether it is intended, in filling the new posts on the headquarter staff that will deal with the Auxiliary forces, to select from those who, by serving as adjutants of Auxiliary forces, or by being otherwise employed with them, have acquired special knowledge and experience of those forces.

In reply to the first paragraph the officers have been selected for their general suitability for the various duties entrusted to them. A special acquaintance with the Auxiliary forces will guide the selection of the new staff referred to in paragraph two.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Messrs. Underwood and Sons, Limited, are also trading as Hood and Moore, Mr. Underwood, jun., being managing director, and whether the latter firm contracts for Her Majesty's Government; whether he is also aware that the firm trading under the name of Brown is identical with Underwood; and whether, seeing that Mr. Underwood, sen., is a Justice of the Peace for Brentford, he proposes to take any action in the matter.

The solicitors of Hood and Moore's Stores, Limited, inform me that a. Mr. H. T. Underwood, one of the directors of that company, is a junior partner in the firm of Underwood and Son. Hood and Moore's Stores are not on the War Office list of contractors. The solicitor of Mr. John Brown informs me that he has commenced an action against Underwood and Son, Limited, in connection with the "Manchester Port" hay. This circumstance would seem to dispose of any suggestion that Brown and Underwood are identical. A Mr. Edwin Underwood who, as late as October, 1898, held shares in Underwood and Son, Limited, is a Justice of the Peace.

Has the Department yet received the advice of the law officers of the Crown with reference to prosecutions in this case?

No, Sir, but I am expecting it to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether on 12th March, when the Return No. 94, Government Contracts, was signed, the War Office were aware that the contractors, whom in the said Return they named as J. E. Bennett and Sons, were really a limited liability company, with the registered statutory name of Under- wood and Co., Limited, or Underwood and Son, Limited.

Some days before the presentation of the return a statement reached the War Office pointing to the conclusion that there was a connection between J. E. Bennett and Sons and Underwood and Son. But there was no evidence which would have justified us in stating in a Parliamentary Paper that the two firms were in reality one and the same. The name given in the Return was, therefore, the name which was upon the War Office list. It has since appeared that Underwood and Bennett are identical, and an amended Return will be furnished.

On what date was proof obtained of the identity of Messrs. Bennett with Messrs. Underwood?

The Return was laid on the Table on the 12th, and it was not until four or five days after that date that evidence was received which would have justified the inclusion of Underwood's name.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the pay of privates in the Militia Medical Staff Corps is lower than that of the regular Medical Staff Corps by 2d. a day; and if so, whether there is anything in the nature of the duties of the Militia Medical Staff Corps during embodiment to justify the difference being maintained.

My hon. friend is under a misapprehension. On embodiment the rates of pay are the same.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the cause of the delay in paying the bounty to which the men of the South Cork Militia (3rd Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers), recently called out for special service and since discharged, are entitled in respect of such service, and when the bounty will be paid.

I am sorry I must again ask my hon. friend to postpone this question.

May I call attention to the fact that this question has been now on the Paper for a fortnight, and that the delay in answering it is a great aggravation of the grievance complained of.

I admit that that is so, and I greatly regret it. I have done all I could to get the question answered, but unfortunately I have failed. The matter has not been lost sight of, and notice will be taken of the delay.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask if the delay in giving this bounty to the soldiers has been deliberately contrived in order to punish them for not volunteering for the front?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War why the bonus of £100 given to officers of Militia regiments on disembodiment instead of mess allowance is to be withheld from adjutants and quartermasters.

This gratuity is given on disembodiment to all officers sent back to civil life after a period of temporary employment. There are no grounds for giving it to officers who are continuously employed on full pay.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the revised instructions for the employment of recruiting agents will be issued.

The revised instructions are in the hands of the printer. It is hoped that they will be issued in a few days.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether having regard to the importance in modern warfare of rapidity of loading, to the admitted inferiority in that particular of the service rifle now supplied to our troops, and to the sums voted by Parliament for the equipment of the Army, the War Office will consider the propriety of taking immediate steps to bring the British service rifle in respect of its loading arrangements up to an equality with the rifle in use by the Boers, and with the other well-known rifles, so that our soldiers may not be placed at a disadvantage in the field as compared with the soldiers of other-Powers.

It is not admitted that the British rifle is inferior in rate of continuous fire to the rifle of any other Power. Experiments are, however, being made to secure greater expedition in the process of replenishing the existing magazine. It should be remembered that our rifle is intended to be used normally as a single-loader; the magazine with its ten cartridges being kept as a reserve.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can say what progress has been made in the construction of the four new lighthouses in the Red Sea—namely, those at Mocha, Zebair, Abu Ail, and Jebel Teir, which, it was stated last year, had been arranged for by the Porte with the Administration des Phares.

No progress in regard to the construction of these four new lights has been reported to Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have Her Majesty's Government received any information relative to the demand made of the Government of Turkey by the Russian Government of an exclusive concession of the railway line from Kara Ourghan to Erzeroum, and the further demand of the concession of a railway from Samsoun to Siwas; have they any information to the effect that M. Zinoview, the Russian Ambassador at Constantinople, has informed the Turkish Government that Russia forbids Turkey to grant to any other-person or government than Russia any railway concession whatever in the north of Anatolia; did the British Ambassador at Constantinople have an audience of His Majesty the Sultan on the 2nd March, and were the Russian demands then made the subject of communications; and can he say what attitude Her Majesty's Government proposes to adopt with regard to these demands.

I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Russian Government has applied to the Porte for a concession confering upon them the right of vetoing the construction of railways in the northern provinces of Asiatic Turkey; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the exercise of any such right must seriously impede or render impossible the amelioration of the condition of the population of these provinces, Her Majesty's Government have made any, or intend to make, any representations to the Turkish or Russian Governments on the subject.

Her Majesty's Government are unable to give information to the House respecting the negotiations between Turkey and Russia, which are understood to be of a confidential nature, nor would it be convenient to make any declaration of policy with regard to them. Sir N. O'Conor had an audience of the Sultan on the date mentioned. It is contrary to usage to make public the subjects treated on such occasions, but no reference was made to Russian claims or demands.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the number of treaties and conventions that have been concluded between Great Britain and Foreign Powers since 1st January, 1899, and give the names of the Foreign Powers with whom such treaties and conventions have been concluded.

The hon. Member will find in the library various treaties and conventions which have been concluded between Great Britain and Foreign Powers since 1st January, 1899. They are about twenty in number.

Have any treaties or conventions been concluded which have not been published?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in arranging freight for transport of material for the Uganda Railway, the Crown Agents for the Colonies employed any firm of ship-brokers: if so, who were they, and what commission was paid such firm of brokers; and did the Crown Agents charge their one per cent. on such commission.

The Crown Agents for the Colonies have employed their shipping agents, Messrs. J. and A. B. Freeland, in arranging freight for Uganda Railway materials, and have paid them sixpence per ton for their services. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been decided to abolish the British Consulate at Bitlis; and, if not, whether any steps have been taken since last October to fill the vacancy.

The British Vice-Consulate at Bitlis has not been abolished. The post is at present vacant, but is visited as occasion arises by Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Van, and if events should occur in Armenia rendering an appointment desirable, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has authority to take the necessary steps.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any replies have yet been received from the Colonial Governments to which the draft Copyright Bill, which passed the House of Lords last year, was forwarded; and, if so, what is the nature of those replies.

The only replies at present received are those of the Cape Colony, Natal, and South Australia. South Australia, in view of the approach of Australian federation, desires at present to express no opinion on the provisions of the Bill. Cape Colony and Natal report favourably on the Bill, but suggest certain modifications in points of detail for its improvement, which it would be impossible to explain within the limits of an answer to the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has caused to be paid to relatives of the British officers killed in December, 1893, at Waima the sum of £200 in part satisfaction of their claim for compensation pending the termination of the negotiations with the Republic of France; and whether, seeing that some of these relatives are still in difficult and straitened circumstances, he will now arrange to pay them such compensation as the Government might have reasonably claimed, or still may reasonably claim, from the Republic of France by way of indemnity.

The sum named in the first paragraph of the question has been paid. It was recommended by the Foreign Office to be paid by way of temporary relief, and I agreed to the recommendation on learning from the Foreign Office that the French Government were prepared to accept arbitration and admit the principle of an indemnity to the British sufferers, if it was established that Waima was in British territory, a matter which, in the opinion of the Foreign Office, was no longer in doubt. I am not aware, however, that any progress has been made in the matter since which would justify the request made in the latter part of the question.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman grant a further sum, seeing that some of these people are in somewhat straitened circumstances?

I think not. It must be remembered that they have already received more than is given to the relatives of officers killed in action.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Board of Inland Revenue in March last demanded from a large number of companies payment of extra stamp duty upon debentures and other securities in respect of the premiums at which the companies had reserved the option of redeeming such debentures; and, under threat of penalties being inflicted, a large number of companies paid such demand, and at great expense and commercial inconvenience got in such debentures and had them extra stamped; will he explain why, seeing that in December last the Court of Appeal decided that the demand of the Inland Revenue Department was illegal, the Department has refused to refund the extra duty unless the companies will again call in the debentures and produce them to have the stamps obliterated, which the companies have no power to compel the holders to do, and in many cases cannot do, and much further expense and commercial inconvenience would be occasioned thereby to thousands of investors and holders; whether he has considered or will be advised by the Law Officers upon the question of the legal liability of the Crown to repay the money without imposing the condition in question; and whether he can see any way of affording relief to those aggrieved.

The first paragraph no doubt refers to a circular which the Board issued in March, 1899, although it hardly describes the Board's proceedings accurately. In December, 1899, the decision of the High Court, to which the circular relates, was reversed by a judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Board have decided to acquiesce in this latter judgment, and they have agreed to repay duty that was paid under protest, or with any implied understanding that the question of amount of duty might be reconsidered after the appeal had been decided. In considering claims for repayment, the Board have felt compelled to waive exact compliance with the provisions of the Stamp Duties Management Act, 1891, for allowances on stamp duties paid in error, in respect of certain minor details. But they have not felt at liberty to carry their concession to the length of repaying duty on instruments not produced for cancellation of stamps. It must be borne in mind that from the middle of December, 1898, when the decision in the Divisional Court was delivered, until December, 1899, when the decision was reversed in the Court of Appeal, the Board had no option but to act on the interpretatian of the law which had been declared by the High Court.

Does the right hon. Gentleman see any way of giving relief to parties aggrieved?

I do not see any way of dealing with the matter.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, on the day preceding the day on which the new duty on tea and other articles came into force, over 100 firms presented themselves at the Customs, money in hand, to withdraw goods out of bond within the usual hours of the Customs offices being open for that purpose, but were unable to do so in time in consequence of the office being closed prematurely, and many who were there in time were thereby prevented from paying their money, and in consequence have had to pay a higher rate of duty; whether any instructions were given by the Treasury to the Customs officers authorising them to reduce the time or facilities for paying such duties; and whether Her Majesty's Government are under obligation at all times to provide such facilities (that is, clerks or tellers and office accommodation) as will enable traders to freely withdraw their goods from bonded warehouses.

A large number of firms attempted, unsuccessfully, to pay duty, at the London Custom House, on the 5th inst. within the usual hours. They were prevented from paying not by a premature closing of the office (which was not closed before the usual hour), but by the crowd. The instructions given by the Treasury to the Board of Customs, with regard to both London and the whole country, were not to reduce the time or facilities for payment, but to abstain from extending the same. Her Majesty's Government hold that the obligation to provide facilities to traders for the withdrawal of their goods from bonded warehouses is limited by the ordinary conditions of hours and staff.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, his attention has been drawn to a letter written by the general manager of the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, in which it is stated that cheap tickets for workmen are not intended to be issued to workmen who are not in constant daily employment; whether he has noticed a case in which a cheap ticket has been refused to a working woman who comes regularly once a week to work in London; and whether, by legislation or otherwise, he can take steps to prevent such limitation of the benefit of the Cheap Trains Act.

I have been in communication with the managing committee of the South-Eastern and Chatham and Dover Railways and have received a reply to the following effect:—The managing committee found that a large number of persons who were not working men or women within any possible construction of the Act were obtaining "workmen's tickets," and it therefore became necessary to issue special instructions to the committee's servants with a view to stopping the practice. Unfortunately a mistake was made with regard to the particular case to which the hon. Member's question refers, and since the facts have been made known to the managing committee, orders have been given that a workman's ticket shall be issued in future. It would appear, therefore, that the occurrence referred to was an accidental one, and that there is no intention on the part of the companies mentioned to limit in any way the operations of the Cheap Trains Act or of the provisions respecting workmen's tickets contained in the recent Amalgamation Act; as evidence of this the company informs me that during the past year more than a million and a quarter workmen's tickets were issued in excess of the number for the previous twelve months.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the clauses in the Companies Bill which give unsecured creditors preferential right of payment over creditors secured by debentures and debenture stock, whether he will give the House a week's notice of bringing on the Second Reading instead of inserting it in the Orders every day.

I beg to draw your attention, Sir, to this question. Is it not disorderly, as it embodies the opinion of the hon. Member as to the construction of an Act of Parliament? It is in precisely the same words as a motion which the hon. Member has put down.

The question is whether the right hon. Gentleman will give the House a week's notice before taking the Second Reading of a certain Bill. That is not a matter of opinion.

With great respect, Sir, the sentence beginning "having regard" embodies a matter of opinion.

It does not follow because words which introduce the question suggest an opinion that the question becomes one as to a matter of opinion.

My right hon. friend the Leader of the House said the other day that to undertake to give a week's notice of the taking of a Bill would seriously inconvenience business, and I therefore cannot undertake to give it in this case. As much notice as possible will be given.

May I take it that there is no intention of taking the Bill before Easter?

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can assume that.

Did not the First Lord promise at least three days notice?

I think he said something about that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any and what regulations providing for the special medical examination of persons sentenced to flogging as to their fitness to undergo such punishment, before it is inflicted; whether the gaol surgeon or any other officer has power to suspend or dispense with such a sentence, if in his opinion the constitution of the person sentenced to flogging is not fit to bear it; and what precautious are taken, and in whom is the duty vested to ascertain whether juvenile offenders sentenced to whipping are able to bear it without danger to health.

Rule 87 (Local Prisons Rules) directs that corporal punishment shall not be inflicted unless the medical officer has certified that the prisoner is in a fit condition to undergo the punishment. Rule 182 (1) also directs that before a prisoner is subjected to corporal punishment the medical officer shall examine him and certify whether or not he is fit for the punishment. Rule 182 (2) directs that the instructions of the medical officer for preventing injury to health by corporal punishment shall be obeyed. These rules apply also to juvenile offenders sentenced to whipping when such whipping is carried out by the prison authorities. Whippings administered by the police are subject to similar police regulations. The rules for convict prisons contain similar provisions to those in force in local prisons with respect to convicts ordered to be flogged for prison offences.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the increase in the rate of income tax, what stops have been taken to increase the number of surveyors' districts, and whether any, and what, number of new districts have been at present constituted; whether the position and prospects of the surveyor's clerks will be improved in any degree; and whether provision will be made that the promotion of other officers shall not be prejudiced by the retention on public grounds of those who have passed the limits of age and service laid down in the order of the Board of Inland Revenue, No. 10, of 1897 (18th June).

The increase in the rate of income tax does not necessarily involve any considerable increase in the surveyors' duties. The real cause of difficulty in recent years has been the increase of abatements. But, apart from this, an addition of twenty-five surveyor-ships was approved by the Treasury in 1898, and nine new districts have already been created under this authority. Arrangements are now being made for creating eleven more as soon as the Board have officers qualified to fill them. It is hoped that this will be in the course of the next few months. The other matters referred to are under the consideration of the Board of Inland Revenue.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that shipowners compel consignors of live stock to sign contracts or consignment notes which absolve the shipowners from their legal liabilities as carriers; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the law in this respect.

No, Sir, I am not aware that shipowners compel, or are able to compel, any class of traders to sign contracts absolving them from their legal liabilities, and I am certainly not prepared to propose any legislation on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he would take into consideration the question of revising the scale of payments for immediate annuities payable to persons above the age of eighty years, so that persons above that age should be able to obtain a reduction in the cost of an annuity corresponding to their more advanced age.

The matter is not one for the Post Office, but for the National Debt Commissioners. I can add nothing to the answer given to a similar question by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on May 10, 1897,^* which ran as follows—

"Very few complaints have reached either the Post Office or the National Debt Commissioners with regard to the point to which

See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xlix., page 104.

attention is called in the question. I will consider the matter, but I cannot undertake to amend the table of annuities in the manner desired. There is a difficulty about securing proof as to the age of very old people, and I am told that the chances of life are not diminished in proportion to the difference between the ages of 80 and 85. I understand that insurance companies find similar precautions necessary to prevent loss on annuities at these great ages."

I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a considerable grievance exists among the commercial communities, notably in Liverpool, in consequence of the regulation requiring the transmission to their destination of cable messages received from America through the Post Office, and that this system necessarily involves delay and waste of time, entailing the loss of transactions, especially in cases where the messages are received about the closing hours of business; and if he would undertake so to modify this regulation as to permit the cable companies themselves to send the messages through the telephone direct to their destination, in view of the boon to the trading communities, the saving of Post Office labour, and the ease with which the number and cost of all such telephonic messages could be checked by a system of daily supervision of the accounts of the telephone company.

Arrangements have already been made at Liverpool for telephoning the American cable messages direct to subscribers of the National Telephone Company from the Exchange Branch Post Office, which immediately adjoins the offices of the cable companies. The suggestion made by the hon. Member would involve a modification of the terms of the National Telephone Company's licence, and it is obviously undesirable to take such a step to meet a limited local requirement.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General will cause the additional stripes to be given to two Manchester postmen, namely, A. Hill and A. Guard, which are overdue if their junior service is counted as half.

Yes, Sir. It is largely the men's own fault they have not received them already.

Did they not send a memorial to the Postmaster General twelve months ago?

Yes; but they asked that the whole of their previous service should count for stripes, whereas the Tweedmouth Committee recommended that only half should count.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that fresh delays have arisen in the transmission of telegrams from Russia through the Great Northern Company's cable at Newcastle, and whether the Postmaster General can give any guarantee that steps will be taken by the Post Office to prevent these constant interruptions, and when will he be prepared to state what steps will be taken by the Post Office.

The delays to which the hon. Member refers are attributable to the interruption of the land wires of the Great Northern Telegraph Company caused by the fresh snowstorms which occurred a few days ago. The Postmaster General is afraid he cannot give any guarantee against such interruptions. They are happily not of the constant nature assumed in the hon. Member's question, but the Postmaster General will be glad to consider whether, by altering the route of one of the wires or in any other way, the risk of total interruption can be diminished.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the charges in the Athy Union outstanding under the Labourers Acts at the time of the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898 are district charges, specific areas having been fixed by special resolutions of the guardians from time to time as the several schemes were being promoted, and which were approved of by the several Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board prior to the passing of the Local Government Act; and whether the Local Government Board had power under the Local Government Act, 1898, to alter the areas already charged under the Labourers Acts in cases where all the expenses had been incurred and loans made before the passing of the Act.

The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The Local Government Board have been advised that by the combined effect of the 44th and 57th Sections of the Local Government Act charges for labourers' cottages, whether erected before or after the passing of the Act, became district charges leviable off the district. They were so held to be in fixing the amount of the Agricultural Grant. Had the hon. Member's contention been adopted they would, as special expenses, have been excluded from that calculation.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland is he can state on what principle the Land Commission acts in accelerating the hearing of appeals in particular cases; and is there any rule for the guidance of litigants anxious to have their cases heard before their turn arrives in ordinary course.

All fair rent appeals from each county or district are listed for hearing in the order in which the notices of appeal are received in the office of the Land Commission. Any application to have a case taken out of its turn must be made to the Commissioners sitting in court in Dublin upon notice to the opposite party. There is no prescribed rule bearing on the subject, every case must depend on its special circumstances.

Is the acceleration done behind the backs of the parties?

Not that I am aware of. If the hon. Gentleman will put a question down I will inquire further.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that a Roman Catholic, named Francis Mooney, died suddenly at Douglas Street, Belfast, owing, it is alleged, to injuries inflicted upon him by Orangemen in Belfast on the occasion of the relief of Ladysmith; and whether he can state what course the Government intend to take to bring the guilty parties to justice in this case.

An inquest was opened in this case on the 20th inst., and stands adjourned to the 26th inst. Pending the finding of the coroner's jury I do not consider it desirable to make any statement as to the circumstances attending the man's death. After the inquest has terminated I shall endeavour to answer any question the hon. Member may put to me on that subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, is the portion of the general shop in Clones which is used as a post office in that town partitioned off in any way from other parts of the premises; what is its area in square feet; and can he say how many post office employees are engaged about the place.

The answer to the first paragraph is—No. The area used for post office purposes is 178 square feet. There are six indoor officers, twelve postmen, and two boy messengers.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how many officials, including the postmaster, money order clerks, telegraphists, letter deliverers, telegraph messengers, rural messengers, and mail car drivers, are employed in and about the Monaghan Post Office; of these how many are females; what is the cubic feet space of the usable portion of the building; and what are the sanitary arrangements, and is provision made for separate accommodation of the sexes; and will he direct a report to be made upon the sanitary state of the post office in question.

There are twenty-one men and one woman. I do not understand the third paragraph. The cubic content of the rooms used for official purposes is 10,000 feet, exclusive of the space used for stores, batteries, etc. The only woman employed is at the railway station. The sanitary condition of the office was investigated a short time since, and what was considered necessary has been done.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the new regulations, extending the hours during which sub-post offices in Ireland are kept open on Sundays for telegraph business and the sale of stamps, has doubled the Sunday duties of sub-postmasters without allowing any additional remuneration; and whether it is intended to compensate sub-postmasters for this additional work.

The Postmaster General has already sanctioned payment according to authorised rates to sub-postmasters in Ireland whose attendance on Sundays has been increased, and such payment will take effect from the date in each case on which the new arrangements came into operation.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that a feeling of dissatisfaction prevails among the licensed vintners in Dublin at the manner in which the metropolitan police exercise their right to visit public houses in search of breaches of the Licensing Laws; whether it is with the sanction of the Commissioners that the houses of respectable traders are being constantly visited by a sergeant accompanied by one or two constables, the customers at the bar interrogated and called upon to stand up to see if they are sober; if he can say how many such visits have been made in the metropolian police district within the past year; how many in the district comprehended by the C Division, and the number of prosecutions arising out of these visits; and whether steps will be taken to stop this practice.

I have no information that the fact is as alleged in the first paragraph. The practice of inspecting public houses is not peculiar to Dublin. In the year 1899 there were 23,047 such visits made within the metropolitan police district. In Liverpool in the same period the number of visits made by the police of that city was 101,723. This duty in Dublin is performed under the direction of the Chief Commission of Police. All classes of licensed premises are visited, irrespective of the respectability or otherwise of the proprietor. Customers are only interrogated or required to stand up when there is reason to think they are to some extent intoxicated. In the C Division there are 184 public houses, which were visited 3,218 times, resulting in thirty prosecutions in the past year. The Chief Commissioner does not propose to make any change as suggested, If the hon. Member is aware of any particular case in which the police are alleged to have acted improperly, I will be glad to cause inquiry to be made upon being furnished with particulars of the case.

I shall draw attention to this objectionable practice on the Estimates.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the recent assizes at Inniskillen, being the assize court in and for the county of Fermanagh, the judge assessed a sum of £30 on two divisions of county Cavan, although neither the clerk of the rural district or the county council of Cavan were apprised by notice of such claim on their district; and whether by legislation or otherwise he will take steps to provide redress to councils in such cases.

The Judge of Assize exercised, on the occasion mentioned, the same jurisdiction as that formerly exercised by the Judges of Assize under the Grand Jury System. The practice having worked well, it is not proposed to alter it by legislation.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that six tenants on the Annaly (Rathcline) Estate signed agreements to have their rents fixed by the Court Valuers, but the latter have not yet (although these agreements were signed some months ago) visited or inspected the holdings or given their decision; and will he call for an explanation of such conduct.

The hon. Member has been misinformed. In the only cases of the nature mentioned from this estate, the holdings have long since been inspected and the rents fixed.

I beg to ask MR. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board have ordered the Kerry County Council to pay to their Secretary, Mr. R. Fitzgerald, who is a transferred officer from the old Grand Jury, previously in receipt of a full legal salary of only £293 per year as Secretary and Acting Treasurer, a salary of £1,000 for the year ending 31st March, 1900, although the Secretary to the Local Government Board for Ireland only receives £900 per year; whether Mr. Fitzgerald was in receipt of any legal emoluments or statutory fees in addition to his salary; and, if so, what was the amount per annum; and whether he can state on what grounds the Local Government Board ordered the Kerry County Council to increase the salary from £293 to £1,000 for the year ending 31st March, 1900.

Mr. Fitzgerald is a transferred officer from the Grand Jury. His salary as secretary to that body, exclusive of statutory fees and other emoluments, was £293 a year, but his total salary and emoluments, as a reference to Parliamentary Return No. 237 of the session of 1898 will show, amounted to £987 per annum. The duties of the post are very difficult and complicated owing to the large number of separate charges due to railway guarantees, etc., and for his increased duties under the Local Government Act Mr. Fitzgerald only receives £13 per annum, that is to say the difference between £987 and £1,000. I may mention that the County Council were almost evenly divided on the question whether MR. Fitzgerald's salary should be £800 or £1,000, and that they decided to offer him a salary at the former rate.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that the Secretary of the Local Government Board, who has to deal with all the Irish counties, only gets £900 a year?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the County Council by a large majority fixed the salary at £500 a year?

The hon. Member must give notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any contract has yet been entered into for carrying out the proposed railway extension at Baltimore to deep water; and, if not, can he state the cause of the delay.

At the request of my right hon. friend, I will reply to this question. The Irish Government are not aware that any contract has been entered into for the extension of the Baltimore Railway to deep water, nor are they aware that any company proposes to promote the construction of the railway. With regard to the question of financial co-operation on the part of the Government, I must refer to the reply given by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary to the similar inquiry of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin on the 24th July last^*, to which I have nothing to add.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, as representing the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland, whether he is aware that no representative of the South of Ireland at present occupies a seat upon the Congested Districts Board; and whether steps will be taken to rectify the omission.