I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the name of the escort officer who is presumably the officer responsible for the surprise by the Boers of the British convoy at Koorn Spruit, and why has his name been held back; and why have not his explanations, with the comments of Lord Roberts thereon, been submitted, as in other cases, to the public.

I must refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave him on Thursday and on Friday last.†

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that—

Order, order! The question has been answered, the hon. Gentleman declining to give any further information. Whether the answer is satisfactory to the hon. Member or not, it must be taken as conclusive.

I, of course, do not question your ruling, Sir, but my question has not been answered. If the hon. Gentleman will say he declines to answer the second paragraph, I shall be satisfied.

† See pages 391 and 573 of this volume.

If the hon. Member does not understand my answer, I will explain that I said on a previous occasion that the publication of despatches was in the discretion of the Secretary of State, and until a despatch is published I am not prepared to discuss any subject that may be covered by that despatch.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a retired officer who has resumed active service in South Africa has any, and what, deduction made from his pay, as compared with an officer of the same rank who is not a retired officer; and, if so, why such deduction is made.

No deduction is made.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is at the instance of Lord Roberts or of the authorities at the War Office that the officers in regiments engaged in active service have been passed over for promotion in the filling of vacancies by death in action in these regiments, and that the vacancies so caused have been filled by the promotion of officers serving in other regiments, who have never been engaged in action, and without recent experience of warfare.

I gave the information for which the hon. Member asks in reply to a question which he put to mo on Friday,† Selections for command rest with the Commander-in-Chief and Army Board.

Is it the Commander-in-Chief at home?

Yes; Lord Wolseley.

Who are the Army Board?

The Adjutant General, the Quartermaster General, and the Inspector General of Fortifications.

All Lord Wolseley's nominees.

† See page 578 of this volume.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any complaints were made by medical and other officers of the accommodation on board the "Mongolian" for the Boer prisoners; if the lack of space on board was productive of disease and death; that the water supply rendered ordinary cleanliness impossible, and that the sanitary arrangements were faulty.

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer this question. No such reports have been received either at the Admiralty or the War Office.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in consequence of the distress caused to soldiers' wives by the recall of men to the colours, paymasters may be allowed to make them, within seven days of rejoining, a payment on account of separation allowance up to the end of the current month, and further amounts as may be necessary until the full amounts due can be calculated.

As soon as a man rejoins, the name and address of his wife and the number of his children are sent to the paymaster concerned, who forthwith issues the separation allowance in advance for the period up to the end of the month, and thereafter monthly in advance. This arrangement appears to meet all the points raised by my hon. and gallant friend. As I have already stated, some regrettable delay arose from the pressure of work in October, and from the reluctance on the part of certain Reservists to supply the necessary information. If the hon. Member has more recent cases in his mind I shall be glad to inquire into them.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to preventing loss to the public by the manipulation of mining values, the Government will announce at the earliest date what proportion of the cost of the South African War, and of the compensations and pensions arising there from, will be met by a tax on the mining products of the territories where the conflict has taken place.

I think any such announcement would be altogether premature until we have entered upon possession of the country, and received the advice of those on the spot whose advice is eminently necessary. We do not yet know what will be the cost of the war, or the state of the mines at its close.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, when the Royal Reserve Regiments are disbanded, any facilities can be offered to officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, within the age limits, and duly recommended for character and capacity, to rejoin the Standing Army, if in their respective arms and ranks vacancies exist.

Yes, Sir, if there are vacancies. But in the case of the officers it is not probable that there will be any vacancies, because the war has led to a large increase in the number of officers, and many of them will be supernumerary when it is ended. The conditions on which a certain number of non-commissioned officers and men may be retained in the ranks were published in an Army Order on the 28th April.

I bog to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company have state I that they could, if required, lay down three battleships and two large cruisers, giving delivery of the same within three years of receiving the order; and whether, seeing that in the last three years ending 1900 the sum of £3,500,000, or thereabouts, voted for naval construction has not been spent, and in view of his statement of 9th March, 1899, that his estimates were the lowest by which we can secure the objects which the people expect of the Navy, he will take advantage of the opportunity which now offers to make up the ground which has been lost in naval construction.

The statement in the hon. Gentleman's question that £3,500,000 voted for naval construction has not been spent is completely misleading and incorrect in the sense in which it is used. The hon. Member has apparently added together the amounts unspent in succeeding years, not reflecting that a great part was simply a revote of the provision made in the previous year. What we could not spend we asked for again, and it was revoted. Amounts voted for particular ships with which less progress was made than estimated, or for armour and machinery not delivered, were included again in the next year's vote, and it is an error to add up votes and re-votes together. As to the statement attributed to Messrs. Armstrong and Co., I have only seen it since the hon. Gentleman's question appeared on the paper. It had not been made to the Admiralty. This firm is, of course, always invited to tender with others for ships to be ordered by contract. Four armoured cruisers are about to be put out to contract, and I shall be glad if some of them find their way to Elswick. It should be understood that Messrs. Armstrong do not construct machinery, nor, at present, make armour plates, and for their supply in this respect, they are dependent upon the same manufacturers as the Admiralty and other shipbuilders. It would be incorrect to gauge the power of firms to construct ships simply by the number of slips which may be vacant. There is comparatively little difficulty in getting the hulls built. The difficulty lies, in the main, in the provision of armour and machinery, often the deliveries of which must pro-coed pari passu with the work on the hull if the ships are to be completed within a given time.

I regret if I have put the question down in a misleading form. I had no intention of doing so. I wanted to ask whether any of the money which has been voted by the House for naval construction has not been spent, or is not in course of being spent.

I will put all analogous case to my hon. friend. Suppose the House voted £1,000 for a picture which was to be delivered at the end of the year; if the picture was not delivered, that £1,000 would be revoted in the next year; and, if the painter did not finish it, it might be revoted in the third year also. Surely it would in that case be incorrect to say that £3,000 had been voted for that picture by the House of Commons, and that the Government were responsible for not having spent the whole of the £3,000. That is a case exactly analogous to this.

Arising out of the answer, may I ask whether, as the right hon. Gentleman stated on 26th February, in introducing the. Naval Estimates,^✶ the output of ships is limited by what the naval authorities believe to be the shipbuilding capacity of the country, and whether, if he can satisfy himself that Messrs. Armstrong are in a position to supply these extra battleships and cruisers, the right hon. Gentleman will put himself into communication with them.

In the first place there are four cruisers for which tenders are asked in the general contract, and it will rest with Messrs. Armstrong whether they tender for those ships or not. I shall be very glad if that firm, for which I have the highest respect, are able to secure a large proportion of the ships that are being put out; but the hon. Member seems to have forgotten that we have a large number of ships building. It does not depend only on whether armour and machinery can be supplied to Messrs. Armstrong, for if the delivery of machinery and armour to Messrs. Armstrong interferes with the delivery of armour and machinery for our ships now under construction nothing will be gained. We have to look at the whole situation together, and to consider whether armour, machinery, and hulls can all be built pari passu.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that, on the 19th of April last, the firm of Messrs. R. P. Houston and Co. informed their customers that the Admiralty were inviting tenders of steamers suitable for colliers for twelve

^✶ See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxix., page 1111.

months service, and that the firm were constantly in touch with and had a representative in daily attendance at the Transport Department of the Admiralty, and further that the said firm invited their customers to tender through them; whether the firm of R. P. Houston and Co. are in constant touch with the Transport Department of the Admiralty, and have a representative in daily attendance; and whether, inasmuch as the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool is a member of the firm of R. P. Houston and Co., their conduct is in accordance with the provisions of 22 Geo. III., cap. 45.

The Admiralty was not aware of the action referred to until the circular dated 19th April was sent to the First Lord by the hon. Member. In common with other firms, Messrs. R. P. Houston and Co. are in the habit of sending a representative very frequently to inquire as to the wants of the Transport Department, but no special facilities or advantages are accorded to them, and so far as this is suggested in the circular, it is incorrect and. misleading. The firm of R. P. Houston and Co. act as managers of the British and South American Steam Navigation Company, Limited, from which company two transports and a number of freight ships for mules have been taken up. So far as the Admiralty is aware, Messrs. R. P. Houston and Co. have not contravened the provisions of the statute referred to.

Has the First Lord seen the circular?

Yes, Sir, my right hon. friend has seen it and so have I.

Then I am sorry for you. [Cries of "Order!"]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, seeing that the funds placed at the disposal of the Admiralty are not sufficient to discharge their obligations to certain sailors retired from the Royal Navy who are entitled to a Greenwich Hospital special pension, which became assured to them after serving in the Crimean War, whether, in justice to these fast a going claimants, he will undertake that their case should be considered with the view of provision being made for them.

The funds at the disposal of Greenwich Hospital do not admit of a special pension being awarded to every man who becomes eligible for it. By Order in Council of 31st December, 1886, all men who have been granted a war medal are eligible for Greenwich Hospital special pension, and it may be assumed that every survivor of the Crimean War who had genuine service in the Navy, is in possession of a medal, and is thus eligible for a special pension—these pensions were not, however, assured to men who served in the Crimea any more than to other men who have had war service, and are in possession of medals. As a matter of fact, the majority of the eligible men who have applied have been awarded special pensions before they have reached the age of sixty, but the main factor in deciding the award is the extent to which a man is incapacitated from contributing to his own support, and his circumstances generally.

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to submit to him the special case on which this question is based?

Most certainly.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information in reference to the proclamation of German and American sovereignty in Samoa, and the practical working of the new system of government established by the recent Anglo-German Convention.

The German flag was hoisted at Apia on the 1st of March. Under an Imperial decree of 17th February jurisdiction similar to that prevailing in other German Protectorates has been applied to the German Samoan Islands. All persons residing in those islands are subjected to this jurisdiction. A court of first instance and a tribunal of appeal have been instituted. By a further ordinance the judicial officer is vested with various powers under the laws of the Empire, and he will also discharge duties as a Seamen's Board of Control under the Mercantile Marine Code. We have no information as to the arrangements made by the United States Government in the Island of Tutuila.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that the Korean Government have granted Russia a site for a coal depot and naval hospital at Masampho Harbour commanding the straits between Korea and Japan, and that Masampho will be the headquarters of the Russian fleet in the Pacific.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Russia has acquired the exclusive right to establish a coaling station at Masampho, in Korea; and whether this proceeding is in accordance with Russia's explicit pledge not to acquire any territory whatever in Korea.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has received information to the effect that an arrangement has been arrived at between Russia and Korea, under which Russia obtains certain concessions at Masampho Harbour; and, if so, whether he can say what those concessions are.

Her Majesty's Government understand that the Russian Government have acquired by lease a site for a coal depot and naval hospital at the treaty port of Masampho. The port is open to the navigators of all countries, and the ground acquired is within the limits within which foreigners are permitted to acquire land. Her Majesty's Government also understand that the landing and storage of supplies for the Russian fleet within the site so acquired is to be governed by existing treaties. There is therefore no exclusive right conceded to the Russian Government, and the treaty rights of British subjects are not limited by any arrangements with the Russian Government. Her Majesty's Government also understand that an agreement has been concluded by which the Russian Government bind themselves never to apply for their own use or for the use of Russian subjects for any laud on the island of Koje, or on the opposite mainland, or on any of the surrounding islands; and the Corean Government engages not to allow any other Government to rent or purchase land in the localities indicated. Her Majesty's Government are not at present in possession of the text of these agreements, and I must, therefore, suspend any reply to the latter part of the question of the hon. Member for Cardiff.

Will the Government maintain the view now given of that transaction?

He has no official information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any progress has been made with the introduction of a gold currency into India beyond the limits of the Presidency towns; and whether frequent demands are made by the people of India for the coinage of large amounts of silver money in addition to the rupees already in circulation

According to the latest report, the amount of gold coin issued from the treasuries up to the 15th of May was £872,003, but I have no information as to the extent to which those sovereigns have been sent into the interior of the country. A large amount of gold has been imported into India, and of this gold a considerable number of sovereigns had been presented at the Treasury to be exchanged for rupees. This has necessitated fresh coinage.

Has the coinage of sovereigns begun in India?

Not yet.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the alleged increase in murder and crime in Ceylon has been investigated, and what explanation can be given by Sir West Ridgeway and his advisers in the matter.

The Governor has investigated and alleged increase in serious crime in Ceylon, and in February last stated that between 1897 and 1899 (inclusive) cases of murder and homicide had dropped 7 per cent., cases of grievous hurt 32 per cent., hurt with the knife 15 per cent., robbery 45 per cent., and cattle stealing 23 per cent.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if due attention will be paid in Ceylon to the plumbago curing sheds, and to the trouble and disease they confer when improperly supervised, as reported from Colombo; if Sir West Ridgeway will be asked to explain how Mr. Price has transferred his responsibility upon Mr. Charles Pareira; and if he will take stops to remedy the alleged evil.

The subject referred to by the hon. Member has been under my consideration for some months, and I will call the further attention of the Governor of Ceylon to it. I have no information as to the point raised in the latter part of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the printed paper marked confidential, containing observations by Sir Samuel Way, Chief Justice of Australia, in favour of the power of appeal to the Privy Council from the decisions of the Supreme Courts of Australia under the provisions of the Commonwealth Bill, was sent by the Chief Justice to the Imperial Cabinet without the knowledge of the Premier of South Australia or any member of his Cabinet; whether, when the Chief Justice sent this document to the Privy Council, he was Acting Governor of South Australia, a Colony with responsible Government; and whether it is usual for a Colonial official in whom are united judicial and executive offices to enter into communications of this nature with the Colonial Office.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. As to the second I am not aware that the document was sent to the Privy Council. When it was sent to the Colonial Office Sir S. Way was not Acting-Governor. In reply to the third, I have to say that the communication was in strict accordance with Colonial Regulations, Chapter VI. I may add that I am informed that Chief Justice Way's observations on the Appellate Clause were published in Australia on 14th May. There is, therefore, no objection to their publication here if it is desired.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the powers of the Commonwealth of Australia, with reference to currency and coinage, will include the right of issuing subsidiary coins, the seigniorage thereon forming part of the revenue of the Commonwealth; and, if so, what will be the financial loss to the Exchequer.

The powers of the Commonwealth Parliament as regards currency and coinage will be the same as those of the Dominion Parliament and the Legislatures of other self-governing colonies. The question of subsidiary coinage will be one for arrangement with Her Majesty's Government. As to the second part of the hon. Member's question, I am informed by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the profits on the Imperial silver supplied to the Australian colonies amounted to about £30,000 on the average of the last five years.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether there is any system of rotation regulating the appearances of the representatives of Australia, Canada, and South Africa on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and whether he can state the number of sittings of the Judicial Committee that have been attended by these colonial representatives since their appointment.

No such system of rotation has been established. Sir Samuel Way, Chief Justice of South Australia, attended eleven sittings in 1897. Sir Henry de Villiers, Chief Justice of the Cape of Good Hope, nine sittings in 1897, and has regularly attended the meetings during the present sittings, which commenced on 8th May. Sir Henry Strong, Chief Justice of Canada, has attended twenty-eight sittings— namely, four in 1897, eleven in 1898, and thirteen in 1899.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General what has been the usual nature of appeals from Australia to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whether they have had for the most part a public or a private character, and whether these appeals have raised many questions of constitutional or Imperial importance.

I am informed that among the appeals from Australia there have been a considerable number of cases of a public character. Before expressing any opinion as to whether they have raised many questions of constitutional or Imperial importance, it would be necessary to examine the Reports in more detail than has been possible since notice of my hon. friend's question was given, but I shall be happy to communicate with him on the subject if he desires more detailed information.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if he can state whether the lists of voters in the newly formed London boroughs will be similar to those of the municipal boroughs throughout the country for school board purposes.

The London Government Act makes no change as regards the lists of voters in London for school board purposes.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if he can state whether there will be borough benches of justices in connection with the new London borough councils.

The answer to this question is in the negative. The Act makes the mayor a J.P. for the county of London, but the London magistracy will not be otherwise affected.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the letter of the 9th inst. from the Secretary of the Board to the Norfolk County Council is to be taken as an expression of the intention of the Board to altogether prohibit, for a time, the movement of live stock out of the whole county of Norfolk unless the local authority and the police under their control are able to give full effect to the Board's regulations in the limited district which is scheduled under the Foot-and-Mouth Order; and whether he will consider the effects of such action to a number of persons entirely innocent of any offence.

I beg at the same time to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings before the Loddon Bench, on the 16th inst., at which a letter from the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture to the local authority was read, stating the Board's intention to prohibit altogether under certain circumstances the movement of live stock out of the county of Norfolk; and whether that letter of the 9th inst. was sent under his authority and with his approval.

There is unfortunately no doubt that the orders which we have made in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease have not been carried out in Norfolk with the same completeness and success as have obtained elsewhere. I fully recognise the stringency of those orders and the loss they occasion, but I have felt justified in imposing them in order to prevent what would be a great national disaster, and I have on several occasions considered what course should be taken in the event of their not being efficiently enforced. My views on the subject were therefore well known in the Department, and although I did not personally see the letter referred to before it was dispatched, it was in entire harmony with my feelings and wishes in the matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, seeing that twenty-eight days have now elapsed since the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the county of Norfolk, and in view of the fact that the Loddon and Clavering Union is separated from the infected district by a broad river with no bridges across it, whether he can now remove all restrictions upon the movement of stock in that union.

I do not think that it would be safe for me as yet to further contract the area of the scheduled district, which is not now a very large one, and I regret therefore that I am unable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can now state whether the Report of the Departmental Committee on the reorganisation of the Board of Education will be presented to the House, and when the reorganisation is likely to be completed as regards secondary and technical education; and if it is proposed to make any Orders in Council transferring further powers to the new Board during the present session.

The President of the Board of Education proposes to make a statement shortly as to the proposed reorganisation as regards secondary and technical education. It can then be considered whether there will be any advantage in laying the Reports on the Table. The draft of an Order in Council transferring powers to the Board of Education was laid before Parliament on Friday last.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that damage is done to growing crops and plantations by fires caused by sparks from railway engines; and, seeing that the existing law imposes upon railway companies the duty of adopting precautions to prevent the escape of sparks from their engines, whether any steps are taken from time to time by the Board of Trade to insure the adoption of such precautions.

No, Sir, the Board of Trade are not empowered to ensure the adoption of precautions. The railway companies are entitled to use locomotives, and, as I understand it, they are not liable unless guilty of negligence. Whether there is negligence or not must depend on the circumstances of each case.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Board of Trade make any inspection to see that the engines are provided with proper spark guards?

No, Sir. It is for the managers of railways to see that the engines and other machinery used are in compliance with the law. It is not the duty of the Board of Trade to inspect.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether there has not been a great increase in the number of fires and in the damage done in recent years owing to the larger number of fast trains and their enhanced speed?

I do not see where I am to get such information. I have no doubt that the increased speed of trains adds to the possibility of fires occurring from the sparks from railway engines, but I do not see where I am to get information with regard to the increase of such accidents from that cause. I have no means of bringing pressure to bear on the railway companies, who are themselves responsible for the cost of damage resulting from negligence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of introducing fresh legislation on the subject?

It would really be quite impossible for me to attempt to introduce legislation in order to teach the railway companies how to carry on their ordinary traffic.

Then will the right hon. Gentleman abandon his attempt to teach fishermen how to catch fish?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of magistrates sitting at the monthly petty sessions at Lydd in refusing to grant certificates of exemption from the Vaccination Acts; whether he is aware that an applicant named Holdstock, who stated that he conscientiously objected, on the ground that vaccination had proved injurious in his own family, was questioned as to alleged membership of an anti-vaccination society, and refused a certificate on the ground that two justices had to be satisfied; whether this questioning and the refusal are consistent with the requirements of the Vaccination Act, 1898; and, what steps he will take to ensure to applicants their statutory rights under the Act.

I have inquired as to the facts of this case and am informed that a certificate of exemption was refused to the applicant because he failed to satisfy the justices that he had a conscientious objection to vaccination. This is in accordance with the Act; and it seems to me quite natural and right that justices should question an applicant with a view to eliciting the grounds of his belief, as to which they have to be satisfied before granting a certificate.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the principle acted upon by the Examiner of Plays in the execution of his duties is that he is in no way a censor of morals, but that his duty is solely to road all plays submitted, and, in reporting to the Lord Chamberlain whether such plays should be licensed or not, to advise that every play which can possibly be approved shall be passed; and, whether, if this is a correct definition of the present duties of the Examiner of Plays, he will consider the advisability of establishing a stricter supervision.

No, Sir. The terms of the question do not correctly define the present duties of the Examiner of Plays. Those duties were accurately defined by Mr. Pigott, the former Examiner of Plays, before a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1892, and were considered satisfactory by that Committee. The present Examiner has instructions to follow the rules then approved.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question is drawn from a statement of the present Examiner of Plays in the columns of the Daily Mail last week?

It may be that the Examiner made indiscreet remarks in the course of an interview of an unexpected character, but I have asked the Lord Chamberlain and am informed that the instructions are in strict accordance with those set before the House of Commons Committee of 1892 and approved by them.

Will the Examiner be rebuked for his indiscreet remarks?

I believe he has already been.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the report has been received of the inquiry into the telegraphic arrangements at Welshpool, Montgomery, Berriew, and Chirbury, in the county of Montgomery, and, if so, whether it is proposed to improve the facilities, and when.

With the view of improving the telegraph facilities at the places named by the hon. Member, the Postmaster General has authorised the erection of a new wire between Welshpool and Shrews- bury. The work will be proceeded with as quickly as possible, and it will, the Postmaster General hopes, be completed next month.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the districts of Little Mountain, Wheatsheaf, Bradley, Glanllyn, Brynissa, and Rhosrobin, all in the parish of Gwersvllt, in the county of Denbigh, contain an aggregate population of 2,041, and have only one delivery of letters each day; and whether, seeing that representations have been made to Her Majesty's Postmaster General by the Gwersyllt Parish Council as to the desirability of having a second delivery, having regard to the population of the parish, he can promise that arrangements will be made for a second delivery of letters in the districts named.

The application of the Gwersyllt Parish Council for a second delivery of letters in the day at certain places in that district is being considered, and the result will be communicated to the hon. Member shortly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in respect of the estimated payments for rates and contributions in lieu thereof for the current year, can he state how many separate assessments make up the total of £445,000 put down in the Estimates; how many of these items have been altered since last year's Estimates; how many items are paid as rates fixed by the local authorities; and how many are contributions in lieu of rates.

The number of separate assessments in the books of the ' Rates Department of the Treasury is about 5,000. Of these 5,000 about 500, or 10 per cent., have been altered since last year's Estimates. About 100 are cases rateable under special Acts of Parliament; but as the amounts actually paid are no longer limited to the statutory liabilities, the whole 5,000 are now treated as contributions in lieu of rates.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the work performed by the Roman Catholic chaplains to the Scotch prisons, whether he will consider the advisability of equalising their salaries with the salaries payable in England; and whether any representations or applications have been made to the Scotch Office on the subject.

Since the administration of prisons in Scotland was taken over by the Prison Commissioners in 1877 the provision made for Roman Catholic visiting clergymen has been largely increased. In that year provision was only made for one such visiting clergyman, at a salary of £70, and in 1885, when the Scottish Office was established, the number had only increased to three, with salaries aggregating £200, whereas, on the Estimates for the current year, there is provision for ten such clergymen, with allowances amounting to £560. The Secretary for Scotland from time to time considers the salaries of the prison staff, having regard to the merits of each case and the amount of work done, but their salaries cannot be simply regulated by the salaries fixed in England, as such an adjustment has never in practice been admitted by the Treasury. I may add that no representation has, within recent years, been received at the Scottish Office on the subject, and the Secretary for Scotland is not aware of any dissatisfaction existing at the present moment in regard to the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several members of the Salvation Army were arrested on Sunday the 6th instant, in Abbey Street, Dublin, and brought before Mr. Mahony, the divisional magistrate, who, in sentencing them to fines, accused them of profanity; and that, on Sunday the 13th instant, two members of the Salvation Army walking up and down at the same place were surrounded by a mob who struck one of them three times; and whether steps will be taken to protect the Salvation Army in Irish towns.

My attention has been directed to the proceedings referred to in this question. I understand that counsel acting on behalf of the accused has applied to the magistrate to state a case for the decision of a Superior Court, and this being so, my hon. friend will concur with me in the opinion that it is undesirable to further discuss the matter at the present stage. With reference to the last paragraph, it would be the duty of the police to afford such protection; but it does not follow from this that Salvationists, or other open-air preachers, are entitled to carry on their services in such a way as to cause an obstruction of the public thoroughfare, or to endanger the preservation of the public peace.

Is it not the fact that the proceedings of the Salvation Army disturb the services of a number of Protestant and Presbyterian churches in the street in which they assemble, and was it not for their protection that the police intervened?

I understand they intervened because they considered the "army" were causing an obstruction of the highway.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that mails despatched from Euston at night are not delivered in Roundwood, County Wicklow, until the day after their delivery in Dublin, although the distance from Dublin to Roundwood is only about twenty-five English miles; whether he has received a memorial in reference to this matter; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the people of Roundwood by a delay of twenty-four hours in the delivery of the English mails and of the Dublin daily papers, he proposes to alter the present arrangements.

No memorial for improved postal accommodation at Roundwood, County Wicklow, appears to have been received at the General Post Office, London. Inquiry is being made with the view of ascertaining whether the wishes of the inhabitants can be complied with, and an answer shall be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will have the Dogs (Landing from Ireland) Order so amended as to allow dogs to be temporarily sent from Ireland to England for stud purposes, and to pass through England from Ireland to the ports of embarkation for transport to the United States, in view of the inconvenience and loss caused to the breeders of dogs in Ireland by the operation of the Order as it is at present enforced.

It would not, I fear, be practicable to make arrangements for the landing of dogs sent from Ireland to Great Britain for short periods for stud purposes, without endangering the success of the Order to which the hon. Baronet refers. The regulations already provide for the issue of licences, under certain conditions, in cases in which dogs are intended for exportation. I am glad to say that a material improvement in the position of Ireland in regard to rabies has recently taken place, and I hope, therefore, that before long any danger of the re-introduction of disease into this country may have disappeared, and that I may be able to withdraw the existing restrictions with safety.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the death of Eliza Clingan, an inmate of Belfast Lunatic Asylum, who in her lifetime was removed to the asylum from the Belfast workhouse, whether he is aware that the verdict of the coroner's jury found that she had died from phthisis, and deplored the curtailment of the open-air space at Purdysburn Asylum; whether, in view of the fact that the cases of death in England from phthisis have been reduced owing to the open-air treatment, and considering the finding of the jury, he will take into consideration the question as to the curtailment of the open-air space at Purdysburn Asylum, near Belfast.

I have not yet completed my inquiries in this matter; perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Board of Guardians of Belfast has recently paid to a contractor, without any contract in writing, a sum above the lowest amount which they are by law entitled to make without written contract; can he state the amount of the payment, and is it his intention to take any steps in the matter.

The lowest amount of expenditure which a Board of Guardians is legally entitled to make without a contract expressed in writing would appear to be the sum of ten pounds, but I would refer the hon. Member to the provisions of Articles 16 and 17 of the General Regulations of the Local Government Board, dated 18th December, 1882, in this matter. With regard to the second and third paragraphs, an inquiry has recently been held into the question of the execution of works by the Guardians of the Belfast Union without contracts having been entered into, but the report of the inspector who held the inquiry has not yet been received.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the table of subscriptions which has been framed for every rank in the Royal Irish Constabulary in connection with the Jubilee Fund, whether steps have been taken, or will be taken, with a view to ascertain the opinion of the force as to whether the fund shall retain its present form or be converted into a provident fund, in which all widows and orphans would be entitled to participate.

The table referred to in the first part of the question is evidently that contained in the printed rules of the fund. The fund is one over the administration of which the Government has no control. The Inspector General is not aware of any reason why such steps should be taken as are suggested in the second part of the question. The subscribers generally appear to be satisfied with the present scope and objects of the fund, but any suggestions as to changes in rules should be made to the secretary of the fund at the depot, who will submit them to the committee of management for their consideration.

Have any steps been taken to ascertain the opinions of the force in this matter?

I am not aware of any.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the names of, and the amount of remuneration paid to, the inspectors who served in Munster under the Seed Supply and Potato Spraying (Ireland) Act, 1898.

The inspectors employed under the Act mentioned were not assigned to districts, but were employed as occasion required in various parts of the country. A list of the names of the inspectors so employed will be found at page 62 of the 26th Annual Report of the Local Government Board. The inspectors were paid at the rate of three guineas a day when on duty, together with travelling expenses.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an order of the justices of Glamorgan, dated 30th April last, under which Ellen Webster, the widow of an American sailor but a native of Ireland, which country she had left many years ago, was with her three children, aged respectively eight, seven, and three years, transferred from the Cardiff Union to the union of Rathdown, in the county of Dublin, she not having acquired a settlement in England; and whether he would take steps to have the Bill for the Removal of the Poor to Ireland, which has not as yet been passed by the House of Lords, so amended as to meet the hard- ship of such a case and prevent its recurrence.

I am informed that Mrs. Webster was born in Ireland, and lived there until the age of eight, when her parents emigrated to America. She was married to an American in that country, and remained there till about seven months ago, when she came to Liverpool. She arrived at Cardiff only two days before her admission to the Cardiff' workhouse. I could not undertake to suggest any amendment of the Poor Removal Bill to meet such a case as this.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Urban Council of Cootehill, county Cavan, duly elected Mr. Peter Smith as clerk of the council on 26th March, and notified the appointment to the Local Government Board, to which after two applications there has been no reply; and whether there is any reason for this delay on the part of the Local Government Board.

The Local Government Board have informed the Urban District Council that their approval of the appointment of clerk to the council is not necessary. There was, I understand, some delay on the part of the Board in conveying this intimation to the District Council, but the delay was due to a misunderstanding of the minute of the Council.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence given at an inquest recently held at the Cork County Gaol in connection with the death of a prisoner named Andrew Cull, and to the comments of the coroner upon the occasion; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, it is proposed to institute a further inquiry.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The deceased had been committed to Cork Prison on the 9th April under sentence of one calendar month, with hard labour, for insubordination in the workhouse, and he died in the prison on the 7th May. The coroner observed that the medical officer of the prison should have discharged the prisoner. The medical officer has no such power, and the Prisons Board are of opinion that the medical officer did not fail in his duty in not recommending the prisoner's discharge for the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant, in whom alone is vested the exorcise of this power. The illness of the prisoner became suddenly so critical that he could not have been discharged, and no advantage would have been obtained by ordering his discharge from prison, when, in all probability, he would have been retransferred to the workhouse. Upon the information before me I see no sufficient grounds for directing a further inquiry into the matter as suggested.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long the man had been in custody when he died?

Loss than a month.

His sentence was but a month, but how long was he in gaol before he died?

He was committed on the 9th April and died on the 7th May.

Was there any special medical report?

Only that of the medical officer.

Did the medical officer of the Prisons Board visit the prison after the conviction of the man and before his death?

I cannot say.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the man first complained of being ill?

No. If any further information is wanted I must ask for notice.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government, in spite of the assurances they have given that a Redistribution of Seats Bill would be brought in and passed before a General Election takes place, have abandoned all intention of dealing with the question of redistribution in the present Parliament.

I do not think it possible or desirable to give a programme of legislation beyond the session in which we are engaged.

That is not an answer to the question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange for placing in the library the Ministerial answers to all questions which have appeared on the Notice Paper, as answers to questions relating to foreign affairs are now placed.

The obstacles in the way of carrying out such a suggestion are insuperable. I have answered this question more than once, and if the hon. Member will refer to the answer I gave on 17th February last year^✶ he will find in some detail the obstacles which render the scheme impracticable.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question as to which we are all very anxious—whether he can now relieve the anxiety of the House in regard to the Whitsuntide holidays. [Cries of "Mafeking!"]

As Mafeking has been mentioned, although in a somewhat irregular manner, I may say that my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies informs me that he has heard from Sir Alfred Milner, who has himself heard from General Barton, who, as the House knows, is not very far from the scene of action, that Mafeking was relieved on Thursday, the 17th. This information, though, has not yet reached

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxvi., page 1290.

us from Lord Roberts. As regards the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs, I have to say that the holidays, I think, should begin on Tuesday of next week, and will last, I hope, until Thursday, 14th June.

And what will be the business next week?

On Monday next the Report stage of the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Bill will be taken.

Will the House sit on the Tuesday?

Yes, to move the adjournment. Whether we sit for anything else is doubtful; I should think probably not.

I beg to give notice that if the right hon. Gentleman moves the adjournment of the House on the Tuesday, and thereby cuts out the very important Protestant question (Church of England Elementary Schools) I have upon the Paper, there will be a very wide protest made both in and out of the House.

Will the Shipbuilding Vote be taken before Whitsuntide?

Not till after.