said the object of the Bill was to acquire certain lands in the counties of Flint, Denbigh, Carnarvon, and Anglesey for the purpose of widening the line and making necessary alterations in stations. He was sure that no one would wish to place any obstacle in the way of the company making such improvements, which were called for by the greatly increased traffic on the North Wales coast. His only object in intervening in the debate was to draw attention to the fact that, although the traffic was so heavy that the line, already a double line, had to be converted into a quadruple line, providing two sots of rails for slow and two for express traffic, no reduction whatever was made in the maximum rates for carrying goods traffic, which were much higher on the Chester and Holyhead section than on other portions of the main line. The line from Chester to Holyhead was originally constructed by the Chester and Holyhead Railway Company. One of the pleas that had been put forward for higher rates was that the original cost of construction was high. Whether that was so or not, it was hardly for the London and North Western Railway Company to put forward that plea, seeing that they bought the line at one half the cost of its construction, and they therefore got it very cheaply. Moreover, at the time the line was made the cost of land was very much loss than at present. They complained, too, that traffic could only be drawn from one side of the railway, and that the coast was rugged; but it was the sea which had caused those difficulties, that induced tourists by the tens of thousands to visit the North Wales coast. It had caused large and populous watering places, and a number of smaller but rapidly growing towns, to spring up all along the coast-line; indeed, it looked as if the North Wales coast-line would in time become one continuous line of houses. These towns had enormously increased the goods and passenger traffic of the company—increased it, indeed, to such an extent that it was necessary for the company to come to Parliament for fresh powers to enable them to deal with the great and constantly growing volume of traffic, not only along the North Wales coast, but also the through traffic between England and Ireland. The rates charged on this line were discussed in Parliament in the year 1891, when the House of Commons reduced the rate levied on goods under Table A. to 95d., under a penny per ton per mile, the same rate as that charged on other sections of the main line. The House of Lords, however, raised the rate to 1½d. per ton per mile. Finally, the rate was fixed at l¼d. per ton per mile. It still remained at that figure; to-day it was 25 per cent. higher than the rates on other sections of the main line up to distances not exceeding twenty miles; it was 32 per cent. up to distances of fifty miles—60 per cent. higher for distances above fifty miles. The traders' contention was that there was nothing to justify the maximum rate being placed at a higher figure than 95d. per ton per mile, the amount charged on other sections of the main line, and he had never heard any argument which could not be easily refuted to show that any higher rate should be charged. If ever there was any reason for charging higher rates, it had long ago ceased to exist. The London and North Western Railway Company, by reason of the very configuration of the coast, occupied such a favourable position that no rival company could hope to compete with it for a share of the enormous traffic with which it was now prepared to deal. It had, in fact, an absolute monopoly. Any other company attempting to run a parallel line would find that the North Western Company had taken possession of every point of vantage that the coast could afford. The company was therefore in possession of a great monopoly, and it was the duty of Parliament to guard with the most scrupulous care the interests of traders and consumers, and to see that they were fully protected under any statute that conferred additional powers on a groat monopoly. The North Western Railway Company had not only secured a monopoly of the coast, it had acquired as many inland branch lines as possible, so that the greater part of North Wales was entirely in its hands. In conjunction with the Great Western Railway Company the London and North Western Railway Company had even gone to the length of constructing lines for purely obstructive purposes. He would give a case in point. About thirty years ago it was intended to bring a competing line of railway into North Wales. The Great Western and the London and North Western were determined to prevent competition, and accordingly constructed a line from Wrexham to Mold with the object of keeping out the new railway. The "obstructive" line was not opened for passenger traffic for twenty years, and had only been opened within the last few years under pressure from the county councils and other authorities. He had given this instance to show how determined those great railway companies were to preserve their monopolies. That spirit on their part must be met by a corresponding spirit on the part of the representatives of the public, that at the very least companies which obtain such monopolies should not be allowed to charge exceptional rates in those portions of the country where the monopoly existed. He might be asked, why not fight this question upstairs? Unfortunately, the public in North Wales had no large and comprehensive organisation to protect their interests in matters of this kind. The railway company, a wealthy and powerful corporation, could fight in detail local bodies which were naturally and properly averse to spending the ratepayers' money in litigation with a great railway company, which could afford to pay the ablest counsel and get the best expert evidence. They even went the length of approaching the witnesses brought to London to give evidence against them, finding out their individual grievances and settling with them, thereby cutting the ground from under the feet of the opposition. The interests involved were so great that no effort or expense was spared to make the case of the company as complete as possible. Ordinary opponents had no chance whatever against a highly perfected organisation of this kind. The contest was so unequal that it was not surprising to find the councils of small counties, municipalities, and urban districts shrinking from the task of protecting the interests of traders and the public in their fear of incurring undue expense. But the representatives of constituencies in North Wales had the right to protest against the charging of these exceptional rates. He hoped that opposition to them would be continued until full justice was done to the manufacturers, traders, and general public of North Wales. He wished the company well, having met nothing but kindness and courtesy at the hands of its officials in the country, and he hoped that they would soon see the justice of reducing their maximum charges to the manufacturers and traders of Flintshire and other counties in North Wales to those charged on other portions of their main line.

I think the time has arrived when something should be done with regard to the charges on this particular branch of the London and North Western Railway Company's system. The matter has been before the House repeatedly during the last eight or nine years, and, as has been pointed out, exceptional treatment is meted out to the residents along the Chester and Holyhead line, for reasons which are absolutely insufficient. I recollect that when this question was raised in the House many years ago, the rates on this part of the line were reduced to exactly the same level as those obtaining on other parts of the main line, which was surely logical and proper treatment, the only difference between the sections of the railway being, so far as I know, that the Welsh part is far more remunerative than any other section. My hon. and gallant friend who represents the London and North Western Railway Company in this House, and deals with these matters in so genial a manner as to make it difficult for anyone to oppose him, will not deny not only that this part of the line was not constructed by his company, but that they bought it at less than one-half the original cost. Whatever the initial cost of this particular part of the line, the North Western Company got it cheap. No one else could have bought it, and now, with the ruthlessness which pertains to all monopolies, they take advantage of the position and charge exorbitant rates. The maximum rate charged on the company's main line is ·95 of a penny. The difference in rate between ·95d. on the main line and l·25d. on the Chester and Holyhead section is duo to the fact that up to Chester there is competition to be met from the Midland, the Great Western, and the Great Central lines; but on this piece of coast-line the North Western Company are autocrats of the situation except so far as traffic can be carried by sea. When there is a possibility of sea competition the company reduce their rates, but inland towns are forced to pay the increased rate, and thus smaller industries that might be carried on in the rural districts are crushed out of existence. I do not see why these places should pay higher rates in order that Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Nottingham, which are specially favoured in the matter of railway competition, should enjoy cheap rates. The maximum ought to he carefully scrutinised and reduced to the lowest possible point in towns where there is no competition. The House of Commons gives a monopoly to railway companies. In some cases it is not detrimental, because other companies serve the same district, but it is where there is only one line in the district; and I believe that sooner or later Parliament will have to see that rates in such districts are not piled up in order to cover losses created by competition in other places. We know that one of the greatest problems requiring to be solved is caused by the crowding of masses of the people into big towns. One of the reasons for that is that it is impossible for any trade or industry to be carried on successfully in the rural districts because of the excessive charges of monopolist railways. In 1891, when the question of railway rates was before the House, I moved an Amendment which the Government and the House accepted, by which the rates on the Chester and Holyhead section were reduced to the level of the general rate, but in the House of Lords Lord Stalybridge—who, in addition to being a Peer of the realm, is a director of the London and North Western Company—moved a return to the old figure, and, mustering his railway director friends, carried his proposal against the opposition of the Government. When the Bill returned to the House of Commons at the end of the session the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then President of the Board of Trade, appealed to the House to accept the compromise of l·25d We did so, and for nine years these little industries have been starved and pinched simply because the railway directors gathered together in the House of Lords and out-voted the Government. It is a most monstrous system by which a ring of railway directors are enabled to prove themselves more powerful than the Government of the day, and to render it absolutely impotent in the face of the great railroad monopoly.

There seems to be a conspiracy of silence on the part of right hon. and hon. Members opposite in regard to these grave charges against this railway company. We do not object to granting the increased facilities demanded by reason of the increasing traffic on the North Wales line, but we do object to this strong company declining to remedy the grievances and burdens under which the people in this district have so long suffered. I know they say that they can only draw traffic from one side of the line; but as against that we can point to the fact that on this coast are to be found some of the most beautiful and most important watering resorts, which have been created not by the company, but by the sea. Although the coast owes a good deal to the London and North Western Railway Company, I maintain that the company owes a great deal more to the coast. Besides that, the Chester and Holyhead branch of the system is the main artery along which the great Irish traffic runs, and I should gather from what I have heard even from the directors that that traffic alone would be sufficient to make the line remunerative, even if they did not carry a single passenger or a single ton of goods for any part of North Wales. A great principle is involved in this. The local rates are so excessive that commercial men are receiving goods from London through the Midland to Liverpool, shipping them to Carnarvon, and carting them thence to inland towns, and, as was shown at a conference held at Bangor in 1896, the charge for the carriage of a horse from an inland town in Anglesey to Liverpool is £2, while the animal can be sent from Dublin along the Holyhead line to Liverpool for 25s., including the return fare of the groom, the charge being twice as much from the inland town for half the distance. Again, tradesmen at Bettws-y-Coed can by carting from Conway get their goods at a cheaper rate than is charged by the London and North Western Company. I do contend that the company should be compelled to readjust its tariff and make it the same as obtains on the rest of the system. What we want is to get an assurance or understanding that this question will be settled on broad and liberal lines. It has been said that the London and North Western Railway Company is conscienceless; but I must say that they have shown conscience in the highest degree with respect to the war. They have kept the places of Reservists in their service who have had to go out to South Africa, open; and they helped the Reservists' wives and children. I only ask them to show conscience in the same way to the poor agriculturists of North Wales, and solve the problem of this long-standing grievance.

It happens that I represent the county of Denbigh, which is affected by this Bill, but I only desire to draw the special attention of the Committee to the real grievance from which the farmers suffer by the excessive rates demanded by the London and North Western Railway Company. I wish to endorse all that has been said in regard to the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade in reference to these rates. We appreciate entirely the difficulties he has had to contend with in this matter, and I hope it is not too late for him to show again his personal sympathy, and give his personal support to the case we are laying before the House. It seems to me that the fact that this company holds the practical monopoly of North Wales between Chester and Holyhead should induce the House of Commons to carefully consider the question of the rates charged. I know, for a fact, that these high rates are a material detriment to the trade and agriculture of the whole of North Wales; and in these times when we are forced by distressful circumstances to give special attention to the farming classes of the country, I think it is only right that the House of Commons should carefully examine the points the Welsh Members have laid before it. It seems to mo that a number of now considerations have been advanced in the debate, and I do not think it unnatural that the Government should have some time to reconsider this question. Further than that, I think it would be only right that the question at issue should be again considered upstairs. With that object, I beg to move that the Bill be recommitted in respect of Clause 6, which is the clause we wish to bring before the arbitrament of the House. There are many grounds on which we can advocate that. It may be urged that evidence has not been forthcoming in regard to the attitude of the people of North Wales in reference to Clause 6; but I am assured that if this further opportunity is provided for expressing the views of North Wales, that opportunity will be taken advantage of. I hope therefore that the Government, or, at all events, the promoters of the Bill, will agree to the suggestion I have made, and not oppose my motion.

I rise to support my hon. friends the Welsh Members, inasmuch as they have supported the Irish Members again and again in their disputations with the London and North Western Railway Company. I hope the Government, or the promoters of the Bill, will give us the opportunity of enabling us to confer with the ten or twelve railway directors who were on the Committee as to whether those rates, where there is no competition, should be charged by this monopolist company. As I listened today to the speeches of the Welsh Members, and to the silence with which they were received from the Treasury Bench, I thought I recollected a speech made by the Secretary to the Treasury a year or two ago in reference to another monopolist vote. The Secretary to the Treasury, who is one of the very few members of the Ministry who is not a company director, then said—

"The indirect influence which a big company like this"

—he was referring to the National Telephone Company, and I apply it to the London and North Western Railway Company—

"can bring, and is bringing, to bear is enormous; and it is difficult to see where public policy begins and private interest ends."

Possibly the Government and the railway directors will not answer that question. They will rally their big battalions, against the strongest argument that can be brought to bear on a question of this kind. I saw a moment ago an hon. Gentleman enter the House—a Minister of the Crown who is a paid director of the London and North Western Railway Company, and received his directorship after he was appointed a Minister, in order that he should use his Ministerial position for the purposes of this monopolist company.

Order, order! The hon. Member must withdraw that expression. The hon. Member said that a Minister of the Crown has received some appointment with a view to its wrongful influence upon his conduct as a Member of this House.

Oh no, Sir.

That was the nature of the imputation.

You have misunderstood roe, Sir.

I shall not withdraw until I have explained. I made no personal imputation against the hon. Gentleman himself; but I do say that his position, sitting on the Treasury Bench, would lead—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] that is my opinion—might lead to the inference that he is there as a director and not as a Minister.

The hon. Member must withdraw what he first said.

Of course, I do withdraw. I make no personal implication against the hon. Gentleman; but what I can say is that, although a position of this kind was not accepted by the hon. Gentleman as a bribe, it may have been given to him as a bribe by this monopolist company. I think I am fully in order in saying that; and I am very glad that you, Mr. Speaker, have called me to order, because by doing so it will expose this system.

Order, order! The hon. Member is now departing from the question before the House; the question is that the Bill be recommitted to reconsider Clause 6.

I think the Bill should be recommitted to give the Government an opportunity of consulting with their friends, both in the railway interest and outside of it, as to whether this Bill should be passed or not. It is a scandalous thing that a great public company like the London and North Western Railway company, with their great influence, can use that influence in the House of Commons as they do. If I have spoken with heat on this question, I hope the House will forgive me, for I recollect a great contest in regard to an Irish question in which I was engaged with this company. Wherever they can, they have oppressed the poor, and they have endeavoured to raise their dividends by a system which enables them, where there is no competition, to impose excessive rates detrimental to the interests of the country. On all these grounds I hope the Bill will be recommitted; and if, without disorder, I may say this: that I wish to enter my protest in a case of this kind against the appearance on the Treasury Bench of a director of a railway company.

The feelings of the hon. Member for South Donegal are apt to run away with him at times, but we speedily pardon him.

I do not want your pardon.

Well, I would only ask the hon. Gentleman to follow the moderate language of his Welsh colleagues who sit in front of him. They represent the interests of their Welsh industrial and agricultural constituents, and it is only natural that they should have an opportunity of reproducing the arguments that can be brought forward in favour of the general question of reduction of rates. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs complained that the London and North Western Railway Company did their best to crush the small business men—I suppose he means the small shopkeepers—by maximum rates, but he must know that the small shopkeepers get their goods carried fairly well, and that there is a good mail service. I will not dispute with the hon. Member the probability that there is some little excuse for complaint on a point here and there; but it would be a very singular company which was never found fault with. The London and North Western Company, however, have endeavoured to do their duty to the country throughout which they run their lines. They have reduced the rates considerably, and their great object is to provide a good service to the country, and make it as cheap and efficient as possible. The object of the Bill is to widen about six miles of the Chester and Holyhead Railway in order to increase the attraction of the public to the towns and watering-places in North Wales. Hon. Members who oppose the Third Reading of the Bill must remember that, if it should be rejected by the House, it will impose a very great disability on the company, and be fraught with very serious consequences to their traffic. We all wish to increase the attractions of North Wales, but we have also to consider the mercantile aspect of affairs in regard to that traffic, and likewise the commercial interest of the shareholders we represent. With regard to the toll-powers, they will be the same as the maximum rates applicable to any part of the London and North Western system. But it must be mentioned that the maximum rates are not invariably charged, except, perhaps, in Class A., where oven the maximum rate of 1½d. per ton has been reduced to 1 ¼d. per ton for all distances. It should also be borne in mind that these maximum rates are not always invariably charged. There has never been any complaint at all inside or outside the House as to the actual rates charged. I inquired before I came into the House, and I was informed that there had not been any complaints by the county councils or the traders. It is perfectly true, and I acknowledge fully, that hon. Members from Wales desire the best facilities obtainable for the public, but all the same they will do well to recognise that if there had been universal dissatisfaction some complaints, at all events, would have come to the ears of the London and North Western Railway Company, and surely some of the county councils would have approached the company and endeavoured to make out a case. Something has been said of the rates for horses and cattle, but the maximum charges, except in the middle class, are the same as on the Holyhead and Chester Railway and other parts of the system. The matters alluded to by the hon. Member for Carnarvon have nothing to do really with this case. The question of rates stated by hon. Members from Wales has been argued and settled with the authority of the House of Lords. I am sure I have myself been a sufferer from the way the House of Lords regards Bills, but I should be sorry to accuse them of having an ulterior motive in doing what they do. That would be a very serious matter indeed. I look upon them as men of business, performing their duties in the way they believe to be for the public interest. I would appeal to hon. Members from Wales whether at this particular stage, and in view of the fact that the subject has not been brought forward on this Bill, it would not be desirable to allow the Third Reading to be taken without opposition. I perfectly recognise their right to bring forward the whole question. It is one that is most interesting to the Members from North Wales. I hope they will not delay the passing of the Bill, which is really of very great importance to passengers in North Wales. It will have the effect of opening up a beautiful country. I can assure hon. Members from Wales that, as far as my small interest in the company goes, I have always acted in the public interest, and I shall always endeavour to bring before the board of directors any question affecting , the interests of Wales. I hope that at the present stage of the Bill they will see their way to withdraw the motion.

The hon. Gentleman has spoken as if we desired to reject the Bill altogether. We only wish to recommit it in connection with Clause 6 with reference to exceptional rates. As far as the other parts of the Bill are concerned, it is welcome to pass through the House without the slightest opposition. We do not desire to place the slightest opposition in the way of the railway company, but this question ought to be considered. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken made no allusion whatever to the fact that the circumstances have completely changed now that the company has doubled its line. I said before that it is the best portion of the main line, and there is no reason why the rates should not be reduced to the same amounts as are charged on other portions of the main line. The hon. Gentleman did not give us any reason why this difference should continue to exist. The one exception refers to the minerals carried under Class A. Flintshire, Denbighshire, and Carnarvon are deeply interested in this question, because their exports are coal and stone, and owing to the low price of minerals they find it extremely difficult to compete with other counties if these exceptional rates are allowed to be charged. The hon. Gentleman said that there had been no complaint from the county councils. As a matter of fact, my own county council is considering whether it shall not appeal to the Lords Committee on this question, but what we see before us is a great and powerful corporation, and a small, weak county council could only fight by spending a disproportionate amount of the ratepayers' money. Under these circumstances, I think the House would only do justice to this portion of North Wales by recommitting the Bill to the former Committee in respect to Clause 6. I wish to propose this in no unfriendly spirit whatever to the railway company or the officials. I put it to the House as a matter of simple justice. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has not given any reason against the course we wish the House to take.

I am bound to say that what the hon. Gentleman opposite has stated is perfectly true. We are in the hands of this great railway company in my part of Wales. I attended a meeting the other day—

The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question of rates charged under this Bill on this particular part of the London and North Western Railway.

All right, Mr. Speaker. At that particular meeting, when I complained of the rates they referred me to the London and North Western Railway Company. I can assure hon. Members that the House will be doing a real good turn to the Principality of Wales by objecting to the maximum rates that are being charged in certain parts of Wales. These railways in many parts have an absolute monopoly of the traffic.

The hon. Member cannot discuss the general question of railway rates in Wales.

Well, I hope the President of the Board of Trade will have some regard to the appeal that has been made by the hon. Member with regard to the want of facilities, and the high rates charged by this great railway company.

I can very well remember, in regard to this particular portion of the line, that there was considerable opposition on the part of the Irish Members. We at first got no concessions in regard to rates or passenger fares. After considerable pressure and opposition we got some concessions, though not nearly as many as we were entitled to. I think the Welsh Members would be very well advised to take a leaf out of our book, and press for the reconsideration of this clause, so as to delay the matter until after Whitsuntide, or until a satisfactory assurance is given. I think it is a regrettable tone to the debate which the hon. Gentleman opposite has introduced. I do not think he should call the railway company "my company." That is rather a large order. I do not think that is a dignified way of conducting public business in this House, and I think the Welsh Members should press their opposition. There is one very important point which I think they have not sufficiently emphasised. Everyone acquainted with North Wales knows that the mineral industry is probably the most important in that part. I think this is their opportunity. Bargains behind the Chair, and not across the floor of the House, are very much to be deprecated.

This discussion has travelled over rather a wide area since the motion was proposed by the Member for West Denbighshire. He suggests that the Bill should be recommitted in respect of Clause 6. That clause enacts that there shall be a widening of seven or eight miles of the system. Supposing this Bill were to be recommitted in respect of the rates, the only question the Committee would have to consider would be whether along this distance of eight miles a differential rate is to be charged, not in respect of all goods, but only in respect of minerals. I think hon. Members will see that when the question as to rates has so narrow a limit as that, it really would be futile to send the Bill back to the Committee, for supposing that hon. Members get their way, and supposing that the Committee were to insert a proviso that along the new lines which are to be added to the main line—along the distance of eight miles—a loss rate is to be charged for minerals, the result would be that the London and North Western Railway Company would run all other traffic on the new line, and all mineral traffic on the old line, so that hon. Members would not gain by it. What hon. Members object to is not so much what is in the Bill as what is not in the Bill. They do not object, I understand, to any of the clauses in the Bill. They approve of the widening, but what they want is a general revision of rates along that part of the system. I do not see how that can be obtained. It does not seem to me to be possible to insert in this Bill those provisions, and that being so, I feel myself compelled, without expressing any opinion whatever as to the contention about rates, if they press the matter to a division, to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill and against the re-committal.

said that once the Committee of the House of Commons adjudicated upon this question, that was an expression of opinion which was tantamount to a decision of the House that upon the whole of that portion of the line the rates would be reduced. Brushed of its technicalities, the whole question was whether the company should discriminate between the Chester and Holyhead branch and the other part of the line. They asked why the company should charge l¼d. upon the Chester and Holyhead line and ·.95d. on the other part of the line. The hon. and gallant Member opposite had not attempted to give an answer to that question. What possible reason was there for charging l¼d. and discriminating between the case of coal and the case of slates? If the House of Commons authorised this company to make exceptions and special charges on this line, why should it not also be done in regard to other traffic? He thought their appeal was a perfectly fair one. Unfortunately this was the only way they could raise the question in the House, and he appealed to the hon. and gallant Gentleman at any rate to agree to the adjournment of the debate until after the Whitsuntide recess. Then there might be an opportunity of conferring upon the subject, and there was really no need to hurry in the matter. There was no serious opposition to any other part of the Bill, if there was a friendly conference between the parties during the Whitsuntide recess, he believed it would be attended with excellent results. There was no claim made on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company in respect to these exceptional charges, and they did not contend that there ought to be preferential rates, if the conference he suggested took place during the recess he thought they would be able to got the measure through afterwards as an unopposed Bill. He did not know whether he should be in order in moving the adjournment, but he would do so if it was in order, and he hoped the hon. and gallant Member opposite would assent to the course he had suggested.

I cannot accept a motion for adjournment at this stage. The hon. Member has already heard the views of the railway company, and also the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee.

I mean upon the question of a compromise.

I cannot accept the motion.

supported the appeal made by the hon. Member for Carnarvon to adjourn the debate until after the Whitsuntide recess, in order to discuss the point which had been raised. If this were done he thought an arrangement could be come to which would satisfy all parties.

I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of the course suggested being taken.

I beg to move the adjournment of the debate, in order to give the directors of the London and North Western Railway Company an opportunity of making an arrangement more satisfactory to North Wales than at present exists. I do this in view of the strong feeling indicated by the vote we have just taken.

I cannot accept that motion.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a, position to give the House any information as to reported negotiations for peace with the Transvaal Government.

I have no information on the subject to which the hon. Member refers.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give the House any information as to the condition and treatment of British prisoners at Pretoria: and whether any overtures for the exchange of prisoners of War have been made by the Transvaal Government; if not, would any such overtures be favourably considered by the Government.

We have no information of the condition or evidence of the ill-treatment of British prisoners at Pretoria, and we have no confirmation of a statement that the Transvaal Government have proposed an exchange of prisoners.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Roman Catholic church at Newcastle, Natal, has been burnt by the Boers, and the sacred images on it mutilated and destroyed; and whether, in the claim for compensation to be exacted at the conclusion of the war, reparation will also be made to the Roman Catholics of that district for this destruction of their place of worship.

Information has been received that the Roman Catholic chapel has been burnt. Mr. Chamberlain is of opinion that this ease is clearly one in which a claim for compensation out of the indemnity to be raised from the Boer States, may properly be entertained, subject of course to the prescribed inquiry as to the actual losses sustained.

Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any objection to granting a Return showing how many Catholic churches were burnt by the English in Ireland?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what provision has been made, or is contemplated, for invalided soldiers from South Africa who are so physically weakened or shattered as to be-incapacitated for earning the livelihood of themselves and their families or dependents.

The men will be paid and medically treated, until they are discharged, their families receiving the ordinary allowances. After discharge their claims to pension will be considered by the Chelsea Commissioners. The powers of the Commissioners have recently been enlarged to admit of a higher scale of pension being accorded to men incapacitated by disease contracted on service.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can now say if the stationmaster, Mr. Quinlan, and the other alleged Fenians, whom Colonel Baden-Powell was reported some months ago to have in custody in Mafeking, are still alive; and, if so, where they are, upon what charge were they arrested, were they tried, and, if so, by what tribunal, and upon what charge, and what was the sentence.

I must refer the hon. Member to the replies I have made to questions put by the Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottinghamshire on 17th May, and by the Member for Mid Cork on 18th May.† Records have not arrived, but will arrive in due course.

I will repeat the question on 14th June.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, without injury to the public service, he can inform the. House what is the total strength in men and guns of the Army in South Africa at the present time, and what is the total strength in men and guns of the Army (including Reserves and Auxiliary Forces) within the United Kingdom, and also in India, as well as in other Colonies and Dependencies of the British Empire.

The total number of troops of all kinds in South Africa is about 221,000. The total number of

†See pages 392 and 574.

men under arms at home cannot be stated with any exactitude, as we have no returns of recruiting from the Volunteers. The Regulars, including Royal Reserves, numbered on May 1st, 102,730 rank and file, and the Militia about 77,000. It is not considered expedient to publish details of armament, or of the garrisons of India and the Colonies.

How many Boors are there? You are ten to one

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can now state what steps can be taken to provide ministrations of Roman Catholic chaplains on transports returning with sick and wounded from South Africa.

As I informed the hon. Member on the 17th inst.,† Roman Catholic chaplains are being detailed for transports returning with sick and wounded from South Africa when the numbers warrant it. The discretion in each case rests entirely with the general officer commanding the lines of communication.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement by the First Lord of the Admiralty that Catholic chaplains 'will be put on all hospital ships?

And it is done. But this is not a case of hospital ships. These are transports which come home with a certain number of invalids. It is impossible to provide a chaplain if there is only one man. No men are put on board who are in danger of death.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have received a report on the disappearance of stores at the hospital in Intombi Camp during the first two months of the siege of Ladysmith; and whether any inquiry

† See page 394.

has taken place; and, if so, with what result.

No information has reached the War Office of this matter.

When will you have the records of the court-martial held on this subject in December last?

They have not come yet. I do not know how soon they may arrive. When they do, I will answer1 any question that may be put on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, is he aware that a number of telegrams sent in accordance with postal regulations, for which in some cases sums of £10 and upwards have been charged, to officers on active service in South Africa, have not been delivered to the persons to whom such telegrams have been addressed; and whether he can explain the causes of non-delivery, and state the steps which the postal authorities intend to take in future to secure the prompt delivery of telegrams to officers and men serving in South Africa.

Very few complaints have reached the Postmaster General of the non-delivery of telegrams sent to officers on active service in South Africa. There are, no doubt, considerable difficulties attending the delivery of such telegrams, and they are only forwarded from this country at the sender's risk. The delivery arrangements in South Africa are not, of course, in the hands of the Post-master General. The telegrams are, it is believed, handed over to the military authorities.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the telegrams reached Mr. Buncombe, the Member for West Cumberland?

I know nothing of that.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the representative of the Navy on Lord Roberta's staff was chosen at the special wish of Lord Roberts or by the special selection of the Admiralty:0.and whether he will state the services and experience of the officer in question, as compared with those of all other officers of the same naval rank, which were considered to entitle him to the staff appointment.

The officer in question was nominated by the Admiralty at the request of Lord Roberts. It is usual to endeavour to meet the wishes of a general in the situation of Lord Roberts in the selection of his personal staff. There is no question of any officer-being entitled to such an appointment.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in order to ensure a better attendance at parades and in camps of Volunteers in the future, he will consider the desirability of offering bounties somewhat as follows—namely, 10s. bounty to every man who attends camp for the whole week in addition to the daily rates of pay; 2s. 6d. additional bounty to every man attending five drills over the minimum towards efficiency (recruits not included) thus: fourteen drills minimum for efficiency, with bounties of 2s. 6d. for twenty drills; 5s. for twenty-five drills: 7s. 6d. for thirty drills; and 10s. for thirty-five drills.

It is not considered expedient to introduce the system of bounties into the Volunteer force.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that certain battalions of the Manchester Volunteer Regiment to be encamped on Salisbury Plain only receive a travelling allowance of 8s. per head, whereas the journey costs 13s.; and whether, in view of the- fact that this entails an additional cost of £250 to each battalion of 1,000 men, he can make a special grant towards the travelling expenses.

All expenses incurred by Volunteers travelling over 100 miles to their camps will be specially dealt with under paragraph 586 of the Volunteer Regulations.

Will the money be paid?

Special allowances will be made where special expenses are incurred.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether employees of the Manchester Post Office, who are also Volunteers, have been refused fourteen days leave to attend camp at Whitsuntide (although they offered to forfeit their wages and regular holidays), and, further, are even denied their customary seven days leave for attendance in camp; and whether arrangements could be made so that the Government offices should set an example to private employers of giving opportunities to Volunteers for attending camp.

Every effort consistent with the exigencies of the service will be made to allow Post Office employees at Manchester who are Volunteers to attend camp; but as there are 107 members of the Manchester staff now serving in South Africa, and as Whitsuntide is one of the busiest seasons in the year for local telegraph work, it would not be possible to allow all the Volunteers, numbering over 100, to be absent at that season. The annual leave arrangements have not been disturbed, and anyone whose holidays were fixed for Whitsuntide will be able to take them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the scarcity of agricultural labourers in the country districts, he will arrange that furloughs to non-commissioned officers and men of Militia battalions belonging to agricultural counties shall be granted during the months of June, July, and August, instead of during the winter, to enable farmers to gather in their harvest.

Military considerations are, of course, paramount; but every effort will be made to enable the men to have furlough during harvest-time.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, seeing that a Militiaman when on active service or garrison duty abroad is obliged to make an allotment from his pay to his wife and children, but when called up for service and doing garrison duty in the British Isles is under no such obligation, whether he can say what reason there is for the different treatment in the two eases, and whether, as relief funds are in consequence called upon to contribute more to the support of the family of a Militiaman serving at home than to the family of a Militiaman serving abroad, the Militia when on service at home may be brought under the Allotment Order; and whether he can make arrangements to enable Militiamen desirous of doing so to make allotments in favour of their widowed mothers.

The system of allotments was established to meet the difficulty a soldier would otherwise experience in forwarding money to his family from abroad. At home the same difficulty does not arise. If, however, a soldier fails to remit money, his wife can, under the Army Act, obtain a compulsory stoppage from his pay. There is no reason to believe that such a measure of compulsion is generally necessary. The Militiaman abroad can allot a portion of his pay to his father or mother.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Army Supply Department will divide the contracts for the supply of each class of articles required for the brigade camps to be formed this summer, so as to allow the smaller traders in the locality of the camps to tender.

In most cases the camps of the Regular forces and the Militia will be provided under existing district contracts. In certain cases special contracts will be necessary, and some are being made with local traders. The Volunteers are granted an allowance, and in many cases make their own arrangements, but they can come under existing contracts if they like, and obtain what they require on repayment.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the barracks of Pembroke Camp and Imtarfa, each accommodating over 1,000 men, at Malta, are unprovided with garrison churches, and that the religious services for the troops have to be carried on with difficult in the open air at Pembroke, and in a small recreation room at Imtarfa; and whether, having regard to-the fact that the need for providing garrison churches at these two places has been frequently brought before the notice of the War Office by the military authorities at Malta, and that in 1896 a definite promise was given that a church should be built at each place, but that since then nothing has been done, he can undertake to remedy what is felt to be a grievance by the Malta garrison.

The desirability of building the churches-mentioned is fully admitted, but the provision of good barrack and hospital accommodation for the troops was considered a more pressing matter. I can assure my hon. friend that the provision of the churches will not be lost sight of when we have any funds at our disposition.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he will state the number and class of ships that are to be employed, at this year's Naval manœuvres, and for how many days they are to continue; also, will experiments be made in coaling a portion of the squadrons from colliers at sea, irrespective of the condition of the weather, and whether it is intended that submarine torpedo boats shall form part of the equipment of some of the ships, seeing that this type of craft is now being largely adopted in connection with other Navies; and whether detachments of the land forces will in any way co-operate with the fleets in practising the landing and embarkation of men, guns, and stores, similar to the combinations which took place in connection with the French Naval manœuvres last year in the Mediterranean.

It is premature to make any statement about the manœuvres now, but I think I may safely say that I do not think any naval officers would attempt to coal from colliers at sea irrespective of weather.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can say when he anticipates that Her Majesty's new yacht "Victoria and Albert," will be equipped and ready for the. use of Her Majesty the Queen: can he now state the probable cost of the alterations and the quantity of iron ballast which is to be placed on board for the purpose of making the vessel seaworthy, and the addition to the draught of water as compared with that of the original design; and will he say if it is intended to retain the water-tube boilers or replace them with those of the Cylindrical type.

The steam trials of the Royal yacht are expected to take place in July or August. No date can at present be given for her completion. I am unable at present to state the cost of the necessary alterations, but of course the House will be given every information on the subject later. About 200 tons of iron ballast will be put in the vessel to give her the same stability as originally contemplated. She is expected to be about 18 inches deeper than was originally intended. It is intended to retain the water tube boilers.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to correspon- dence with Messrs. Armstrong, of the 23rd and 24th instant, in which they say that their offer of laying down and delivering within three years from date of order three battleships and two large cruisers still holds good, all the said ships to be delivered, complete in all details, hull, machinery, armour, guns; and if so, whether, in view of his statement that our programme is limited to what is believed to be the output of the country in armour, hull, machinery, and a vast number of accessories to be provided, he will now consider the advisability of taking advantage of Messrs. Armstrong's offer.

The hon. Gentleman has sent me the correspondence in question. In reply I must respectfully refer him to the answer which I gave to a similar question last week.^✶ I will only repeat that we have very shortly to invite tenders for four armoured cruisers and one unarmourod cruiser, and may add that we shall have to send tenders out for the machinery of two battleships, six armoured cruiser's, and one unarmoured cruiser, and some smaller craft, representing in the aggregate 180,000 horse-power.

Are these tenders part of the programme which the right hon. Gentleman said was limited by what he believed to be the output of the country?

Certainly. It is part of the programme of the Estimates. It would be folly to go further until we know how far we can place the large orders we are now giving out.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether all letters from Admiral Commanding at Capo Station to senior naval officer commanding detachment at Zanzibar have to be carried by German steamers, and if there is any reason why these important documents should not be carried in British steamers

I understand there is no regular service of British steamers between the Capo and Zanzibar. I presume the Admiral in command at the Cape would take care that no highly

^✶ See page 725.

important confidential letter would be sent by a foreign steamer.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know why there is no British line of steamers?

That question had better be addressed to the Postmaster General.

Can the First Lord of the Treasury give any information with regard to the battering and destruction of the "Belleisle."

I cannot until investigations have been completed give particulars of the results of the interesting and instructive experiments upon the "Belleisle," but I can answer the hon. Member's question as to whether the vessel took fire immediately after the bombardment commenced. The "Belleisle" did not take fire at all, to the extreme surprise of all concerned. Spectators were mislead into the supposition of fire by seeing clouds of steam arising through a steam pipe being cut, and lyddite shells, as they burst in the water, emitted clouds of smoke, again giving the impression of the ship being on fire; but she was not on fire; there was only a little shouldering fire in one of the cabins among some clothes. The woodwork was shattered in all directions, but did not take fire. While the ship was being battered the fire pumps were uninjured, and for a long time continued to work flooding the deck. I shall be able to give more details later, but I thought that the ship not having taken fire was an interesting fact I might communicate at once, because one of the objects of the experiment was to see if the woodwork would be set on fire, as has been reported to have been the case in some of the Spanish-American engagements.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that numbers of money-sweating establishments have lately been set up in various parts of India for the purpose of sweating the gold coin now in circulation there, with the result that shopkeepers in Calcutta and elsewhere do not take sovereigns freely, and in many cases find it necessary to keep scales to test the weight of sovereigns which have only been in circulation for a few weeks; and whether the sovereigns which the Government of India are now issuing at post offices in payment for money orders, at the rate of one sovereign for fifteen rupees, are already deficient in weight, through having undergone the operation of sweating, with the result that hardship is caused to the poor and ignorant classes who are compelled to take sovereigns instead of rupees; and, if so, what steps the Government of India propose to take to suppress these money-sweating establishments.

I have been in communication with the Government of India on the subject of the hon. Member's question,, and find that they have no information to the effect suggested. As there is at present hardly any gold in circulation among the people, the statement that sweating is already extensively practised does not seem likely to be correct. But the Government of India will not lose sight of the possibility that such a practice may arise, and I know that they have already had it under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what is the present position of the claim of the Sultan Ali, Rajah of Cannanore,, to the sovereignty of the Laccadive Islands; and whether, seeing that the arrears of tribute on account of which the islands were sequestrated by the Government of India in 1876 were subsequently paid, and the islands ordered to be restored to the Rajah through the direct intervention of the Secretary of State for India in 1895, he will give the reasons why the restoration of the property to the Rajah has not been carried out.

The matter to which the question refers is under discussion between the Government of India and the Government of Madras, and I am informed that the proposals for a final settlement were placed before the latter Government on the 11th of this month. The object of the Government of India is, first, to secure the well being and good government of the islanders, and it appears to be extremely doubtful whether this is compatible with the administration of the islands by any member of the Cannanore family, to whose claims and interests, however, due consideration will be given in any decision that may be arrived at.

Will the noble Lord make a statement at an early date?

I cannot promise that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state when he will be able to lay upon the Table Papers showing the spread of the famine in India during the last six months, and the steps taken to relieve the distress.

The Papers will he laid on the Table at once, but they are voluminous.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the amount of Great Indian Peninsula five per cent. guaranteed stock held by the trustees of the sinking fund of the D annuities on the 1st of April, 1899, 1st of January, 1900, and the 1st of May, 1900, respectively.

The only information I have on this subject is contained in the half-yearly returns published in the London Gazette, from which I find that on the 25th of January, 1899, the funds invested in, respect of the annuities, Class D, of the East Indian Railway, included £3,544 9s. Cd. of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway five per cent. capital stock. In the subsequent returns there is no mention of such stock.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a memorandum giving the method by which in each instance of the four Indian Railways acquired by him, the rates of interest on the respective annuities were calculated, and also, for the purpose of comparison, the same details in respect of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway.

I have no objection to laying on the Table the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Bank of England as to the rate of interest for the calculation of annuities in the cases of the Eastern Bengal, the Scinde Punjab and Delhi, and the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Companies; but that correspondence, though it states the rate of interest settled, will not show the method in which the interest was calculated in the two former cases. There is no other case of the acquisition of a railway by the State in which any similar reference to the Bank of England has been necessary.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that the French Government in February last adopted a new import tariff which imposes increased duties on, among other articles, coffee, pepper, spices, and tea, which may tend to hamper Indian trade with France, if he can state whether it has been imposed by Franco in retaliation for the countervailing duties levied by India on French beetroot sugar.

Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the new French import tariff on the articles referred to has been adopted in retaliation for the countervailing duties on sugar in India. I may add that the amount of sugar sent from France to India is inconsiderable.

But is it not in fact a policy of retaliation?

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if he can now say in how many appeals from Australia issues of constitutional or Imperial importance have boon raised.

I have some difficulty in giving a categorical answer to my hon. friend's question, as there may be differences of opinion as to what are issues of constitutional or Imperial importance, but I may say that I am informed that there have been from l876 to 1899 inclusive forty-seven cases referred to the Judicial Committee which might be regarded as involving directly or indirectly such issues. Of these, twenty-one are cases under Crown Lands Acts; five arise under Constitution Acts for Colonies; six affect rights of persons not domiciled in the particular colony in question; twelve bear on the prerogative powers or rights of the Crown or a Governor, including three cases of dismissal of Government servants; one rebates to restrictions on immigration of Chinese into a colony; one to general powers of the Judicial Committee to review former decisions, and one to payment of members in a Legislative Assembly.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that Port Hamilton was evacuated by Her Majesty's Government in 1887, in consequence of a formal pledge given by the Russian Government on 5th November, 1886, that Russia would under no circumstances occupy Korean territory, and that this pledge was formally quoted by the then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to this House on 10th July, 1894, as binding, and, again, as holding good on 13th June, 1895, whether he can state what events have occurred since these dates to diminish the binding character of the Russian promise of 1886; whether the Russian Government have offered any explanations of their breach of this pledge to Her Majesty's Government either directly or indirectly; whether a Russian armed force is now in occupation of the Korean territory recently ceded to Russia at Mesampho, and whether Russia intends to fortify this land.

I have already explained to the House that the recent agreement between the Russian and Korean Governments has no reference to sovereign rights, but to a concession simi- lar to that which the Japanese Government has obtained within the area of the treaty port of Masampho. We have no information as to the presence of any armed force on the site granted for a coal depot or of any intention on the part of the Russian Government to erect fortifications there. The assurance given by Russia in 1886 was not an assurance with Her Majesty's Government, but to another Power. What steps Her Majesty's Government would think it right to take in case of the policy indicated by this assurance being abandoned is a question which cannot be answered until circumstances arise affecting the rights or interests of Great Britain.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, or has he forgotten, that it was expressly on the faith of the guarantees given by the Russian Government that Her Majesty's Government evacuated Port Hamilton?

Order, order!

gave notice that he should, as early as possible, call attention to the matter.

Go to war with Russia.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish Government have proposed an increase of import duties for the Ottoman Empire; and whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any diplomatic action with regard to this increase.

I explained a few days ago that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople is engaged in negotiations, in concert with his colleagues, in reference to this question. I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

On what ground is the increase proposed?

I must ask for notice.

Can the Under Secretary give any information as to the riots in Jersey? Have any representa- tions been received from the French Government on the subject? Were the disturbances caused by the throwing of water on an orderly crowd?

We are aware that some disturbances took place in Jersey on the 21st, in which some French houses and shops were injured, but the origin of them has not yet been ascertained. All possible precautions have been taken by the Governor against their renewal, and a full report will be called for.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he could give the number of boards of guardians who have signified their intention of putting into force the provisions of the Poor Law Act, 1899, and how many children have been adopted under the Act.

The Local Government Board have no information on this subject. The usual course would be for a board of guardians to avail themselves of the powers of the Act when occasion arose for the exercise of those powers, and it would not be necessary for them to signify beforehand any intention of putting the Act in force.

I bog to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps have boon taken to carry out the recommendation of the Poor Law Schools Committee that small receiving homes be established for the temporary reception of children above the age of three years outside the workhouse, pending arrangements for their future allocation, what boards have already established receiving homes, and what power has the Local Government Board to compel unsatisfactory boards of guardians to obey their recommendations.

The Local Government Board have, where necessary, pressed upon boards of guardians in the metropolis the importance of establishing receiving homes for the purpose referred to. In the majority of cases the guardians have already provided, or are in course of providing, accommodation for this pur pose, and in other instances they have the matter under consideration. I see no reason to doubt that the Board's recommendations on this subject will be complied with.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the amount proposed to be expended by the Paddington Board of Guardians on their Ashford schools; and if accommodation is to be provided for a larger aggregation of children.

The managers of the West London school district, to whom the Ashford schools belong, submitted a proposal to provide new classrooms; but as its effect appeared to be to increase the number of children for whom accommodation would be provided at the schools, the Board have felt themselves unable to sanction the proposal. They have not been informed of the estimated cost.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, having regard to the fact that the maximum period for the repayment of loans for the erection of poor law buildings is fixed by the Board at thirty years, although, under the Poor Law Act, 1897, the period of repayment may be extended to sixty years, and in view of the longer periods sanctioned by the Treasury and by the Education Department for the repayment of loans for industrial dwellings, schools, and the buildings, whether he will reconsider the rule in question with the view of extending the period of repayment in the case of poor law buildings of a permanent character.

Only eleven days ago I answered a precisely similar question, which was put to me by the hon. Member for the Walthamstow Division, † and I have nothing to add to what I said then— namely, that for the reasons which on several occasions I have stated to the House, I do not feel able to meet the wishes of the hon. Member.

† See page 414 of this volume.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state in what number of cases local authorities have advanced money under the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, for enabling persons to acquire the ownership of small houses in which they reside.

I can only repeat the answer which I gave to a similar question recently put to me by the hon. Member for Leicester^✶—namely, that the Local Government Board have no information as to the number of cases in which local authorities have made advances under the Act referred to. Their jurisdiction, however, only extends to England and Wales.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will grant the Return respecting the Marriage Act, 1898, which appears on to-day's Paper.

I shall be happy to grant a Return on the subject referred to. But there will be difficulty in supplying some of the particulars asked for, and I will communicate with the hon. Member as to the form of the Return.

I beg to ask the President of the i Local Government Board whether the questions of adjustment between parishes under schemes prepared in accordance with the provisions of the London Government Act, 1899, will be dealt with by the existing vestries and district boards, or whether it is intended that such matters shall be left open for settlement by the now borough councils in November next; and whether, if the first course is to be adopted, he will move the Boundary Commissioners to have the inquiries held before the end of July, as otherwise the various parishes interested will be prejudiced owing to the long vacation depriving them of the services of their accustomed legal advisers.

^✶ See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series] Vol. lxxix., page 1432.

I learn from the Commissioners under the London Government Act that they do not propose that the proceedings in connection with adjustments under the Act should commence before the new borough councils have been constituted.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a fire occurred at High Lane, Cheshire, on 8th April, and that, in consequence of the refusal of the fire brigade on arrival from Stockport to take steps to put the fire out, three or four stacks of hay, worth £200 or £300, were burnt; and is he aware that the Stockport Fire Brigade acted under the instructions of the corporation in this course, because the farm was outside the boundary and within the parish of Marple and that the Stockport Corporation have refused to allow the fire brigade to assist in extinguishing fires under such circumstances unless the Marple district are willing to contribute toward its maintenance a sum equal to about l½d. in the £ annually on the whole assessment of the Marple district, in addition to the charges and expenses of the brigade in attending; and will he state if this course meets with his approval.

I am informed that the watch committee of the Stockport Corporation gave notice some time since to the Marple District Council that the fire-engines and appliances of the corporation would not be allowed to attend fires in their district. The ground for this action appears to have been that the district council had not agreed to contribute towards the fire brigade. It was in consequence of this that the fire brigade, acting under the instructions of the watch committee, declined to extinguish the fire in the Marple district which is referred to in the question. I understand that the Marple District Council have not been asked to contribute any such sum as that mentioned in the question towards the maintenance of the Stockport Fire Brigade. It is stated that no sum has been specified, and that the district council have taken no steps whatever to make an arrangement with the corporation for the protection of their district, no reply having been made to the communications sent to them by the corporation on three separate occasions. On the information before me, it seems to me that the responsibility in this matter rests with the Marple District Council.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will explain why no representative of the Irish seed trade was appointed on the Departmental Committee on Agricultural Seeds, seeing that it includes an English seedsman and a Scotch seedsman.

In consultation with my right hon. friend the Vice-President of the Irish Department of Agriculture, I selected the members of the Departmental Committee in question to the best of my judgment, and the question of their nationality did not enter into our consideration.

Can the President of the Board of Agriculture see his way to any further relaxation of the foot-and-mouth disease regulations in Norfolk?

No, Sir; I am sorry to say I can make no promise on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the total number of coroners' inquests held upon railway servants killed by accidents in which the movement of vehicles used exclusively on railways was concerned, in the years 1895 to 1899 inclusive; in what number of such inquests the coroner has applied to the Board of Trade, under Section 8 of The Regulation of Railways Act, 1881, for a representative of the Board to act as assessor; and whether in any other, and if so how many, such inquests the Board of Trade has been represented by any of its officials to watch or take part in the proceedings.

Section 8 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871, does not apply to Scotland or Ireland. The total number of fatal accidents in which the movement of vehicles used exclusively on railways was concerned that occurred in the five years period, 1895 to 1899, to railway servants and contractors' servants employed on railways in England and Wales was 1,869. An inquest was, no doubt, held in each case. In thirteen of these cases application was made by the coroner for a representative of the Board of Trade to act as assessor, and in twelve cases such appointment was made. In the remaining case, a sub-inspector was directed to attend the inquest and assist the coroner. In four other cases during the period referred to, an officer of the Board of Trade has attended the inquest to watch the proceedings.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that representatives of the railway companies have expressed themselves willing to give favourable consideration to the proposal for greater travelling facilities for workmen, the Railway Department of the Board of Trade is willing to approach all the companies with a view of inducing them to arrange for the issue of cheap tickets for bonâ fide workmen from suburban stations by all trains arriving at their destination before 8 a.m.

Having regard to the promise of consideration to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I do not doubt that the matter will be considered by the railway companies.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with reference to the non-retirement of clerks in the Probate and other divisions of the High Court at sixty-five years of age, in accord nice with the recommendation of the Ridley Commission for the rest of the Civil Service, he can inform the House if there is any statutory impediment assigned by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Master of the Rolls, for not enforcing such retirement under conditions which are applied to the whole of the Civil Service; and whether the Treasury will call the attention of these authorities to the present deadlock in the way of promotion of this class of public servants, with a view to the removal of this alleged grievance.

These high legal authorities are, I am informed, in disagreement as to the power to make an order for retirement at a fixed age in the legal departments.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if the plans of the new National Physical Laboratory buildings and the smaller building in connection therewith can be shown in the Tea-room for two or three days.

A rough map showing the proposed site shall be placed in the Tearoom; but it will not be practicable to exhibit the final detailed plans which are not yet completed. Perhaps I may mention that the western portion of the two buildings will only measure 80 feet by 40, and will be placed 140 yards from the Queen's Cottage grounds in a position which will not interfere with any of the vistas from the gardens.

I asked for a plan of the buildings, not of the site.

The detailed plans are not yet ready.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the claims for pension put forward by Mrs. Casabianca, late art mistress of the Royal College of Art; whether the services of this lady were dispensed with owing to the re-organisation of the Department, three months notice being given; and whether, in view of the fact that this lady, now a widow, has been forty-four years in Her Majesty's service, and that all her predecessors received pensions or gratuities, he will take the case into consideration.

I have examined this case very carefully myself more than once. I think hers a most deserving case, and I regret that Parliament has given no powers to the Treasury which would enable us to give a pension to Mrs. Casabianca. Up till a few years ago various persons in similar circumstances did receive pensions, but it was afterwards ascertained that the Treasury had exceeded its powers in granting them. The termination of her services was occasioned by the re-organisation of the Department, coupled with the fact that she had passed the limit of age at which retirement is usual in the Civil Service. Six (not three) months was the period of the notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury can he say whence the necessity has arisen for do-signing a new Great Seal; have there been any, and, if so, what alterations made in the design of the Great Seal; how many new Great Seals have been made in the present reign, and what has been the cost of each; and what becomes of the old Great Seals.

In 1897 it was represented to the Treasury that the present Seal had been in use for nearly twenty years, and twice as long as the average time during which previous Great Seals had lasted. New Great Seals wore made in 1838, 1860, and 1878. Since 1878 many documents which had formerly to pass the Great Seal have under statute been impressed with a wafer instead. It was also stated that the mechanical parts of the Great Seal wore worn out, and that the fittings and ornaments had become sensibly defaced the mechanical press and fittings are not, of course, a part of the Seal the Seal itself, I am informed, requires careful cleaning, but there may be technical difficulties in the way of sending the Seal to be cleaned and refitted. The cost of the 1838 Seal is not known. That made in 1860 cost £413, and that of 1878 £513. The new one will cost £400. The disused Great Seal is disposed of as the Sovereign may direct.

What alterations have been made?

It is difficult to describe them in an answer. I shall be glad to show the new design to my hon. friend.

Is the cost provided for in the Votes?

I do not think it is.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the Marconi system of wireless telegraphy is now used by the American, French, and German Transatlantic steamships, fifty of the Gorman steamers having been supplied with the apparatus; and whether, as none of the British Transatlantic liners have adopted the Marconi system because the Postal Telegraphic Department objects to their using it within the three miles limit, the Department will consider the expediency of removing a restriction which places British at a disadvantage as compared with foreign mercantile steamers.

The Postmaster General has no information as to the extent to which the Marconi system of wireless telegraphy has been adopted by the Transatlantic steamships of other nations. The Postmaster General is quite prepared to grant the Marconi Company a licence if suitable terms can be arranged.