said this was a Bill confirming an improvement scheme under the Housing Act of 1890, to be carried out by the London County Council. The areas dealt with by the scheme were in the neighbourhood of Holborn, and the number of persons of the working classes who would be displaced by the scheme was about 1,400. The Bill provided that new dwellings for the accommodation of at least 1,400 persons should be erected on the area, but there was no stipulation that the new accommodation, or any quota of it, should be provided before the old dwellings were demolished. His object in moving in the matter was to repair that defect in the Bill, and should he be successful he proposed to take the same course with regard to three other precisely similar London Bills which were on the Paper that day. He would like to say at the outset how cordially he recognised the good work done by the London County Council with regard to the housing of the people, bearing in mind the limited powers which the Legislature had conferred upon that body. They were now in a position to review by the light of experience what had been accomplished, and he thought it could not be denied that in certain respects the results were disappointing. It was due to the London County Council to say that it had removed a certain number of plague spots; but, on the other hand, some of their beneficent schemes had been attended by the most deplorable incident that, in securing the removal of existing slums, they had assisted in the creation of new ones in the immediate neighbourhood. Existing buildings had been demolished before new accommoda- tion had been supplied, and there had been a long period between the displacement of the old population and the provision of new buildings. Meanwhile great hardship had been inflicted upon the poor inhabitants, who had been compelled to seek shelter elsewhere, with the result that the terrible problem of overcrowding had been intensified in the district surrounding the improved area. An experience in his own constituency had made him painfully familiar with these results. It had been stated by the chief sanitary inspector for Bethnal Green that the result of the Boundary Street scheme was to turn 3,000 persons into other crowded parts of his district. [Mr. COLLINGS dissented.] Well, he would not bind himself to that exact figure, but that was substantially the number, and he was in a position personally to corroborate the statement. No doubt the fine buildings which were opened in Bethnal Green the other day by the Prince of Wales constituted a great achievement, but it was worthy of note that they were not occupied by the displaced inhabitants, and that to a very large extent they were not occupied by Bethnal Green people at all. They had been let to persons coming from all parts of London, and even from outside the metropolis. He was surprised to find, indeed, that persons who had previously removed their families some miles outside London had come back to Bethnal Green, because they preferred the substantially-built sanitary dwellings of the London County Council to the jerry-built structures of the speculating builder at Walthamstow or Leytonstone. Now, his object was to prevent the experience of his constituents in Bethnal Green being repeated in other parts of London. He understood it would be quite possible to acquire a site available for the erection of a considerable number of dwellings before demolishing any of those which now existed. They knew what had been the policy of the Local Government Board in these matters, and he desired to see that policy adopted by the Home Office, which was the confirming authority as regarded these schemes so far as London was concerned. The Local Government Board was the confirming authority for improvement schemes outside the metropolis, and he found that when such schemes were brought forward for provincial towns the Local Government Board invariably introduced into the Order a clause similar to that which he desired to impose upon the London schemes. Perhaps the House would permit him for a moment to sketch out the general framework of what he might call the model clause approved by the Local Government Board. [The hon. Member read the model clause.] The House would see that, according to this model clause, provision was made that the demolition of the existing buildings should proceed pari passu with the provision of new dwellings for the accommodation of the persons displaced by the scheme. He wished to press this as strongly as he could upon the attention of the representative of the Home Office, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley would consent to the postponement of the motion for the Third Reading of this Order, and put himself into communication with the London County Council, so that, by friendly concert between the two authorities some clause framed on the lines he had indicated might be introduced into this and the other Bills they had to consider that day. There could be no difficulty in carrying it out in the case of the Poplar scheme, because there the new dwellings were to be erected, not on the insanitary area itself, but on land in the neighbourhood. Perhaps the more convenient plan for him to adopt would be to move the adjournment of the debate, but he would not do so then, as the effect would only be to restrict the area of discussion. It might, however, be moved later on, and so for the present he would content himself with expressing a sincere hope that the right hon. Gentleman would give to the point he had raised the careful consideration he thought it deserved.

said he would like to point out to the hon. Member that the postponement of the Third Reading of this Order would delay the scheme for replacing insanitary dwellings by healthy ones, and he did not think the improvement should be put off longer than was absolutely necessary. As to the Home Office entering into communication with the London County Council on the question, he could assure the hon. Member that they were so acting at the present time. If the hon. Member would only look at the Provisional Orders before the House he would find that they were so worded as to give the Secretary of State complete control over the demolition of houses and the building of other houses for the re-housing of the people. That provision was inserted with the express purpose of securing that, so far as was possible, the new accommodation should be provided before the demolition took place. And this was no perfunctory policy on the part of the Department; it was carried out in regard to almost every scheme, and the Home Office was in continual communication with the London County Council in order to secure that end. It was the case that the London County Council were quite willing to co-operate with the Home Office in doing all that was possible in that direction. But in some cases it was physically impossible to carry out such an arrangement; and if the hon. Member would only favour him by examining the details which he would be pleased to hand to him, he would be astonished at the steps the Home Office were taking, in co-operation with the London County Council, to progress in the direction which he desired. It was the case that in most of the schemes which came before the Local Government Board clauses were put in which were far more stringent than the model clause quoted by the hon. Member. But then the cases were entirely different. The provincial Orders dealt with the displacement of far smaller numbers of people than did the metropolitan schemes, and he ventured to assert that there was scarcely a case coming from a provincial town where accommodation could not at once be obtained by the persons displaced. The same could not be said of these great London schemes. With regard to the Poplar scheme 269 people were to be displaced. They were now resident in three small areas, and fortunately the London County Council possessed a vacant area in the neighbourhood upon which they were quite willing to erect houses before demolishing the other buildings. At St. Luke's about 1,000 people were to be displaced. There, however, there were four areas to be dealt with. In the case of one the houses would be destroyed, and fresh ones would be put up before the second area was touched. The same remark applied to Southwark. He thought the hon. Member was singularly unfortunate in selecting the Boundary Street scheme as an instance of the necessity for carrying out his proposal, for he believed it was arranged to divide that scheme into five or six sections, and to complete one section before commencing on another.

Yes; the original design was admirable, but it was not carried out; and, as a matter of fact, the whole of the area was cleared for a year before a single now building was erected.

said he did not think the hon. Gentleman was quite right in his statement of fact, although he was aware that the original design was modified. He could only repeat that if the hon. Member insisted upon the insertion in the London schemes of a clause of the nature he had indicated the result would probably be to indefinitely delay large metropolitan schemes for rehousing the people. He would point out, further, that the object aimed at was very largely secured under the agreement which had been come to in respect of these four particular schemes, and he hoped, therefore, that the opposition to the Third Reading of the Bill would not be pressed.

said he only desired to affirm, as regarded the London County Council, what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that there had been the most absolute cooperation between the Home Office and the London County Council. It was quite true that the London County Council was subject to the control of the Home Office, but it was equally the fact, and that had been acknowledged by his right hon. friend, that they had not sought in any way to obstruct the Home Office or to diminish the obligations incumbent upon them. No doubt, in some cases they had been obliged to demolish old houses before they could put up new ones; but then it was clear that where they only had the one site available it must be cleared before the new building could be erected. He fully sympathised with the object of the hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green, but he ventured to suggest that if this opposition were persisted in it would retard, if not altogether frustrate, the object which they all had in view.

For the present I will content myself with the assurances I have received that the Home Office will carefully watch this matter, and secure, as far as possible, that no existing dwellings shall be demolished until new ones have been provided.

I beg to give notice that on an early day I will call attention to the military hospital arrangements in South Africa and move a resolution. I also give notice that I will call attention on, I hope, an earlier day to the inconvenient operation of Standing Order 17, and move to add at the end of the clause—"No notice of motion or order of the day shall prevent any such motion from being proceeded with." I shall further ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Hawse whether, having regard to the fact—

Order, order! I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he has given notice of a motion which he is precluded from moving. He has already on the Notice Paper a motion which raises practically the same question as that raised by the second motion of which he has now given notice. Notice of a question must be given in the usual way.

I will do that, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the letter of the honourable Member for Westminster, from Cape Town, dated 29th May, on our wars and our wounded; whether the previous letters, written from Bloemfontein early in April, but not published, were communicated by the same hon. Member or any other person to the War Office on their receipt; and, if so, what steps were taken by the War Office to inquire into the condition of the hospitals and the sick in Bloemfontein and other hospital centres; and whether the Government are now in a position to make any satisfactory statement as to the condition of the hospitals and the treatment of the sick in Bloemfontein in the months of April and May last, and generally in South Africa.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the allegations concerning the hospital arrangements and equipment in South Africa; what steps are being or will be taken to inquire into and report upon the subject; and who is the official of the War Office directly responsible to the Secretary of State for the sufficiency and efficiency of the provision made for the treatment of sick and wounded on active service.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, in consequence of the public statement made by a Member of this House yesterday with regard to the treatment of the sick and wounded in South Africa, he will cause an immediate inquiry into the allegations made.

To ask the Under Secretary for War whether, in view of the charges brought against the medical arrangements for the troops in South Africa, he is prepared to make any statement upon this matter.

I have read the letter of the hon. Member for Westminster. No previous communication has, so far as I know, reached the War Office beyond the short telegram sent to the Commander-in-Chief from Cape Town on June 1st. There are six questions on the Paper arising out of the statements made by the hon. Member, and I understand that my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury will be prepared to deal with them in reply to a question which stands last on the Paper in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Arising out of that answer, perhaps I may be permitted to ask the hon. Gentleman to reply to the paragraph in my question which asks whether the letters of the hon. Member for Westminster previous to 29th May came to the knowledge of the War Office through any channel?

I have answered that we had no previous communication from the hon. Member at the War Office beyond the telegram of 1st June.

The reason that I ask the question is that the answer of the hon. Member to my question just now was not an answer. My question was perfectly distinct. It was whether the communication I have alluded to and what may be described as the suppressed letters of the hon. Member for Westminster—["No!"]—suppressed, I mean, by The Times newspaper, not by the Government—whether these letters did come to the knowledge of the War Office through any channel. The hon. Gentleman's answer was that he had had no communication from the hon. Member for Westminster.

I know nothing of the letters which The Times newspaper declined to publish.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a letter from Cape Town dated 29th May last, signed by the hon. Member for Westminster, in which grave defects are described as having existed in the treatment of the sick in South Africa; whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of the facts as described; who is responsible for the state of things alleged; and whether prompt steps have been taken to remedy it.

I think it is perhaps for the convenience of the House that I should endeavour to answer in one reply the numerous questions on what most naturally and properly is felt by the House to be a subject of national importance. I do not understand that anything has come to our notice which suggests that any sufferings of the sick and wounded in South Africa are due to an insufficient supply of medical appliances and comforts sent from this country. The question is rather one of organisation and distribu- tion in South Africa. A certain amount of correspondence, which I hold in my hand, has passed between Lord Roberts and the Secretary of State on the subject, and I propose to lay this correspondence before the House. I hope it will be in the hands of Members in a very few hours—probably before dinner-time this evening. But as the House is feeling so keenly on the subject, perhaps hon. Members will like me to read some material extracts from this correspondence, even if those extracts somewhat exceed in length an ordinary answer to a question in this House. As my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War has stated, the first intimation reached us in a telegram to the Commander-in-Chief from the hon. Member for Westminster on the 4th of June. On the 5th of June the Secretary of State telegraphed to Lord Roberts, and on the 6th of June Lord Roberts sent the reply, which will soon be in the hands of Members, and from which the following extracts are taken—

"The very existence of my force depended upon the supplies coming up by train along a line of railway nearly 900 miles long, every bridge of which for the last 128 miles had been destroyed by the enemy. Notwithstanding this, I ordered that the requirements of the sick were to be first taken in hand as soon as the rail had been repaired and a few trains of supplies had been got through. The principal medical officer proceeded with the first train to Kroonstad with surgeons and nurses. The field hospital could not be utilised, as we were about to move on again, but No. 3 general and. Scotch hospital had been held in readiness at Bloemfontein to be sent to Kroonstad directly the line was open; this was done, and the former received 180 patients within twenty-four hours of its arrival. I repeatedly visited the hospitals during the short time I was at Kroonstad, and I impressed upon the principal medical officer and Lord Methuen, who was on his way to Kroonstad, to do all that was possible to remedy matters. A few days after my departure I received a report from the principal medical officer that the medical arrangements there were in all respects in good order, while Lord Methuen has since informed me that everything is thoroughly satisfactory. I was deeply distressed at being unable to make suitable arrangements for the sick on our first arrival at Kroonstad; but it is obvious that a certain amount of suffering is inseparable from the rapid advance of a large army in the enemy's country, when railway communication has been destroyed; and such suffering would have been enormously increased had it not been for the prompt manner in which the medical authorities made the best of the very scanty accommodation available at a place little larger than an ordinary English village."

Subsequent to that reply of Lord Roberts a further communication was addressed on the same subject by the Secretary for War to the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa on 20th June. On 25th June a reply was sent by Lord Roberts, of which I propose to read this extract—

"As regards hospitals at the base, before leaving Cape Town I personally assured myself that the arrangements were working satisfactorily, and I have not heard since any complaints about them. When we arrived at Bloemfontein we had an abnormal number of sick, due no doubt not only to the peculiarly exhausting nature of the march, but also to the terrible insanitary conditions of our camp at Paardeberg, where the only water available for drinking purposes Bowed down from the Boer camp a mile and a-half higher up the river, which was crowded with dead animals in a state of decomposition. We also had a considerable number of wounded after the tight on the 10th of March. To hastily improvise accommodation at Bloemfontein for such a large number, which gradually increased up to 2,000 before I left that town, was no easy task. Owing to the rapidity of our march from the Modder no tents could be carried with the force, and none were available until our railway communication with Cape Colony had been restored. As soon as I could arrange for such supplies being placed at Bloemfontein as were necessary for the very existence of the force, I ordered up tents and all necessary appliances for the sick, nurses, more doctors, and more hospitals. Bloemfontein is not a large town, but all suitable public buildings, schools, etc., were made into hospitals. I constantly visited these, and after a very short time they were, I considered, in good order and not overcrowded. … I can quite understand that people who have no practical experience in such matters are much concerned to hear the hardships which sick and wounded soldiers have to undergo in time of war, especially when they are not aware of the many difficulties that have to be contended with in order to alleviate suffering on active service. Such difficulties are sufficiently great in countries in which there are large towns and villages, and easy communication by road and rail from the base of operations, but they have been immeasurably increased in South Africa by the local conditions to which I have already referred. I have no wish to shirk responsibility in the matter or to screen any shortcomings which might be proved against the Royal Army Medical Corps. You state you have been told that the reports of MacCormac and Treves are optimistic, and the conditions have probably changed for the worse since their visit. It is true that neither of these gentlemen took part in any long or difficult march, but two consulting surgeons who are now en route to England—Mr. Watson Cheyne and Mr. Lenthal-Cheatle—have been with this force from the Modder River to Pretoria. I would ask that their opinions on the subject might be ascertained, and I would further suggest that a small committee, consisting of one or two medical men of recognised ability in whom the public have full confidence, together with some men of sound common sense, should be deputed to proceed to South Africa in order to inquire into and furnish a full report on the working of the medical arrangements throughout the war. I will guarantee that they shall have the fullest assistance to enable them to make a searching inquiry into the matter. If their visit should result in ameliorating the conditions of our sick and wounded soldiers during time of war, no one would be more grateful and pleased than myself."

The Government are of opinion that some such independent inquiry should, at Lord Roberta's request, be placed at his disposal. I think the House has as full information as can be given until hon. Members have the Papers in their hands. The subject, I am aware, is one on which a great deal of public feeling is properly excited, and, in my opinion, where such a state of public feeling exists, it is most desirable that this House should have an opportunity of discussing the question if it so desires. I do not think that a motion for the adjournment of the House would be a convenient method, because the Papers would not be in the hands of Members. In any case, my right hon. friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet has put down what is called a blocking notice, which would prevent the adjournment of the House from being moved [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] I am so informed; but, however that may be, I think that a far more orderly procedure would be for the House to discuss this question on the Estimates. I propose tomorrow, therefore, that we should depart from the announced order of business, and place an Estimate first on the Paper before the Scotch Votes, to enable the question to be raised. I had originally intended to place on the Paper the Vote for the salary of the Secretary of State, but I have reason to believe that under our rules it would not be possible to discuss the Medical Department on that Vote, because there is a separate Vote for it. I propose, therefore, to place a purely nominal Supplementary Estimate of £5 for the Army Medical Department, to stand first on the Order Paper, in order to give the House the opportunity of discussing this question. I hope the House will feel that I have given all the information I can with a view to publicity.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question arising out of his answer—whether in Lord Roberts's statement there is any account of the field hospitals about Bloemfontein—any account other than that which he has read of the town hospitals within Bloemfontein, which contained 700 patients out of 2,200? I did not hear them referred to.

I venture to think that we had better not attempt to anticipate the debate of to-morrow by question and answer across the floor of the House. It is a legitimate question, but it can be dealt with adequately tomorrow.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state what steps the Government intend taking to give effect to the recommendations of the War Funds Committee presided over by Lord Justice Henn Collins; whether an independent actuarial valuation of the various funds administered by the Patriotic Commissioners is contemplated in order that the surpluses may be made available for the necessities of the present war; whether the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee will be presented to this House; and whether the Government will afford an opportunity for the discussion of the Report before the close of the session.

I believe that the main recommendation of the War Funds Committee, to which all the others are subsidiary, is the constitution of a central council, consisting of the representatives of the central and local relief Committees, who should organise a uniform system of administration to be carried out by local committees. The War Funds Committee consider that such a council would be best organised with the advice and assistance of the local committees, And the subject is now engaging attention. The Government will await the proposals which may be submitted before deciding on the course which they will take. I am not aware of any ground for questioning the accuracy of the periodical valuations of the funds administered by the Patriotic Commissioners. The minutes of evidence and the appendices to the Report of the Committee will be presented to the House. The last question of the hon. Member. I have already answered.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what has been the total addition by the taking over of colonial Volunteers, enlistment in the country or in any other manner, to the armed forces landed in South Africa between 1st August, 1899, and 31st May, 1900; what number have been landed since 31st May; and what is the number on the sea but not yet landed.

I am afraid that I do not understand the hon. Member's question. The armed forces landed include, of course, colonial contingents. If he wishes to have the number of colonial as distinguished from British forces, I can only refer him to my statement of 12th March, which placed them actually and prospectively at 21,240 South African, and 8,033 from other self-governing colonies, or 29,273 in all.

Is that number in addition to the 204,000?

No, that total included the 8,033 from other self-governing colonies.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what course it is proposed to take with reference to the 3,500 British soldiers now liberated who have been captured by the Boers, having regard to the provisions in the Queen's Regulations enjoining the holding of a court of inquiry in connection with every case of surrender to discover the circumstances under which the capture was effected.

Lord Roberts has reported that no blame attaches to the officers who have been released, and that they have been reinstated. No official information has reached the War Office in regard to the liberated non-commissioned officers and men.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, merely as a matter of information, has there been no regular inquiry, and have these prisoners been let loose without any investigation?

I have given the hon. Member all the information I have. The Queen's Regulations lay down that there shall be an inquiry, and I have no reason to suppose that they have been infringed.

I will inquire myself.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the War Office authorities has been directed to the form of the cablegram from the General of Communications, Cape Town, dated 10th June, announcing the capture at Roodeval of the 4th Battalion of the Derbyshire Regiment on June 7th, in which a short list of casualties several days old forms the bulk of the telegram, while the capture by the Boers of a whole battalion is announced at the end of the message, which stated that Stoneham reported many severely wounded, and remaining 4th Derbyshire and details prisoners, except six rank and file in his camp; whether there is any, and, if so, what explanation of the fact that the casualties were made the main feature of the message, and the capture of a whole battalion a minor incident: and whether directions, as in the case of despatches, will be given to make telegraphic communications with reference to the operations of the troops intelligible.

At the time of despatch of the telegram the General Officer commanding the line of communications was not in possession of any details of the disaster beyond the message from Major Stoneham, the medical officer of the captured hospital, which contained merely a list of casualties. The General Officer forwarded the only information then at his disposal.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the General Officer in future not to put the cart before the horse?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many of the troops inocu- lated with so-called anti-typhoid serum, have had enteric fever in South Africa, how many of those inoculated have since died of enteric fever, and whether any of those inoculated have been invalided home as a direct result of such inoculation; and whether he will state on whose scientific recommendation the Government have been induced to make this experiment on troops sent out to serve in, South Africa.

In reply to the first paragraph of the question I must refer the hon. Member to the answer on this subject which I gave on Tuesday. The inoculation was entirely voluntary—there was no idea of making experiments, on the troops going out to South Africa. The credit of suggesting the inoculation belongs to the Professor of Pathology at Netley Hospital.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that medals have recently been issued to the survivors of those who took part in the Red River and other expeditions now of by no means recent date, the Government will also consider the claim of those who took part in the Boer-war of 1881, in connection with which no medal or decoration has as yet been issued, considering the arduous nature of, some of the operations, especially the defence of the garrisons.

Medals are not granted for campaigns of which the general result was not successful, and the-Boer war of 1881 comes in this category.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a proclamation has been issued in South Africa to the effect that any of the inhabitants of the Orange Free State found in arms after a certain fixed date will be treated as rebels.

Lord Roberts at the end of May consulted Sir A. Milner as to the issue of a proclamation warning the inhabitants that after being made aware of the annexation, they would be liable to be treated as rebels. I have no further information at present. I have telegraphed to inquire what action has been taken.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether or not this action of Lord Roberts was taken with the approval of the home Government?

did not reply immediately.

Answer, answer!

If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer the question, I shall put it on the Paper.

The hon. Member need not be so hasty. I merely desired to understand what the question (which is put without notice) is about. I am not aware that any action has been taken, and under the circumstances I cannot say whether the action has received the approval of the Home Government or not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the telegram, dated 7th June, from Sir Alfred Milner, warning miners who had been employed in the Transvaal mines before the outbreak of hostilities, and who had returned to England in consequence of the war, and were then about to start for the Transvaal from Southampton, to postpone their return to South Africa, was published by the authority of Her Majesty's Government; by what authority, whether of the Imperial Government or of the Cape Government, was Sir Alfred Milner empowered to announce that such miners would be delayed at Cape ports, and would not be permitted for a couple of months to return to their work in the Transvaal mines, and by what means is it contemplated to enforce the prohibition of English miners returning to their work in the Transvaal; and, will the Government take any, and, if so, what steps to remove the impediments to the return of the Uitlanders who were before the war working operatives in mines to the Transvaal.

The reply to the first question is Yes. As to the second and third questions, hostilities are still proceeding in the Transvaal, and whatever measures are necessitated by the military situation will be taken and enforced by the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief in South Africa. The resumption of trade and industry will not be delayed a moment longer than the military exigencies require.

Am I not correct in saying that the order came from Sir A. Milner and not Lord Roberts? Was it on the authority of the Home Government or the Colonial Government that Sir A. Milner acted?

I answered the first question in the affirmative. It was on the authority of the Home Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the enforced absence of these English miners their places have been filled up by black labour?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state at what period of the day the majority of the men fell out during the field day at Aldershot on the 11th instant; and whether, as on former occasions, most of the mischief occurred during the march home along dusty roads in column of route during the hottest part of the day.

It has been already stated that most of the men fell out on the return march; and the greater part of the march was through country where there are no made roads.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that in August, 1893, in consequence of the sufferings of the troops from the heat of the sun and from thirst and want of food on field days at Aldershot, Sir Evelyn Wood, who was then in command, made a report with strictures on the hardships to which the men had been subjected, and that a divisional order was issued, grounded on that report, which prescribed the giving out of a ration to troops taking part in field days, while commanding officers were made responsible for the examination of men's haversacks and water-bottles to see that the order was made effective; whether he will say if this order was in force at Aldershot on the field day on the 11th instant, and, if not in force, when was it cancelled, and what were the reasons for that course; and, if the order was in force, will he explain why it was not observed on the 11th instant, and state who is responsible for the disregard of its injunctions.

While Sir Evelyn Wood was at Aldershot an extra Government ration was sanctioned for tactical operations at a distance from the camp, while for operations in the vicinity of Aldershot light refreshments were provided from canteen funds. No alteration has been made in this practice. The commanding officers were made responsible that the men's haversacks and water-bottles were examined before the troops marched off parade. The order has never been cancelled, and there is no ground for supposing that it was infringed on the 11th instant.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that there are over 400 men in Her Majesty's Reserve Regiment of Lancers at Ballincollig who have no arms, and, though they have 300 horses, have no bridles or saddles; and that there are over 300 recruits in the regiment learning nothing owing to the want of equipment; and, whether, in view of these facts, he will immediately take stops to arm and equip the regiment or disband it.

The regiment is completely equipped with saddles and bridles, and with all arms except lances, which are being supplied as fast as possible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers of Regular regiments, who are employed as aides-de-camp to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, are not made supernumerary in their regiments by seconding, and that they only do four months duty with their regiments in each year; and whether the experience of the war in South Africa has shown that this limited regimental training is sufficient; and, if not, whether he can see his way to these appointments being limited to officers of the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, whose training would not necessarily be curtailed by being thus employed.

The facts stated in the first paragraph are accurate. There is, however, nothing to show that the officers of the Lord Lieutenant's staff who joined their regiments in South Africa were in any way deficient in regimental training, and it is not thought necessary to make any change in the regulation.

Are we to understand that four months training in a year is sufficient for an officer?

I would not have my hon. and gallant friend draw any such conclusion from the reply.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the fact that those Volunteer officers who have recently been gazetted to commissions in the Army have been called upon to refund the £20 outfit allowance drawn by them upon appointment to Volunteer regiments; and whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the repayment of this amount may be remitted, as these officers have now expenses for outfits, especially in the case of those appointed from Rifle regiments to ordinary Line regiments, and vice versa.

I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the regulations have been brought to his notice under which a late officer of the Volunteers, who has received his £10 part uniform allowance, and after passing his school of instruction is entitled to the second instalment of £10, but who, when subsequently appointed to a lieutenancy in the Army, is obliged to refund this grant-in-aid and is not entitled to receive the second instalment; and will he undertake to reconsider cases of this kind with a view of changing the present conditions.

In reply to these questions, the matter is receiving consideration, and it is hoped that a final decision will be arrived at within a few days.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the fact that the medical experience of a surgeon in the Volunteer force cannot be increased by his watching men going through field training for fourteen days, the pay and allowances of one medical officer for the whole period of camp can be sanctioned, and its allotment be left to the commanding officer among such of the surgeons of a regiment whose practice enables them to be present on certain days.

The suggestion will be considered.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the operation of the 50 per cent. rule to entitle a Volunteer battalion to pay and allowances for going into camp for fourteen days, and the number of Volunteers who will therefore be deprived of the training the Government now thinks essential, he will allow provisional or composite regiments to be formed on the same lines as in the past.

One of the most important objects of the Volunteer camps is to enable the men belonging to battalions and brigades to train together. The object in view would not be attained by the formation of provisional or composite regiments as suggested. The Secretary of State for War does not therefore consider it expedient to permit the formation of such regiments.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 8th instant Peter Walsh, of Donaghmore, county Cork, was enlisted at the Cork barracks upon his own statement that he was over eighteen years of age, and that when Kate Walsh, mother of the lad, applied upon the following day for the discharge of her son, producing at the same time his birth certificate proving that his age was only seventeen, her request was refused, and she was not even permitted access to her son; and whether under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that Peter Walsh was removed to England on the 13th instant, steps will be taken to send him back to his parents.

I explained on Monday, in answer to a similar question, that, under the regulations, if a recruit is over seventeen years of age his retention in the service rests entirely with the General Officer commanding the district, with whose discretion the Secretary of State does not interfere.

Is it intended to retain this boy in the service against the will of his parents?

This question has been asked and answered over and over again. It is a matter of uniform practice, when the recruit has turned seventeen years of age, to retain him in the service until the General Officer commanding; decides otherwise.

Why was the mother of the lad refused permission to see him?

Is there, no War Office rule by which a recruit is discharged when he is absolutely necessary for the support of his father and mother?

Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if H.M.S. "Terrible," fitted with water-tube boilers, sailed from Hong Kong on the 16th inst upon a service of most grave national emergency in the carrying of troops for the relief of British citizens in Peking, and arrived at Ta-ku on the 22nd inst., having accomplished the distance of 1,800 miles in five and a half days, or about 13½ miles per hour; whether, seeing that the vessel has formerly attained a trial speed of 22 miles per hour, any explanation of the falling-off in speed can be given; and whether the Admiralty will telegraph to the Admiral in command for an explanation.

The hon. Member is wrong in his dates. He states that the "Terrible" arrived on the 22nd. As a matter of fact she landed her troops on the morning of the 21st, so she probably arrived the previous day. We have every reason to believe that the boilers and machinery of the ship are thoroughly efficient. There are no grounds for telegraphing to the Admiral in command on the matter, and I am sure at such a time of strain as this he ought to be troubled with as few demands for explanation as possible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what speed, according to his own computation, the vessel did make on this voyage?

I am not in a position to make a computation. We do not know whether she accompanied a transport or whether she had to call at any places on the road. I have no doubt she went at the speed she was instructed to travel at.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why it was that the vessel did not attain her designed speed of twenty-two knots in the case of a grave national emergency?

I presume because she had no orders to do it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the sums of money already spent, and of the still larger sums to be expended in the installation of Belleville boilers in Her Majesty's ships, he will now furnish a full account of the performance of all ships fitted with these boilers.

Many statements have been made to Parliament as to the performances of Her Majesty's ships fitted with Belleville boilers, and I desire to keep Parliament fully informed on the subject. Accordingly, I propose, when Vote 8 comes on, to make a very full statement, a course which I hope will be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. It is, however, quite impossible to furnish a full account of the performances of all ships fitted with these boilers, as the performance of the boilers only could not be separated in any Return from that of every detail of the machinery, and the preparation of such a Return would entail great labour upon a Department already overwhelmed with work, and also fail to present a true reflection of the situation, as, I presume, is desired by the hon. Gentleman.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also on that occasion furnish an account of the vessels fitted with water-tube boilers of types other than the Belleville type?

Certainly. I shall deal with the whole question of boilers and machinery.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have now received any explanation of the position and extent of the leakage which rendered Her Majesty's ship "Hermes" helpless in mid-ocean; whether this leakage was in the water-tube boilers; and if it is yet known how long the repairs will take.

The report of the court of inquiry on the breakdown of the "Hermes" has now been received. The chief cause of the breakdown was the inefficient state of the feed pumps, which had been allowed to become so defective that they were not capable of supplying the necessary feed water to the boilers. The court state there is no reason to suppose that the feed pumps were not efficient when the "Hermes" left England, but that the slight defects which arose in ordinary work were increased by injudicious treatment. The distilling apparatus was also working unsatisfactorily. The leakage appears to have taken place from various steam and drain pipe joints, and in some cases from split boiler tubes, and also water was being pumped into unused boilers and escaping through their safety valves. It would be improper to make any statement at present as to the responsibility for the treatment which the machinery received, as the report has not yet been fully considered, and the state of health of the staff engineer in charge did not admit of his exercising the necessary supervision. He has since been invalided. The boilers have been seriously damaged by being worked without sufficient water, and a large number of the tubes will require to be replaced. It is impossible to say at present how long the repairs will take.

Do I correctly understand that the leakage was in the boilers?

The hon. Gentleman had better read my answer. I will not venture to go into any further statement of detail.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any report from the inspector of machinery who was sent out to see the vessel, in which it was stated that—

Order, order! Notice must be given of that.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether on the North America and West Indies station for eleven vessels of the Royal Navy, carrying an aggregate of over 2,600 men and boys, there is but one chaplain; and whether in the Newfoundland fishery squadron, which for nearly half the year forms an independent command, consisting of four sea-going vessels, carrying over 500 men and boys, there is no chaplain; and, if there is a deficiency of chaplains in Her Majesty's Fleet, will the Admiralty endeavour to supply such deficiency by inviting suitable clergymen to serve on Her Majesty's ships for short terms, such as a year, or during the period for which a ship is in commission.

There are three chaplains on the North America and West Indies station—namely, one at Bermuda, one at Jamaica, and one in the flagship. There is no chaplain borne in the commodore's ship, but at St. John's, the, headquarters of the fishery squadron, there are opportunities of attending divine worship. The majority of the ships on the station have no accommodation for chaplains, but in the case of two of them which have such accommodation a naval instructor has been appointed in lieu of a chaplain and naval instructor (combined), as none of the latter were available. It is hoped that this will be remedied later. There is a deficiency of chaplains capable of acting as instructors, which makes it difficult to supply medium-sized vessels with the number of chaplains desired, but it is not considered to be sufficient to justify the exceptional course suggested in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

What is the religion of the chaplains in question?

was understood to-reply, "Church of England."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether there is any news as to events in China.

Yes, Sir, information received to-day leaves no doubt that Admiral Seymour has been extricated, and Tientsin relieved. We have a telegram dated Tientsin, 24th June, as follows:—

"News of Commander-in-Chief arrived yesterday, and party leaves to-night to succour him. He had seized a small arsenal north of Tientsin called Wu-ku, and was being bombarded by large number of guns. He was in urgent need of relief, having had about forty-killed and seventy wounded. This news was-brought by a servant of one of the members of the Legation who is fully trustworthy. Foreign settlements were shelled from 18th June to 23rd June. Damage done comparatively alight except in French concession, which has suffered greatly. British Consulate a good deal knocked about. British casualties at Tientsin up to date of relief, four killed and fifty wounded, including in latter six officers."

Sir Charles Scott telegraphed from St. Petersburg at noon to-day—

"Further official telegram from Admiral Alexieff, Port Arthur, June 27th During night of 26th, column from Tientsin, commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Shirinsky, and consisting of four Russian companies and similar number of foreigners, liberated Admiral Seymour's column, escorting it to Tientsin. 200 of Seymour's column wounded."

I notice in private telegrams, which give the casualties in greater detail, that the number of wounded is placed much higher. We have no news of the Legations beyond that communicated to the press last night, namely, that Sir R. Hart stated they had orders to leave Peking on 20th June. The allied forces at Ta-ku and Tientsin have now been considerably augmented, but we are not aware what action the commanders propose to take.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the cost of sending additional troops from India to China is to be borne by the Indian or the Imperial Exchequer.

It will fall on the Imperial Exchequer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a memorial in favour of separating judicial from executive functions was forwarded to the Government of India in July, 1899, for consideration and report; and whether any, and, if so, what report on the subject has been received from the Government of India.

The memorial to which the hon. Member's question refers was forwarded to the Government of India in August, 1899. I have not yet received the Government of India's report upon it.

When does the noble Lord expect to receive it?

I cannot say. It is a very large question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an estimate for the fruit and mail direct steamship service to and from Jamaica, contracted for by the Crown Agents, will be presented while the contract is lying upon the Table.

The grants in aid for steamer subsidies in the West Indies, viz.: of —5,000 taken on a Supplementary Estimate in July 1898, and of £35,000 included in the original Estimates for 1899–1900, are available to meet, and will more than cover, all payments due in respect to this service.

Is there any news from Coomassie?

None beyond what has been already published.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will, before the debate on the Foreign Office Vote is concluded, lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the despatch of the 29th March last, addressed to the French Government with reference to the Waima case; and whether he can now give the House any further information respecting the progress of the negotiations with France on this subject.

I also wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what stage has been reached in the negotiations with France for compensation to the surviving relatives of the British officers and men killed by French troops at Waima in 1893.

The Note to the French Ambassador respecting the Waima incident cannot be laid at present, as negotiations on the case are now proceeding. It is not possible to make a statement at this moment.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the disturbed condition of affairs in Northern Macedonia, steps have been taken or will be taken to strengthen the British Consular staff in that part of the Balkan peninsula.

Two years ago the British Vice-Consulate, which had hitherto been established at Monastir, was transferred to Uscub because it was considered that the latter place was better situated for the purpose of obtaining trustworthy reports on events in Northern Macedonia. Frequent reports are received from Her Majesty's Vice-Consul there, and Her Majesty's Government do not consider that any grounds exist for creating new consular posts in that part of the country.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that gravel is being taken from the foreshore, below high-water mark, at Greystones, county Wicklow, and sold in Liverpool and elsewhere, and that the occupiers of houses situated near the foreshore have protested against the removal of the gravel; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.

I have received a complaint as to gravel having been taken from the shore at Greystones. I am informed, however, that the greater portion of the gravel so taken has been removed from the beach above high-water mark of ordinary tides, and not from the foreshore. At present I have not sufficient evidence of injury to the coast to justify the issue of a prohibitory Order.

Has any member of the public a right to take gravel from above high-water mark, or is it the private property of the owner of the land?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements could be made whereby the Statutory Inspection Committee of Trustee Savings Banks should have an opportunity of considering regulations proposed with regard to Trustee Savings Banks before such regulations are laid before Parliament.

If the hon. Member is referring to the Trustee Savings Banks Regulations laid on the Table of the House on the 28th May last, I may explain that they were made by the Treasury under Section 2 of the Savings Bank Acts of 1887 (50 and 51 Vict., c. 40), which requires certain regulations for the Post Office Savings Banks to be extended to Trustee Savings Banks. No functions or duties of the Inspection Committee are affected by those alterations, and it did not appear necessary to consult that body formally in the matter.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that the sum of —37,000 is annually received by the Crown out of the corporate towns in Ireland as quit rents, as is shown by the Returns lately laid upon the Table of the House, whether he can state if any of this impost is or could be applied in use of local taxation.

The annual sum referred to in the question represents quit, etc., rents for lands in all parts of Ireland, and is not received out of corporate towns except to a very small extent. It forms part of the land revenues of the Crown in Ireland, which revenue is by law payable into the Exchequer, and is carried to the Consolidated Fund, and could not be applied as the hon. Member suggests.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that complaints have been made by the public owing to the way they are being defrauded out of their money by penny-in-the-slot machines, and that two such machines, numbered respectively 17 and 84, are at present placed within the Victoria Station on the South Eastern and Chatham Railway; and whether, owing to the fact that those two machines are receiving money and at the same time giving nothing in return to the people who contribute their pennies, some steps will be taken to prevent any further defrauding of the general public.

I am not aware of any complaints, and I can only suggest that the hon. Member, or anyone else who has been defrauded in the way suggested should bring an action in the County Court to recover the pennies. I am not aware that there is any evidence of a criminal offence, or that any steps could be taken by the police.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether inquiry was made into the facts stated in the question, as to the public being actually defrauded?

I made some inquiries, and elicited from the policeman who went to look at the machines that one was so much out of order that it returned his height at 5ft. 1in. instead of 5ft. l0in.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has recently sent a communication to the London magistrates respecting the summary powers of landlords to evict their tenants, and upon the construction of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838; and, if so, will he state why this communication was sent, and will he lay a copy of the circular upon the Table of the House.

The question presumably refers to a letter which was written to the late Sir John Bridge on the 25th of January, 1899, with regard to the construction of the first section of the Act. Different views are taken on the question whether the warrant referred to in the concluding words of the section is valid for execution forthwith or not till twenty-one days after its issue. It appeared that at some of the metropolitan police courts the former view was taken, and at others the latter. Sir John Bridge took the view that the warrant is valid forthwith, though the court may allow its operation to be suspended. This interpretation is supported by the opinion of Sir John Jervis and Sir John Romilly when Law Officers of the Crown, and the Lord Chancellor agrees with it. The letter I have men- tioned requested Sir John Bridge to bring the Lord Chancellor's opinion to the notice of his colleagues, in order, if possible, to obtain their concurrence in the adoption of a uniform principle in the administration of the Act at all the police courts.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Departmental Committee, presided over by Lord Wenlock, and appointed to consider whether any regulations as to presumptive standards of quality under Section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, can be made with advantage in respect of milk and cream, have held any meetings and have arrived at any conclusions; and whether any steps have been taken by the Agricultural Board, in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act, to arrive at presumptive standards of quality in respect of butter and cheese.

The Committee to which the hon. Member refers have held several meetings, but they have not as yet presented their Report. I have not taken any steps with respect to the setting up of presumptive standards for butter and cheese, because I think it best to wait and see if any action can, in the first place, be taken in the case of milk and cream.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, if it is the intention of the Board to restore in the requirements in shorthand the former rate of forty words per minute.

I am not aware that the requirement of the Education Department in shorthand has ever been changed.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can say whether the expenditure of —12,000 by the Marylebone Guardians on the Southall Schools has provided for an increased number of children, and to what extent this expenditure will increase the cost per head per child.

Of the —12,000, —3,650 is for the provision of receiving homes, which do not form part of the school at all, although they are built on a site adjoining that of the school. These homes will provide accommodation for thirty-six boys and girls, with overflow dormitories for infants. The remaining expenditure (namely, —8,350) is for the erection of a new infirmary at the school, find the conversion of the old infirmary into class-rooms. This will not provide for an increased number of children. I am not able to give a precise answer to the last part of the question of the hon. Member. But the charge for interest and repayment of principal on a loan of —8,350 is about —438 per annum, and as the number of children in the school is 390 this amount is equal to a little over 5d. per head per week.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he has considered the advisability of holding a Local Government Board inquiry into the irregularities committed by the relieving officers of St. Pancras in the matter of the transfer and custody of pauper lunatics from that union.

I am much obliged to my hon. friend for the opportunity of stating what action the Local Government Board have taken and are taking in this matter. There can be no doubt that the irregularities referred to, unless they are promptly and effectually stopped, would inevitably lead to scandals of the gravest kind, and I have directed an immediate investigation by the Local Government Board into this matter. Apart from the cases referred to there is reason to believe that the system is more or less widely practised elsewhere in the Metropolis. Pending the inquiry therefore, I have directed a communication to be made to the Metropolitan Boards of Guardians to the effect that in the opinion of the Board the practice is altogether indefensible, and that any officer offending in this respect in the future should be dismissed. As to the past, when I have the results of the inquiry before me I shall be better able to judge if any further action on the part of the Board is required.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a clerical assistant with about two years service has been appointed, without examination, assistant laboratory clerk at the Local Government Board at a salary of £120 per annum, rising by annual increments of £5 to £200 per annum; and whether, seeing that there are serving in the Local Government Board twenty-one senior assistant clerks with a service of from fifteen to twenty-seven years, who are only receiving an increment of £2 10s., rising only to a maximum of £150 per annum, and that the appointment referred to does not entail the possession of special technical qualifications, it could have been offered, as some encouragement, to one of the deserving senior assistant clerks in that Department.

As regards the first paragraph the answer is in the negative. In reply to the second paragraph—the appointment, no doubt, could have been offered to any one I selected, but the clerk in question was chosen because he had been employed in the laboratory for some time past, and strong representations were made as to his special fitness for the post by those who were best acquainted with his work and capabilities.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the number of the temporary staff employed at the Liverpool Post Office in the sorting and telegraph branches can be stated; whether the learners are regarded as temporary clerks; and, if so, whether their service is to count for pension purposes; and whether, in view of the increase of work, the Postmaster General will consider the advisability of increasing the permanent staff.

The temporary staff of these branches at Liverpool comprises thirty-one males and three females. Learners are not regarded as temporary clerks. Their service, being part time only, does not count for pension. A revision of the Liverpool staff is under consideration in connection with the removal to the new post office, and an increase in number will be provided for.

I have been unable to hear a word of the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Will be supply me with a copy of the answer?

Certainly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether in the Liverpool office inspectors of messengers have been appointed to perform work previously allotted to telegraphists; whether such duties involve a monetary responsibility; and whether, in view of the decision of the Postmaster General upon this subject in 1896, instructions will be given that telegraphists are to perform these duties as heretofore.

It is in contemplation to create six appointments to the class of inspector of telegraph messengers at Liverpool. The duties attaching to these places have hitherto been performed by sorting clerks and telegraphists, but they more properly belong to the class of inspectors. Beyond the payment of the weekly wages of messengers, the only monetary responsibility involved is the custody of a small sum used for paying out locomotion charges on the delivery of telegrams, etc. The hon. Member's reference to a decision of the Postmaster General in 1896 is not understood.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the case of a telegraphist named Simmons, of the Brighton office, who has been stopped at the efficiency barrier for incompetence; whether, since the notification Simmons has been at times in charge of the instrument gallery, relieving an assistant superintendent; and whether, in view of the fact that Simmons has been denied access to a class of operators on the ground of alleged inefficiency, the Postmaster General will re-consider his decision in view of the fact that Simmons' superiors consider him able to supervise the work of other telegraphists.

I replied to the questions on this case put by the hon. Member on the 17th and 24th of last month.^* The duties on which Mr. Simmons has been employed since that date are those of the rank and file, except that on Saturday the 16th instant he was, as the senior sorting clerk and telegraphist present, in charge of the instrument room during the absence of the assistant superintendent from 10.10 p.m. to midnight, a time when the work is very small. Mr. Simmons is afforded every facility for improving himself in the knowledge of those duties in which he is deficient, and it was owing to this arrangement that he was the senior sorting clerk and telegraphist on duty on the night of the 16th inst. The Postmaster General regrets that the circumstances are not such as to justify an alteration of the decision already given.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the fact that the Treasury, has agreed that in the Customs an abstractor holding a personal allowance of £30 shall be permitted to count it as salary upon promotion to the second division, there is any reason why an abstractor holding a personal allowance in the Board of Trade is not permitted to count his allowance as salary upon promotion to the second division.

If the hon. Member will kindly furnish me with the

^* See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxiii., pages 416 and 1113.

particulars of the cases to which he refers, I will cause inquiry to be made.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that it is customary for the School Board of Greenock to provide children's prizes from the public rate; and whether such a practice is in conformity with the Education Act, which provides that such rate is only to be used for purely educational purposes.

I am aware that the School Board of Greenock, like many school boards in Scotland, provide prizes out of the school fund. The Department is advised that the Education Acts do not make it illegal to provide book or other similar prizes at the cost of the school fund, if the school board is satisfied that the efficiency of the school is thereby promoted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a caution against the registration of a deed to John Woods, of the farm of David Allen, Cabragh, Irvinestown, sold in March for non-payment of one half-year's annuity (afterwards paid to the Land Commission and receipted for by receivable order), was, without evidence, ruled out by the registering authority simply on a letter from the Land Commission; is he aware that in ordinary cases the registering authority is particularly strict as regards evidence; can he state why there was an exception in Allen's case; and if he can hold forth a hope that the case of this man will be reconsidered.

The holding referred to was sold by the Land Commission under their statutory powers, and the registering authority was so informed. The purchaser has been put into possession, and the sale to him is now complete.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that in several towns in Ulster the collectors of the county council refuse to receive from ratepayers the sum separately mentioned in the poor rate receipts as due in respect of union charges without payment at the same time of the sums due on foot of county at large charges; and whether the action of the collector in this respect is in accordance with the regulations of the Irish Local Government Board.

The action of a poor rate collector in refusing to accept a part payment of the poor rate is correct. The rate due is one entire sum, although made up of various items of expense, and the collector can only issue one legal receipt for the full amount. He is expressly forbidden by Article 13, Subsection 3 of the County (Poor Rate Collectors) Order, 1899, to give any other receipt whatever.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the agent for Lord Dartrey's estate, county Monaghan, applied for and was granted a transfer of a spirit licence at the Rockcorry Petty Sessions on Thursday last, although the agent is a magistrate for the district in which he obtained the transfer in his own name; and can he state what are the circumstances which led to this application for the licence, and who were the magistrates who granted the licence, and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.

Mr. Leslie, a justice of the peace for the district of Rockcorry and agent of Lord Dartrey, obtained the transfer, until the next quarter sessions, of licensed premises which he had purchased from the executors of a deceased publican, a tenant on the estate mentioned. The justices who granted the transfer were Messrs. Henry and McCabe, and there seems to be nothing in the matter calling for any intervention on the part of the Government.

Was Mr. Leslie an acting justice of the peace at the time he held the licence?

I must ask for notice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Jubilee Fund of the Royal Irish Constabulary, whether inquiry will be made with a view to ascertain how far the force, who own the fund, have any voice in its management; and whether steps will be taken to have it placed entirely under the control of the subscribers.

As I have already stated this fund is not one over which the Government exercise any control, and any suggestions as to changes in its management should be made to the Committee of Management or to the Inspector General.

Will steps be taken to ascertain the views of the subscribers?

I have nothing whatever to do with the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of ejectment decrees granted at the last Caherciveen Quarter Sesssions at the suit of Lord Lansdowne against his tenants.

The number of such decrees granted was four.

How many people has the noble Lord turned off his estate?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it is now impossible, owing to the form of the new rate books, for clerks of unions to supply the Income Tax Commissioners with copies of the rate books showing particularly the names of the immediate landlords of every holding, and for the poor rate collectors who are requested, when furnishing their lists of tenements requiring revision, to insert the names of the immediate lessors; and, whether, seeing that the omission will lead to complications where the same tenant holds from two different landlords on the same townland, and that the form now issued is a departure from the form prescribed in the order of the Local Government Board, dated 19th April, 1899, he will advise the Local Government Board to order the names of immediate lessors to be inserted in the rate books.

The County Councils Order of the 18th April, 1899, prescribes a form of rate book which contains a column for names of immediate lessors liable to be rated. The Local Government Board have never prescribed any other form, but, to meet as far as possible the wishes of certain county councils to have the number of columns in the rate book reduced, the Board prepared an alternative form of rate book, in which a column is given for "the name of person rated" only. The notes on the form show that where the immediate lessor is rated the name should be underlined. In this way the immediate lessors can be at once identified. I am not aware what particulars are required by the Income Tax Commissioners, but the form of collectors' book prescribed by the County (Poor Rate Collectors) Order of 17th April, 1899 (which has not been altered), contains a column in which the collector is to insert all information which may be necessary for the purposes of the Valuation, Registration, and Jurors Acts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Board of Works in Ireland, if he will direct that the steamer at present running under Government subsidy from Tarbert to Kilrush should commence plying in future from Foynes, midway on the River Shannon, and thereby give additional facilities for tourists to visit Kilkee and the coasts of county Clare.

The Member is under a misapprehension in describing the Chief Secretary as President of the Board of Works in Ireland. I have no power to give the direction suggested in the question, but the Board of Works are in hopes of carrying out such an extension of the existing service between Tarbert and Kilrush as will enable the steamer to call at Foynes.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland in how many cases during the last two years have proceedings been taken on the equity side of the county courts for recovery of arrears of tithe rent.

During the period mentioned in the question, proceedings of the nature referred to were taken in three cases.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether the Land Commission can state approximately what amount of costs of proceedings, receiver's fees, receiver's solicitors' fees, passing accounts and discharging receivers have been paid by the owners of tithe rent during the last two years for which accounts are complete.

It is presumed that the hon. Member refers to tithe rent-charge payers, not "owners." The Land Commission have no information on that part of the question which relates to receiver's fees, or receiver's solicitors' costs, either for passing accounts or for discharging receivers. The approximate amount paid to the Land Commission for costs incurred by them in appointment of receivers during the two years ending 30th June, 1900, is £240.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether complaints have reached him that receivers are appointed for the recovery of arrears of tithe rent-charge in many cases in which the costs of proceedings, receiver's fees, receiver's solicitors' fees, passing accounts and costs of discharging receivers far exceed the amounts originally due; and whether he can say in how many cases during the last three years receivers have been appointed in respect of sums (a) under £10, (b) under £20, and (c) under £50.

The first part of this question docs not appear to refer ex- clusively to the Land Commission, as lay impropriators have similar powers of procedure, but in most of the cases in which the Land Commission receive tithe rent-charge from receivers appointed by the Court of Chancery the receivers have been appointed at the suit of parties other than the Land Commission. During the period mentioned in the second paragraph, receivers were appointed in two cases in respect of sums under £10; in four cases under £20; and in six cases under £50. In four of these twelve cases the costs of the Land Commission exceeded the actual debt due to the Commission, but no other proceedings would have enabled the Commission to realise their debt.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if he will state who appoints the receivers in cases for recovery of arrears of tithe- rent; how and on what principle they are selected; and why the solicitor to the Land Commission does not act as receiver.

The receivers in such cases are in variably appointed by the Land Judge, who usually appoints the district receiver nearest to the lands as the person who can most conveniently and advantageously collect the rents. It is not the practice to appoint the solicitor for parties to proceedings as receiver under the Court.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if a coroner's inquisition, as recommended by the Irish Crown Solicitor, was held upon the gold ornaments found at Limavady, which were recently placed in the British Museum, and are alleged to be treasure trove, and if any evidence on oath has been taken in relation to the discovery of these objects; whether it has been proved that no express grant of the franchise of treasure trove has been established in the district in question; whether the Irish Crown Solicitor stated that the information upon which he held the ornaments to be treasure trove was obviously unsatisfactory; and whether he can state the decisions given in cases where articles of silver and gold have been discovered in the earth without there being any presumptive evidence of their having been of ancient time hidden.

My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this question. The reply to each of the three questions contained in the first and second paragraphs is in the negative. The Irish Crown Solicitor made the statement mentioned in a certain communication made by him to the Treasury, but a reference to the context will show that by the word "unsatisfactory" he intended to convey that the evidence then forthcoming was not as full and detailed as was desirable. I cannot possibly answer the last question in the form in which it is put, but I will be happy to furnish my noble friend with the authorised reports of two of the most recent cases on treasure trove, where he will find the principle of law applicable to the subject discussed and determined.

Will the opinions of the Law Officers referred to be communicated to the House?

That has already been done.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if he will state what is the procedure usually taken by the Land Commission, and what are the costs and expenses usually and necessarily incurred before redemption of tithe rent, and whether any effort is made to settle or compromise with the owners.

No charge of any kind is made by the Land Commission either by way of costs or expenses, in connection with the redemption of tithe rent-charges. As the redemption price in cases of voluntary redemption is fixed by Statute (35 and 36 Vict. c. 90, s. 7), no question as to compromise can arise. In cases under the Purchase Acts the redemptions come under Section 37 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, and the Land Commission are empowered to order the redemption at a price of not less than twenty times the net amount of the charge after allowing for poor rates.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture for Ireland whether he is aware that loss and injury has from time to time been inflicted on the owners and fishermen engaged in mackerel fishing off the west coast of Kerry, especially in the Cahirciveen and the Shannon mouth districts, by the illegal interference of trawlers; and whether there is any bye-law in existence in those districts for the better protection of the fishing boats engaged in the fishing industry; and, if not, will instructions be given to the Fishery Board to hold such inquiry as may be deemed advisable, with the object of making such necessary bye-laws.

There is no bye-law in force prohibiting trawling in the mouth of the Shannon, and no application for a bye-law has ever been received. If, however, an application be made to the Department by persons interested and who are in a position to give evidence on the subject, an inquiry will be hold as soon as practicable. With regard to trawling in the other waters referred to in the question, namely, between Dunmore Head and Scariff Island, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous question of Monday last on the same subject.

Is it not the fact that complaints were made to the captain of the gunboat "Argus," and that he was asked to prevent this illegal trawling, but he found he could not interfere because there was no bye-law in existence? Were not the inspectors then set on to make inquiry?

I believe the Fishery Inspectors are making further inquiry.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture and Industries of Ireland whether the science teachers in England are admitted free to the summer course and their fares paid from distant parts and an allowance given for their sustenance while in London, while the Irish teachers have to pay a fee of —2 and have no allowance whatever for expenses of railway fare or sustenance; whether he is aware that about eighty Irish teachers attended the summer course last year under these circumstances, and that 158 attended in London with much greater advantages; and whether steps will be taken immediately to equalise the financial terms of Irish and English teachers attending the summer science classes.

Summer courses for teachers in Ireland at the Royal College of Science, Dublin, were sanctioned experimentally in 1899. The courses were intended for the intermediate school teachers for whom there were previously no such facilities. The charge of £2 is made only to teachers belonging to institutions not connected with the Science and Art Department or the National Board of Education, but of the eighty-one teachers who availed themselves of the courses in 1899, only three paid this fee. Exactly the same facilities are offered to all trained teachers, qualified under the rules of the Board of Education, South Kensington, to teach science classes, in Ireland as in England. They receive railway fare, and, when coming from Ireland, first - class steamboat fare, and an allowance not exceeding £3 towards their expenses. Out of 185 teachers who attended at South Kensington last year, fourteen came from Ireland. The science teachers of England and Ireland referred to in the question are in fact on a different status. Those who come to London are trained and recognised teachers, whether English or Irish. The Irish course is, however, intended to train hitherto untrained teachers.

I beg to ask the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs what course he proposes to take with respect to the British Museum Bill standing on the Orders for Second Reading this day.

I need not recall to the House the fact that was stated the other day from the Government bench—that this Bill was framed and introduced at the request of the Treasury, and that its introduction was made a condition precedent to their taking into consideration certain proposals made by the trustees for the extension of their buildings. The First Lord of the Treasury told the House—and he has since communicated the view to the Trustees—that this Bill is a Government measure, and that the Government are responsible for it. At the same time he says very fairly that he is unable to take any steps for pressing the Bill forward, or for helping me to do so, unless it be clear that the Bill is unopposed or non-contentious. I am afraid, from all the signs that one may read in the Parliamentary sky that it is by no means likely to be an unopposed measure, but that, on the contrary, it will give rise to a great deal of contention.

Hear, hear!

My right hon. friend cheers that prophecy. I can only say that the evil to be remedied by this Bill is a very real one. We have found that the museum is obliged by law to receive, lodge, sort, and catalogue great quantities of printed matter which, in my opinion, no rational man would desire to preserve; and whatever course be taken by the Government in respect of this Bill the evil will one day or another have to be remedied, as the newspapers are increasing at a most formidable rate. But, seeing that the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman is so qualified, I think I shall best do what I desire to do—that is, consult the convenience of the House—by not asking him to take up the time of the House in reading a second time a Bill with which there is practically no intention of proceeding. Therefore, I would propose to withdraw the Bill, in the expectation that Her Majesty's Government will, during the recess, consider the expediency of asking the House for a vote of £100,000, which, in addition to the £50,000 of bequest now in our hands, will enable us to provide storage for the newspapers and other matter for a period of thirty years. I repeat that the evil remains to be dealt with, and if any Member of the House is able to propose a method of dealing with the problem in a manner more satisfactory than that of the present Bill, the trustees, at all events, will offer no opposition.

Could not the trustees find a little more storage room by giving us back our gold ornaments?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when it is proposed to take the Local Government Board Vote.

I can give no information at the present moment.

Having regard to the important announcement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, can the Leader of the House say when the Shipbuilding Vote will be taken?

I do not think it is convenient to arrange for taking Votes a long while beforehand. If my hon. friend will put a question on Monday I will then say if we can take the Vote next Friday.

In what order will the Scotch Estimates be taken to-morrow?

I imagine in the order they appear on the Paper.