I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the reply of the Japanese Government to the request of Her Majesty's Government that Japan should undertake the relief of the Legations and the suppression of the disturbances in Northern China; and whether Her Majesty's Government have offered to guarantee Japan protection at sea, if necessary, during such a campaign.

The Japanese Government have stated that reinforcements, bringing up the number of their troops in China to 20,000, will be sent as rapidly as possible. One battalion and three batteries of artillery started for Ta-ku on Friday last. No application for such a guarantee as is referred to in the second question has been made by Japan, and no question of giving one has arisen.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state what day the Indian troops will arrive at Ta-ku?

Is there any question of financial guarantee?

Can the right hon. Gentleman state the date at which the request was made?

What has been the cause of the delay in the despatch of Japanese troops?

He may not answer.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the grave situation in China, Her Majesty's Government are arranging to further augment our naval and military forces there in addition to the increases already announced to the House.

Considerable reinforcements both in men and ships are on the way, and Her Majesty's Government are quite prepared to take any action rendered necessary by the situation.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to propose a Supplementary Estimate or a Vote on Account in connection with the expedition to China.

Yes, Sir; it will be necessary to take a Supplementary Vote.

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

The accounts from Peking received through native sources which have been already published, show that the resistance of the Legations to the attacks made on them have made a great impression on the assailants, and there are grounds for hoping that Prince Ching, the late head of the Tsung-li-Yamen, is exercising influence to protect the Legations against Prince Tuan and the Boxers. The reports from Tientsin show that further fighting may be expected there at any moment, but no doubt is expressed that the allied forces will maintain their position. The Japanese reinforcements are due at Ta-ku immediately, and the Indian troops will begin to arrive in China at the end of the week. Matters are at present quiet on the Yang-tsze, but further naval force is being moved up so as to be prepared for any calls for the maintenance of order.

I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any knowledge as to the number of guns and the quantity of ammunition which have been exported from this country to China since the war between China and Japan; and whether he has any information as to the purchases of munitions of war which China has recently been making in European countries.

Yes, Sir. Seventy-one guns of position with 11,740 rounds of ammunition; 123 field guns with 49,400 rounds of ammunition; and 297 machine guns with 4,228,400 rounds of ammunition have been supplied to China since 1895 from firms in this country. 460,000 Mauser rifles and 3,000,000 rounds of ammunition were supplied to China last year by a German firm. I may say that the figures as to the supplies from this country are not exhaustive, because the hon. Gentleman's question related to guns.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what amount of the war material this country has sup plied to the South African Republics

What was the amount of ammunition and guns supplied by Birmingham firms?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the deep interest taken in the Chinese crisis, he will, in conjunction with the Postmaster General, issue a Sunday telegram to the post offices throughout the United Kingdom when there is important news to communicate.

Such an arrangement as the hon. and gallant Member suggests shall be made.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the rank of the two officers who are qualified interpreters in Russian, of the throe officers who are so qualified in French, and of the two officers qualified in German languages, now serving on Her Majesty's ships on the China Station.

The rank of the officers qualified as interpreters is as follows:—In Russian, Lieutenant, R.N.; in French, Captain, Commander, Lieutenant, R.N.; in German, Surgeon, Staff Paymaster, R.N.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the correspondence between Sir William Butler and the War Office and the Colonial Office, and the correspondence between Sir William Butler and Sir Alfred Milner before Sir William Butler's recall from the Cape command, will be included in the documents relating to public affairs in South Africa, whose publication has been promised within a fortnight from 5th July.

If the hon. Gentleman will look back at some full answers I gave earlier in the session, I think he will be satisfied without pressing the question further.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect what answer he gave? That it was in the discretion of—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether in the publication of despatches and documents relating to political affairs in South Africa which will, according to his promise, be published within a fortnight from 5th July, will be included the minute or despatch or communication sent home by Sir William Butler, when commander of the forces in South Africa and acting governor of Cape Colony, in which he set forth his views of the military situation, of the forces required to be employed in the event of the outbreak of hostilities with the South African Republics, and the disposition which should be given to those forces.

This question is, of course, covered by the answer I have just given.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state why the account, which for some time has been in the possession of the War Office, giving the details of the surrender of the 4th Battalion of the Derbyshire Regiment, has been withheld from publication. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that this is covered also by the answer he refers to?

Not by that answer, but by another answer I have given. I have given a general reply on the subject of despatches, and that general reply covers particular cases.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a particular reply in reference to this?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the correspondence which passed between the hon. Member for Ilkcston and the War Department in relation to medical and sanitary arrangements at the Cape.

There is no objection to laying the correspondence on the Table.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will grant the Return relating to Natal Correspondence, which is on the Notice Paper to-day.

There is no objection to the Return if the hon. Gentleman asks for it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether two persons, named Vander Valt and Boogsen, were recently tried and convicted by a court-martial at Colesberg, in Cape Colony. Could he state to the House with what offence or offences they were charged, what were the sentences imposed by the court-martial, and did the Attorney General of the colony report against the justice of the conviction in either or both of these cases. Have the sentences been since reduced, and by what authority and on what grounds; and can he say whether military tribunals are still taking cognisance of offences against the criminal law of the colony, notwithstanding that the ordinary courts of the country are and have for some time been open.

The question seems to be addressed to me under a misapprehension that there has been a difference between the civil legal authority and the military. I am not aware that there has been any such difference. The question therefore concerns the proceedings of the military authorities in a district in which, with the concurrence of the Civil Government, martial law has been proclaimed, and would more properly have been addressed to the Under Secretary of State for War. But as a matter of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, I have ascertained that the two persons named were tried for rebellion and sentenced to five and ten years penal servitude respectively. I understand that the sentences were afterwards reduced on the recommendation of the Deputy Judge Advocate General, and, I assume, by the military authorities. As regards the fourth question, I am informed that military tribunals are not now taking cognisance of offences against the criminal law of the colony.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will consider the expediency of arranging for the publication of a list of the names of the officers and men recently prisoners of war at Pretoria, indicating those who have rejoined their regiments and those who are in hospital; and can he arrange to publish a list of officers and men still in the hands of the Boers, giving such information as to their probable whereabouts as may be available.

Most of the names of the officers and men released at Pretoria have been published, and the remainder will be published as soon as they reach the War Office; the further information alluded to by the hon. Member has not been supplied, and would be very difficult to obtain. Lists of some of the officers and men still in the hands of the Boers, and all available information, have been published. Endeavours are being made to secure the names of the rest.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether since the gentleman filling for the time being the post of Attorney General at the Cape is, under the provisions of the Cape Constitution Act, a member of the Cape Cabinet, the Governor of the Cape is responsible to the Colonial Office for the rejection of advice offered to him on matters of law by a minister responsible for that advice to the Cape Legislature.

This is a hypothetical question, and the supposititious fact on which it is based has not, so far as I am aware, arisen.

Has not Sir Alfred Milnor overruled the decision of the Cape Attorney General?

I have just said that I am not aware that that has happened.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the annexation of the Transvaal in 1877 a proclamation was issued by Sir Theophilus Shepstone stating that all claims against the late Government would be acknowledged by Her Majesty's Government, and paid out; whether he is aware that among those whose claims were to be so recognised there wore a number of volunteers who formed a border force for the protection of the frontier against the raids of the Chief Sekukuni, and who were promised, in lieu of the unpaid balance of their allowances, a farm of 4,000 morgen north and north-west of the Zulu mountains; and whether he will take the matter now into his consideration with the view of giving effect to the pledges conveyed by the proclamation, as the claims in question have never been granted.

The proclamation of Sir Theophilus Shepstone of 12th April, 1877, contained a general promise of this character. I regret that I have not been able yet to trace the detailed records of those claims, and I am not therefore in a position to express any opinion. The claims were regarded as settled in 1877, according to the Report published in Parliamentary Paper C. 2144, page 378.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has received a letter from the Enniskillen Board of Guardians complaining that Private R. Weir, of the 27th Inniskilling Fusiliers, who was engaged at the front in South Africa, has been sent home disabled for life, and is now in Enniskillen workhouse and chargeable on the rates for the rest of his life: and whether it is proposed to give Weir a pension to enable him to support himself.

TO ask the Under Secretary of State for War what explanation has the War Office to give for the removal from Netley Hospital of Private Robert Weir, of the 27th Inniskilling Fusiliers, who had served with his regiment all through the Natal campaign, and was sent home in an enfeebled state of body and mind, and of the deportation of this soldier, who is without a pension and has received no gratuity, to the workhouse at Enniskillen, where he is at present a pauper inmate.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the War Office has been called to the transfer of Private R. Weir, 27th Inniskilling Fusiliers, wounded in South Africa, from Netley Hospital to the Enniskillen work house; whether this has been done under the order or regulations of the War Office; and whether the War Office will take steps to make a more suitable provision for wounded and disabled soldiers, either by special vote for this purpose or by arranging for the application of part of the Mansion House or other funds for the relief of such cases.

Before the hon. Gentleman replies may I ask his attention to the practical suggestions in my question?

Perhaps the most convenient course will be to answer the three questions together.

No. I will ask the hon. Gentleman to answer mine separately.

The man referred to is evidently Private Robert Weir, of the Royal Irish Fusiliers, who was invalided home from South Africa as a lunatic. It was certified by the medical officer who examined Weir that his madness was not the result of Army service; and therefore under the regulations no pension can be given to him. His friends were unable to receive him, and in accordance with the Army Act he was handed over to his parish authorities, who are alone responsible for his treatment.

How long was this private in the Army? Did the doctor pass him as sane when he enlisted?

If the hon. Member means did the doctor pass him as sane on coming back from the Reserve, it is, I confess, a matter which requires investigation. Lunacy, I may point out, is occasionally intermittent, and a man may be subject to recurring fits at any moment.

Could not a sum of money be voted from public funds for the relief of this man?

I do not think the hon. Member quite sees the point. When a man, whether or not he be in the Army, is a lunatic he has to be put under proper supervision in some asylum. If that man is in possession of a pension from the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners, a portion is diverted to the funds of the asylum. When he has none, of course there is no money to go to the asylum.

Cannot the ratepayers of this particular union be relieved of the liability for his support by a grant of money from one of the many War Funds?

That depends upon whether the lunacy is attributable to service in the Army. If it is decided it is not, as in this case, then no pension can be granted, and the charge falls on the parish.

Is it a fact that this man was wounded in the war, and is at present a pauper inmate of a lunatic asylum?

Was he medically inspected before he embarked for South Africa?

Yes, Sir. I may add that he was not wounded. The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to that.

Has the War Office not received a protest from the board of guardians in reference to this man being a charge on the rates?

The hon. Member is proceeding to argue the question, which, as it appears on the Paper, has been fully answered. If he wishes to put a further question he can give notice of it.

The first paragraph of my question has never been answered.

I am not aware that a protest has been received; but it would not touch the facts of the question. The Chelsea Hospital Commissioners have power to give money in certain cases, but this is not one which comes within the category of cases to which they are permitted to vote money.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that medals have recently been given to the survivors of those who took part in the expedition against raiders into Canada in 1866, also in the Red River Expedition in 1870, as well as those of more recent date, such as the late expedition in Ashanti, the Government will consider the claim of those troops who took part in the expedition in 1884–5 against the Boers who raided from the Transvaal into Bechuanaland, for which successful operations, in which many South African troops were engaged, no medal or decoration or special recognition of their services was given to the troops.

The operations, though successful, were not of a nature to justify the grant of a medal or decoration.

May I ask the reason?

Shortly, it is that there were no really active operations.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether an adjutant of a metropolitan corps has been appointed Deputy Assistant Adjutant General for Volunteers at the War Office; if so, what are his special qualifications for the appointment; and what has been his connection, if any, with provincial Volunteer corps, which form a large proportion of the Volunteer force.

Captain Engle-heart, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, has been selected for this appointment. Past service as an adjutant of an important Volunteer corps was regarded as a necessary qualification for the position. The officer selected has filled that position for four years in one of the largest and most efficient corps in the metropolis. The Secretary of State has full confidence in the selection he has been advised to make. I may add that Volunteer officers of all corps have free access to General Turner, the Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces at the War Office.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that after certain contractors' names had been struck off the list, commanding officers of Militia and Volunteer regiments have written letters to these contractors stating that they would continue to employ them, the contractors, in supplying clothing; and whether immediate and suitable action will be taken by the Government in such cases.

The Secretary of State has no knowledge of any such letters as are referred to in the question. Militia clothing is supplied from the Government stores. Officers commanding Volunteer regiments have been made aware that the name of Messrs. Samuel Brothers has been struck off the list of firms with whom the War Office is willing to have dealings. The responsibility of obtaining proper and serviceable supplies, however, is with those officers, and the Secretary of State would not willingly interfere with their discretion in the matter. At the same time he does not consider it advisable that supplies for Volunteers should be obtained from firms who have been removed by the War Office from its list of contractors on account of the very bad quality of the articles delivered.

Am I to understand that the Secretary of State does not intend to give effect to his own decision, and that these commanding officers are to be allowed to employ these contractors?

I have stated that the discretion in the matter is with the commanding officers, and the Secretary of State will not willingly interfere with their discretion.

Will he do so unwillingly?

We trust that the commanding officers will observe the opinion which is expressed in answer to the question.

Will the list be published of those commanding officers who disregard it?

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Messrs. Samuel mentioned are the firm who sold boots made out of newspapers?

Is it not a fact that Lord Wolseley has been handed a list of letters from commanding officers declining to obey the War Office?

May I put a relevant question? May I ask whether it is not the fact that these commanding officers expend public money, and has not the War Office control over them?

The hon. Member is arguing on the answer. The question on the Paper has been fully answered.

I bog to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the strong local feeling recently expressed in favour of the establishment of a naval training ship at a suitable station upon the west coast of Scotland, and to the fact that the nearest available training ship station at present is Queensferry, he will consider whether he can spare at least some inexpensive vessel which would serve as a training ship for youths of hardy physique and inured by the habits and circumstances of their lives to seafaring.

I can only repeat what I have frequently said in reply to the questions of hon. Members, that there is no intention of adding to the number of training ships for the Navy. The present number is such as the Naval Service requires. There is no such thing as an inexpensive training ship. It involves considerable establishment expenses both ashore and afloat.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Criminal Evidence Act has been applied to courts-martial under the Naval Discipline Act, so as to enable sailors charged with offences to give evidence in their own defence, or whether it is intended to withhold from Her Majesty's Naval Forces this privilege which has been extended to civilians and soldiers since 1898.

There has been a great objection to change well-established custom in the proceedings of Naval courts-martial. No steps have yet been taken to apply to them the rules of the Criminal Evidence Act, but I will consult my Naval colleagues on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now able to say if a higher standard of linoleum will be adopted for use on Her Majesty's fleet; and whether precautions will be taken to ensure that in each case the quality supplied is equal to the sample submitted.

No complaints have recently been received as to the description or quality of linoleum received, and there is no reason to suppose that the quality supplied is not equal to the sample submitted. I may add that orders have been given for trials to be made of a thicker quality of linoleum, and it will depend on the results whether or no such a quality should be adopted.

I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that £125,000 has been granted by Parliament in aid of expenses for the British section of the Paris Exhibition, is he aware that the Manor House, in the Rue des Nations of the Exhibition, is only open for a few hours during the day, and that visitors have to be provided with a special ticket; and will be use his influence with the authorities, so that the general public may be able to obtain ready access to the Manor House during the hours similar buildings are open to the public.

The matter is not one that falls within the province of the Foreign Office. Questions of organisation in connection with the British section of the Paris Exhibition are under the control of Colonel Jekyll, C.M.G., the secretary to the Royal Commission.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent report from Germany showing how the law against gambling in futures in grain has operated, the Board of Trade will consider the advisability of introducing similar regulations regarding options in food supplies in this country.

There is no intention to introduce legislation of the kind referred to in the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, is he aware that there has been a scarcity of sprats in the seas adjacent to the United Kingdom during the last ten years, and can he state what is the cause of this scarcity; and if not, will he take steps to inquire into its cause, or will he, without inquiry, introduce legislation tending to bring the scarcity to an end.

The returns of the quantities of sprats taken from year to year show great fluctuations, owing to many causes, including the state of the weather, but the returns before 1890 are not sufficiently complete to enable me to compare the last ten years with the previous ten years. The average annual quantity for the five years ending 1899 is in excess of that for the previous five years. I have no reason to think that an inquiry would lead to any useful result or that legislation on the subject is desirable.

Will the right hon. Gentleman refer this matter to the Undersized Fish Bill Committee?

The right hon. Gentleman has failed to answer the part of my question as to the came of the scarcity. He must know what the cause is.

The hon. Member is quite as likely to know as I am.

Is it due to the fact that large quantities of "sardines" are consumed in this country?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps can be taken in reference to a case heard in the Queen's Bench Division at Dublin, last week, in which it was held that a woman sock-maker was not a workman under the Truck Act; whether, by this judgment, the view uniformly taken by the Home Office is reversed; whether the judgment will have effect in England or Scotland; and if he will consider whether the Irish decision goes beyond the Truck Acts, and affects the definitions in the Factory and Workshop Acts.

The Court of Queen's Bench Division in Ireland, I am informed, decided the case referred to on the ground that knitting was not manual labour within the meaning of the Truck Act of 1887. If this is so, it is contrary to the view upon which the Truck Acts have hitherto been administered, without any similar question, so far as I know, being raised in any court. It would also have a very serious effect upon the administration of the Factory Acts in which similar language is used. I regard the question as so serious that I propose to consult at once with the Law Officers of the Crown as to the effect and extent of the decision of the Irish Court, and as to the proper steps to be taken to secure the effective administration of the Truck and Factory Acts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, by direction of the Home Office, female factory inspectors have been sent to Donegal on several occasions, and have instituted legal proceedings against employers in poor districts, where, until local industry was started, emigration was the only resource of the population; what has been the result of those prosecutions, and what expense have they and the visits of the female inspectors entailed on the State; is he aware that, after the dismissal of a recent prosecution under the Truck Act, the Government obtained a mandamus to compel the magistrates to state a case, and the resident magistrate, Mr. Gaussen, B.L., put it in his pocket and took it away to a town thirty miles off, and wrote from thence a letter refusing to return the writ to his brother justices; is he aware that when the majority of the magistrates were thus disabled from complying with the Queen's writ, the Crown solicitor, without informing the High Court of the facts, applied for a writ of attachment against the magistrates for alleged contempt; and that the magistrates were obliged to show cause at great expense to themselves, two of them, Major Johnson and Mr. Boyle, proceeding to Dublin to instruct counsel; is he aware that the Lord Chief Baron, in delivering the unanimous judgment of the Queen's Bench refusing the attachment, declared that he was shocked at the conduct of the Crown solicitor, and expressed regret that the law did not allow costs to be awarded to the justices; and that the High Court subsequently decided that the majority of the magistrates were right in dismissing the prosecution under the Truck Act, and awarded costs to the defendant therein; and will the justices, whose personal conduct and legal decision have now been vindicated, be recouped their outlay in resisting the Conditional Order for attachment.

The hon. Member's question contains suggestions which I cannot accept as an accurate representation of the facts of the cases referred to. But it is true that, owing to the existence of grave abuses on the part of employers in some parts of Donegal, it has been found necessary to take proceedings for the protection of the women who work for them. In some of the cases taken, convictions were obtained and fines imposed. The expenses involved are part of the ordinary cost of the Factory Department. In the case particularly referred to by the hon. Member, the Court did not decide that the magistrates were right in their reasons for dismissing the case; in fact, they said they were wrong, and the ground upon which the Court dismissed the appeal was an entirely different point of law, which I have already explained in the answer which I have just given to the right hon. Baronet. As to that part of the question which relates to the action of the resident magistrate, the Crown solicitor, and the justices, I must refer the hon. Member to the Irish Government.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will state the nature of the buildings which it is proposed to erect on the open space to the west of the Law Courts; and whether, considering the aesthetic and hygienic value of this open space, which was laid out at the expense of the late Mr. William Henry Smith, any scheme to erect the proposed building; elsewhere could be favourably considered.

The buildings to be erected on the vacant site to the west of the Law Courts are four new courts and their adjuncts, which will form part of the Royal Courts of Justice, and must be in structural communication therewith. The extension will occupy about one-sixth of the area of vacant ground which was temporarily laid out as a garden by the generosity of Mr. Smith, but was acquired and always intended for an extension of the courts when needed. As the essential object in view in the erection of the Royal Courts of Justice was the concentration of the legal business of the country, the Government could not view favourably my noble friend's suggestion to erect additional courts elsewhere.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the negotiations that have been proceeding between the Post Office and the authorities of High Wycombe regarding the erection of the new post office in a convenient position; and whether, seeing that the said authorities agreed to relieve the Post Office of the selected site called Flint House, and subsequently agreed to further conditions required by the Post Office which involved a local contribution of upwards of £1,200, the Postmaster General will reconsider the proposal now made to the High Wycombe authorities, calling on them to obtain the extension of the lease of the present premises, and will proceed with the erection of the new post office on the site chosen without delay.

The attention of the Postmaster General has been called to the representations made by those who desire that the new post office in High Wycombe should be placed not at Flint House as authorised, but in a new street which it is proposed to form; but after giving the fullest consideration to the matter, he has decided to proceed with the Flint House scheme. Apart from other considerations it now appears that while the new street cannot be formed for some time, the tenancy of the present post office, which expires at Michaelmas next, cannot be extended, as it was understood it would be.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what arrangements are to be made for the study of the Irish language in Irish National schools, and especially in the Irish-speaking districts.

At the same time, may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in certain districts in Ireland owing to the discrepancies which exist in results in National schools between the years 1898 and 1899; and whether, owing to the alleged grievances of National school teachers, he will consider the advisability of consulting with them as to the fairness of taking an average, as a means of ascertaining their future salaries, of the years 1897, 1898, and 1899?

This question has been referred to the Board of National Education, and I am informed that a statement to enable me to reply to it cannot be sent until after their meeting on the 17th instant.

Will the teachers be consulted before the Board of Education come to a decision on the subject?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will make inquiry as to the possibility of procuring for the National Museum in Dublin the Mias Tiernan, now in the custody of the Accountant General for Ireland in the matter of the Knox Estate.

I understand that the historical relic referred to in the question is claimed by the executors of the late Dr. Knox, whose estate is being administered in the Chancery Division of the High Court, to be part of the assets of the testator. The relic is in the custody of the Accountant General pursuant to an order of the judge, who has not, so far, made an order for its sale.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what stops the Government intend to take with reference to the increases in the salaries of certain county council officials in Ireland made by the Irish Local Government Board, and which several Irish county councils have refused to pay on the grounds that the salaries as increased are too high and that the views of the county councils in relation to these increases have not been properly consulted by the Local Government Board; and will he also say what steps are to be taken with reference to the qualifications for deputy county surveyor, fixed by the Local Government Board, to which exception has been taken.

In every case where the county council decline to pay their existing officers the amount of the allowance determined by the Local Government Board under Section 115, Sub-section 18, of the Act of 1898 for their increased work under the Act, the Board intend to make special Orders under seal in order to enable these officers to recover in a court of law the sums to which they are entitled under the provisions of the Act referred to. It is quite incorrect to say that the councils were not consulted with reference to these increases, and this assertion is chiefly put forward by certain councils who took no steps to come to an agree-merit with their officers on receipt of the Board's letters inviting their views. I may observe that the salaries for new assistant surveyors which have been fixed by the councils themselves since the passing of the Act have, in many cases, been equal to the scale fixed by the Board. The qualifications fixed for assistant surveyors have, I understand, been generally approved of. So far only one objection has been received. One examination has been held, at which nine elected assistant surveyors were examined, with the result that seven were certified to possess the prescribed qualifications and two were rejected.

In case of any difference of opinion with regard to salaries between a county council and the Irish Local Government Board, has the latter an absolute right to fix the salary?

It is not merely a right. The duty is imposed on them.

Can they fix any salary they please?

This matter was discussed for several hours on the Vote for the Local Government Board, and I really cannot re-open it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have addressed a letter to the South Tipperary County Council stating that they had received a letter from Mr. Higgins, solicitor for Mr. Haskett, the late surveyor of South Tipperary, stating that his client had been obliged to take proceedings against the council for the balance of his salary, at the rate of £800 a year, and that, to enable Mr. Haskett to succeed in his action they (the Local Government Board) had issued a special sealed Order; and will he state who fixed Mr. Haskett's salary at £800 a year; was this salary approved of by the council; and what is the nature of the special sealed Order issued in support of Mr. Haskett's action.

Mr. Haskett is still the county surveyor. The county council proposed to grant Mr. Haskett an addition of £100 a year to his salary of £600, in respect of his increase of duties. The county surveyor, not agreeing to this proposal, appealed under Section 115, Sub-section 18, of the Act of 1898 to the Local Government Board to determine the increase to be allowed to him, claiming an addition of £450 a year to his salary. After careful consideration of the additional duties to be performed by him, and of the proposal of the county council, the Board decided that the county surveyor was entitled to an addition of £200 a year to his salary, making a total salary of £800 a year, and they informed the council accordingly. The council, however, declined to pay more than the sum proposed by them, namely, £700 a year, and the county surveyor applied to the Board, through his solicitor, for an Order under seal to enable him to recover the amount due to him according to the Board's decision, and the Board have complied with his request.

What was the nature of the special sealed Order? Will the right hon. Gentleman lay a copy of it on the Table?

I do not know that there is any objection to doing it. It is a simple Order fixing the salary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a Return giving the names of persons convicted, since the Local Government (Ireland) Act came into operation, of having acted or voted as members of county or district councils or boards of guardians when disqualified under the orders issued by virtue of the Act, showing the names of the prosecutors, the number of offences alleged against each defendant in the summons, the amount of the fine or penalty inflicted for each offence, and the date of the conviction by the court of summary jurisdiction.

There is no official record of the prosecutions referred to, but the information could, of course, be obtained from the clerks of petty sessions. If the hon. Member so desires I will have the Return put in hand, and will forward it to him when completed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a sworn statement from Downpatrick supporting the allegations made, in the letter of the Deputy District Master of Lecale, concerning the action of the police on the 5th June; and what action is proposed to be taken to ascertain the circumstances of the case.

I have received the document referred to in the first paragraph. It has been brought under the notice of the Constabulary authorities, who adhere to the accuracy of the statement already made by me that the Orangemen have not been in the habit of returning through Irish Street. I may mention that the county inspector convened a meeting of the magistrates to discuss the propriety of allowing processionists to march through the street in question, and they are unanimously of opinion that permission should not be given. I have already stated that prosecutions are pending against a number of persons for assaults on the police arising out of the disturbances in Downpatrick on the 5th June, and that all the facts will doubtless be fully investigated by the magistrates.

Who and what is the Deputy District Master of Lecale? Is it an official title?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the degree of relationship laid down by the Code within which members of the Royal Irish Constabulary may not perform duties in towns or districts where they have friends residing; and will cases brought to his notice where the provision of the Code has been ignored have his attention.

There is no fixed rule laid down in the Code with respect to the degree of relationship. In answer to the second paragraph, if any specific case is brought under notice it will be carefully inquired into by the Inspector General.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the desirability of inserting a clause in the Local Government (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill with a view to empower councils to undertake the maintenance and repair of roads by means of direct labour, as provided in the English Local Government Act.

The object of the hon. and gallant Member could be accomplished, if thought desirable, by means of a Provisional Order under the Local Government (Ireland) (No. 2) Bill now awaiting Second Reading.

Will steps be taken in that direction?

I am not prepared to answer that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state the amount of money which has been spent by the Congested Districts Board in the county of Kerry for each of the years 1897, 1898, and 1899, and also say in what particular districts of Kerry during the years mentioned the money was spent, giving the amount so spent for each district or place in the county.

The Congested Districts Board have no record showing the total sum expended in each of the congested districts. The preparation of such a Return would entail a considerable amount of trouble, and would not, in my opinion, serve any useful purpose. The annual reports presented to Parliament give a great deal of information as to the several localities where the Board's operations have been carried on during the period referred to.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the gross amount for each of the years named?

I sec no object to be served by doing so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast Water Commissioners obtained powers from Parliament to take certain lands in the townland of Oldpark, parish of Shankhill, county Antrim, and served the requisite notices on owners and occupiers of land in 1896, and that Mr. Ryan, the arbitrator, held his first court in 1899, but has not yet made his final award; whether he is aware that Mr. Ryan in one case awarded £2,000 more than the owner of the property claimed, and that in other cases his awards were below the value of the lands as sworn to by the Water Commissioners' valuers; and whether he is aware that in consequence of the delay in the publication of the final awards the owners and occupiers have suffered loss, as they have been obliged to pay the rent of their holdings, and debarred from developing or disposing of their lands, and can he state how the appointment of Mr. Ryan as arbitrator was made, and when the final award will be delivered.

I understand the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Board of Public Works have no knowledge as to the matters alleged in the second paragraph. If the parties are aggrieved at the award of the arbitrator it is open to them to enter a traverse at the assizes. Nor have the Board any information as to the matters referred to in the first part of the last paragraph. The appointment of the arbitrator was made by the Board of Public Works. In the case under the Belfast Water Act of 1897, in which the arbitrator was appointed in February, 1899, it is understood that his final award is in print, and will be lodged in the course of a week or two. In the case under the Act of last year it cannot be stated when the final award will be delivered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at a recent Petty Sessions Court in Monaghan two men named M'Guigan and Hughes were convicted of a police offence and sent to Armagh Gaol for nine months and five months respectively, and that several magistrates, not in the habit of attending the Monaghan Petty Sessions, appeared on the bench on this occasion and adjudicated upon the trial of these men; is he aware that, after being placed in Armagh Gaol, M'Guigan and Hughes lodged an appeal against their conviction and sentence, and gave the necessary bail for its prosecution; and that when they appeared at the Monaghan Quarter Sessions, the County Court Judge, at the instance of the Crown, refused them the right of appeal, and sent them back to gaol to complete their sentence; and will he either secure that these men be granted the right of appeal, or take steps to have their punishment reduced.

I am informed that all the justices who attended the Monaghan Petty Sessions at which the convictions mentioned in the first paragraph were obtained, are in the habit of attending the sessions, except one gentleman who was present for the first time since his appointment to the Commission a few days previously. Under the Petty Sessions Act, an appellant is bound to give seven days notice of his intention to appeal, but this the defendants in the present case failed to do, giving only three days notice, and the Judge held that the appeal was not properly before him. If the defendants feel aggrieved by the decision of the Judge, it is open to them to have that decision reviewed by the Court of Queen's Bench.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now make a statement of the intentions of the Government as to the legislative business of the remaining weeks of the session; and, if not, when he will be in a position to make such a statement.

I think it would be premature now to answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman. If he will kindly put it down for Monday next, I hope then to be able to make a full statement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman meantime take into consideration the view expressed in the House of Lords on Friday as to the desirability of withdrawing the Tithe Rent-charge (Ireland) Bill, and devoting the time to some more useful purpose?

What Estimates will be taken on Friday next, and what will be the course of business till then?

I suppose we shall finish the Committee stage of the Irish Tithes Bill to-night, and I shall then propose to proceed with the Agricultural Holdings Bill of my right hon. friend. I hope to take the Navy Estimates on Friday. The First Lord of the Admiralty, however, informs me that it is very important that a Memorandum which he has prepared on the subject of water-tube boilers should be in the hands of Members before those Estimates can well be discussed, and there appears to be a slight doubt as to whether it will be possible to circulate that Memorandum in time. But, if possible, it is most desirable to take the Navy Estimates on Friday.

If you do not, what Vote will be taken?

Failing the Navy Estimates, the Home Office Vote will be taken.

Up to what hour tomorrow morning does the right hon. Gentleman propose to keep the House sitting?

That depends on hon. Gentlemen opposite.