said of course he offered no opposition whatever to the Bill, but he wanted to know what was the position taken by the Government in regard to the recommendations made by the Joint Committee. The Amendments on the Paper in his name were all agreed Amendments. They were very numerous, but they were agreed to between the Dublin Corporation and the Dublin County Council and the other local authorities, and they were entirely non-contentious. One of the Amendments was not to be moved, because it was objected to by the county council. He had now to express the hope that the chairman of the Joint Committee, Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth, would be good enough to say a few words as to the position taken up by himself and the other members of the Joint Committee as to what should be done next session. There was a strong desire that an equalisation of rates should be made extending over the entire townships. He congratulated the chairman of the Committee on having proposed the recommendations with the unanimous assent both of the Members of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords forming the Committee. He thought he had done them very considerable service, but at the same time he did not say that Dublin did not wish for considerably more than they had got. Still they would take what they could get. He was sure that Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth would back up his recommendations, and he trusted that the Government would be induced next session to bring in a Bill as suggested. This was not the first time that local government matters had been dealt with in public Bills.

Perhaps after the appeal made to me by my hon. and learned friend I shall be expected by the House to say a word or two, having had the honour to be chairman of the Joint Committee which for twenty-five days sat to consider this very contentious matter. We were practically unanimous, although we were unable to come to a unanimous view on some important points. Having failed to arrive at a unanimous view on those points, we did our best to arrange a compromise which, as we think, will carry out the main objects of the Bill, which are acceptable to us all. I am happy to say that in that we were successful. My hon. and learned friend has alluded to two points on which he is anxious to know what line the Government are likely to take. For that, of course, I cannot speak with any authority, but I should like to impress upon the Government publicly what I have done privately—namely, the justice and importance, and I might even say the necessity, of spreading the burden which now falls so heavily upon Central Dublin, upon the poorest of the poor, over the whole of Dublin, so that the richest townships, the residential parts of the town, should con tribute their proportion towards the burden of taxation. I attach great importance to that. I do not think the strong sense of injustice now existing among the inhabitants of the city of Dublin can possibly be overcome unless the Government apply the same principle to Dublin as has been applied with so much success to London in the shape of the equalisation of rates. If Belgravia did not contribute as much as it does to the rates which fall so heavily upon the East End of London there would be a great scandal. Now that has been remedied in London, and I hope Her Majesty's Government may feel the absolute necessity of applying the same principle as has been applied with so much success in London to lighten the burden falling upon the poorer parts of Dublin. There is another point on which the Committee made a unanimous recommendation, which I hope the Government will consider. We were convinced that it would be absolutely absurd if the two drainage systems were to continue to exist side by side over the drainage area in Dublin, one dealing with untreated sewage falling into the bay within the city walls, while the system now being carried out by the Corporation of Dublin treats its sewage in a scientific way, which results in a comparatively pure effluent being poured out at the very point where Rathmines and Pembroke are discharging the impure effluent. There would be a great advantage in having a joint drainage board to manage the whole business of drainage, and the advantage would not be confined to having the drainage treated alike over both parts. There would be an immense advantage in having the necessary burden spread over the rich districts as well as the poor. It would be a further advantage, in the opinion of the Committee, if the three governing bodies —Pembroke, Rathmines, and Dublin— were to work on the same board, as they might learn to respect each other in managing that great business together. I have ventured to press upon the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland the views of the Committee on this subject. I understand the position they take up is this—they assure those who are interested in the subject, as all members of the Committee necessarily are after their laborious inquiry, that they will give the most careful consideration to the Committee's suggestions, and that they will forward their answer to the corporation before the month of November, in order that the corporation may be free to take such steps as it feels it its duty to do, supposing the Government do not deal with the question. I earnestly hope that, in view of this special inquiry by a Joint Committee of both Houses, and of the unanimous recommendations to which they have been able to agree, Her Majesty's Government will take up those points. If the Committee's recommendations are carried out, we shall consider that very good fruit has resulted from our labours.

said that as a member of the Joint Committee he would be sorry if the House passed the Third Reading without an expression of opinion from some members of the Committee who sat on the Ministerial side of the House in support of the appeal made by the right hon. Baronet. He certainly was as much in earnest as the right hon. Baronet in hoping that the Government would give effect as soon as possible to the unanimous Report of the Joint Committee. He attached very great importance to the practical suggestions it contained. He was perfectly certain that the constitution of a joint drainage board would be fruitful of good results. It was rather interesting to remember that the Central Government of London really owed its existence to the institution of a drainage board for this great metropolis. While he personally felt unable to bring Rathmines and Pembroke, against their obvious desire, into the corporation, he did earnestly hope that the Government would give effect to the recommendations of the Committee.

said he should like to associate himself, also as a supporter of the Government, with the appeal made by the chairman of the Joint Committee and by his hon. friend the Member for Chelsea. He held the strongest possible opinion that this question should be settled on the lines they had recommended, and he earnestly hoped, therefore, that the Government would give serious attention to the recommendations of the Committee, and would carry them into law within a very short period of time.

thought it was very greatly to be regretted that Government were, apparently, not ready to respond to the strong and unanimous appeal of the members of the Committee. It was unique, in the case of private Bills, that the members of the Conservative party as well as those belonging to the Liberal party on the Committee should join together in an appeal to the Government to make a statement as to their intentions on that particular subject. He would like to ask the Chief Secretary whether the Government would bring in a public Bill to carry out the recommendations, because, unless they did so, or announced their intention of doing so, the Dublin Corporation would be compelled in its own defence to undertake the expense of again introducing a private Bill to annex these two townships. If the Government would give the pledge asked for it would be a saving of public time and money.

I am afraid I am not in a position to go beyond what has been already said by the First Lord of the Treasury— namely, that the matter will receive the careful consideration that a recommendation from so important a body as this Committee deserves. At the same time I must say, with reference to what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, that on Friday I saw the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who made a similar request, and I informed him that, although I could not give him an answer at the present time, I would give him an answer before the end of November as to the course the Government intend to adopt—in other words, that a definite answer should be given by the Government before it becomes necessary that the corporation should go to any expense in the matter of bringing in a new Bill to deal with the question next year. I hope the answer will be satisfactory.

said that, as the only other member of the Joint Committee in that House, he would like to support the appeal. Reference had been made to one side of the House and the other side of the House, but there had been no side of the House on the Committee. They were absolutely unanimous, not by any management, but by their own impulse. They believed that the state of the housing of the poor was a social danger in Dublin, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would give the matter his most careful attention.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is any news from China, and when the Papers relating to China will be laid on the Table.

We have no further news from China. There are many unconfirmed rumours from various quarters. But we have no official information. As regards China Papers, I hope they will be in the hands of Members on Monday next.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what arrangements have been made, or will be made, for the sick and wounded among the British troops in China.

With the troops proceeding from India, numbering about 9,600 officers and men, thirty-three sections of field hospitals are being sent (825 beds); and in reply to a query from me the Viceroy has telegraphed that "they are fully provided with medical stores, which need not be sent specially from England." In addition to these troops from India, about 1,400 British officers and men are proceeding from Hong Kong, South Africa, and England. I am asking Hong Kong what field hospitals were sent on with their contingent. Three hospital ships are being provided. One by the Government of India; one, the "Maine," by the generosity of the Atlantic Transport Company and the benevolent exertions of American ladies; and one by the munificence of his Highness the Maharaja Sindia of Gwalior. These will all be fully equipped in every respect. The "Maine" sailed from Southampton on the 11th instant. In addition to these vessels, General Gaselee has been authorised, should he deem it necessary, to convert three selected transports into hospital ships. As soon as he reaches Wei-hai-wei, General Gaselee will report fully on the suitability of that place for the location of his base hospitals.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the statement of Lord Justice Romer at the opening of the sitting of the South African Hospitals Commission, that he or his colleagues had been appointed by the warrant of the Prime Minister; and whether he can say what authority the Prime Minister has for the issue of such a warrant; and will he have-any objection to lay a copy of this document upon the Table.

The Commission to which the hon. Gentleman refers is now a Royal Commission. Any Secretary of State, as the hon. Member is aware, has power to appoint a Commission.

Was Lord Justice Romer correct or incorrect when he said that he was acting under the wan-ant of the Prime Minister?

He certainly received the warrant of the Prime Minister.

What was the authority of the Prime Minister to give that warrant?

He is Secretary of State.

It should have been a warrant from the Crown. I beg now to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state why the South-African Hospitals Commission was not created by statute and invested by statute with powers of examining witnesses on oath, enforcing the attendance of witnesses, and procuring documents.

There will be no difficulty in getting sufficient evidence. I certainly should not suggest the unusual course of making this a Statutory Commission until the necessity for it is demonstrated. Her Majesty gave her consent to this being a Royal Commission on the evening of Monday. I received it on Tuesday morning.

Was not the Pigott Commission a Statutory Commission?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Commission to-report on the arrangements for the care and treatment of the sick and wounded in South Africa has commenced its inquiry by virtue of a warrant issued by the Prime Minister; and, if so, what is the nature of this warrant, and by what authority, statutory or otherwise, has it been issued; whether it is intended to supersede this warrant by the issue of a Royal Commission; and, if so, when will the Royal Commission be issued; and, whether, seeing that compulsory powers to compel the attendance and examination of witnesses can be given by Parliament alone, he will at once introduce a Bill to confer these powers on the Commission, in accordance with numerous precedents.

I have answered this question already.

When was the Royal Warrant issued?

Her Majesty gave her assent on Monday evening, and I received it on Tuesday morning.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether martial law was proclaimed in the several districts of Cape Colony previously enumerated by the civil or the military authorities; whether it is still in force in these districts, and whether the proclamations were made by the civil or the military authorities.

Martial law was proclaimed by the Governor, and the proclamations were countersigned by the Prime Minister. Martial law has been withdrawn from three districts; from Cathcart and Queenstown by proclamation dated 16th July, and from Glen Grey by proclamation dated 23rd July.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to give the House any further information respecting the statement that civil surgeons employed in South Africa have been required by the Army Medical Department to sign a contract in which they undertook not to divulge in any way what their impressions might be as to hospital matters.

No, Sir. No reply has as yet been received from Lord Roberts.

When may we expect one?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that quantities of warm clothing, tobacco, and other comforts sent from time to time to the Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa have failed to reach their destination, notwithstanding every effort by the authorities in England; and that cablegrams have been sent from the Imperial Yeomanry offices in London and from the relatives of those engaged to the officer in charge of the base depot at Cape Town, and the reply prepaid, inquiring as to the non-delivery of parcels known to have arrived there, without receiving any reply; whether, in particular, a consignment of winter clothing and necessaries to the value of nearly £5,000, sent out to the Imperial Yeomanry at the front, was taken out to the Cape in the transport "Princess Royal," and actually brought back to London without having been landed; and, if so, will he state who is responsible, and will an inquiry be held.

An official complaint of the non-delivery of cases of stores despatched by the Imperial Yeomanry Committee has reached the War Office, and a full inquiry is being made at the various ports in South Africa. In the particular instance given the "British Princess" appears to be the transport intended; all the cases taken out in that vessel were landed.

; I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state whether, at Honnen Spruit, near Kroonstad, on the 25th of June last, 300 ex-prisoners of war, sent from Pretoria to hold the spruit in anticipation of an attack by De Wet, were armed with old Westley-Richards and Mauser rifles surrendered by the Boers; that the party had no Maxims, and was without either a surgeon or hospital staff; whether, seeing that there were thousands of Mausers with a large supply of ammunition in Pretoria at the time, will he state who was responsible for the despatch of this force in such a condition; and whether he has been informed that the ignorance of the enemy as to the weapons with the force, coupled with Colonel Bullock's prompt action, alone saved the force from annihilation; and also that the safety of the wounded was entirely due to the voluntary services and marked resourcefulness of Dr. Lenthal Cheatle, one of the consulting surgeons sent to the front, who was a chance passenger by the train that was attacked.

There is no information at the War Office respecting the matters alluded to in the question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if any further intelligence has been obtained relative to the sending Boer women living in the territory partially occupied by the English over into the Boer lines; and whether this action has the consent of Lord Roberts, and does it apply in its integrity to Boer women whose husbands are lighting for their country; and what is the number of women so treated, and by what method of conveyance are they forwarded.

No, Sir. No information has been received.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state what increases have been made in respect of bounty, pay, and allowances for Army Reservists, Army time-expired Reservists, Militia, and Militia Reservists, respectively, since the beginning of the war in South Africa.

The chief increases have been in the rate of separation allowance granted to men's families, in the bounties granted to Militiamen re- engaging, and in the amount of furlough with pay to be given on demobilisation. Two new grants, as distinguished from increases to old grants, have been made, viz., the special bounty of £22 to the Royal Reservists, and the grant of halfpay to the families of men leaving Government employment to serve with the Army or embodied Militia.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the inquest held on the 15th instant upon the body of Gunner John Addis, of the South Cork Artillery Militia, who was killed on Monday by the bursting of the breech of a 40-pounder gun at Camden Fort, county Cork; whether the gun was one of four that were injured before, whether it was an out-of-date pattern and had been condemned, and whether he can state what precautions are taken to test guns before artillery practice is entered upon; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, the War Office will duly compensate the relatives of the deceased gunner, and also the other gunners who were wounded, one of them dangerously, upon that occasion.

No further report has yet been received in regard to this matter.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I put this question down nine days since?

Yes. I have explained there has been one inquiry, and that the matter has been referred to experts on mechanical questions involved. One cannot hurry on such an inquiry.

I want to know if any compensation is to be given to the relatives of the deceased man.

There is no provision for the widows of men killed in the service beyond a year's pay. There is compensation payable for people incapacitated by accident.

Will the hon. Gentleman see that the recruiting sergeants make these facts known?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the approximate annual cost to the Imperial Exchequer of maintaining the military garrison in the Island of Jersey.

The annual cost of the troops stationed at Jersey is approximately £91,000. But the whole of this cannot be considered as an additional charge on the British Exchequer arising from the defence of Jersey. If the infantry battalion were withdrawn we should still have to pay for it, and, in addition, we should have to provide a barrack for it elsewhere.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any inquiry has been held with reference to the death of William Ward, a private in the Prince of Wales' Own Norfolk Artillery Militia, at Yarmouth, on the 18th instant, which death is alleged to have been the result of sunstroke incurred on the journey from Sheerness on the previous day; whether Ward wore the field service cap or some other head-dress on the journey; and whether the War Office has yet come to any decision with regard to the future head-covering for our troops.

This man was taken ill at 4.30 p.m. on the 17th instant while on a baggage guard at the South Town Railway Station, Yarmouth. The inquest verdict was "heat, overwork." On the journey he wore a helmet, but when working under cover at the station he wore a forage cap; he did not work in the sun at all. Inquiry will be made into the allegation of over-work. I have dealt with the question of a new headdress in debate.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any reply has yet been received at the War Office from Major-General Swaine, commanding the North-Western Division, with reference to the formation of a Volunter engineer corps whose headquarters would be within the Salford hundred of the county of Lancaster, and whether the offers of 1,000 men suitable for service in such a corps have been received; and whether he will undertake that the inefficiency of the arrangements in the formation of engineer Volunteer corps previously should not be used as an argument against the acceptance of so large a body of men under regulations made by the War Office sufficiently stringent to guarantee efficiency.

The recommendation from the General Officer commanding the North-Western District has now been received, and the Secretary of State for War is prepared to authorise the formation of a corps of four companies of Fortress Engineers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the new canteens at Aldershot, shared by two battalions, have not met with general approval, he will consider the advisability of doing at home what Lord Roberts, when Commander-in-Chief in India, succeeded in doing there— namely, in making the recreation rooms more attractive by having entertainments in them instead of in the canteen, thereby encouraging a higher type of entertainment, while diminishing the temptations to drink.

The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The present design of recreation room includes a stage where entertainments can be given.

My question is whether entertainments in canteens will be discouraged in favour of those in recreation rooms.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state what numbers, respectively, of fresh recruits and time-expired Army Reservists have joined the colours in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, for the six months ended 30th June last, and what were the numbers in the corresponding period of last year.

The figures are as follows:—

Recruits.	1899.	1900.
England and Wales	13,764	22,028
Scotland	1,747	2,860
Ireland	1,923	2,343
	17,434	27,231

Re-enlisted men.
England and Wales	19,576
Scotland	2,825
Ireland	2,133
	24,534

I may add that these figures do not give an accurate idea of nationality, as sometimes Irish regiments are quartered in England and English ones in Ireland.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Promotion Board is still existing under the same organisation as heretofore; whether the promotions of all officers are considered by this Board or only those of generals and field rank; whether it is now the practice of the War Office to communicate to officers the decisions at which the Board have arrived, and whether the decisions of the Board are ever re-considered; whether the fitness of each officer to command in the field is decided by this Board; and whether, after the Board have reported an officer as competent to command in the field, and when under the test of active service such officer is ascertained not to be so qualified, any re-consideration of his qualifications takes place, or whether his name is retained on the qualified list, and the opinion of the Board prevails over the test of actual experience in the field.

The Promotion Board exists under the same organisation as before. Its function is to report on colonels and lieutenant-colonels of three years standing as regards their fitness for promotion and employment. The decisions are communicated to the officers reported on when the Commander-in- Chief considers it desirable. It is open to the Board to reconsider its decisions. The fitness of each officer to command in the field is not decided by the Board, but by the Commander-in-Chief.

Am I to understand that in all cases the decisions of the Board are communicated to the officers or not?

That is a matter in the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief.

Can you give the names of the members of the Board?

I think there will be no objection if the hon. Member will put down a question.

They are very superior persons, I am sure.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are 120 joiners employed at the works of the firm of Sir W. G. Armstrong, Whit-worth and Co., Limited, Manchester, Government contractors for guns, ammunition, etc., and that these men are paid at the rate of 36s. per week of fifty-three hours, a few only being paid 37s. 6d. per week, though the rate of wages throughout this district is 9½d. per hour, or 39s. 2d. per week of 49½ hours; whether he is aware that a deputation from the workmen recently met the manager and pointed out to him that they were not receiving the average rate of wages paid in the district, and that the manager declined to pay the same wages as other employers were paying; and whether, seeing that this is a breach of the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons (February, 1891), he will cause an inquiry to be made with a view of giving effect to the terms of the said resolution.

I have caused inquiry to be made into the allegations contained in the question, and I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result when it is arrived at.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the promise to inquire into the case of James Quinlan, who mot with an accident when working in Woolwich Arsenal in 1881, will be redeemed; whether he is aware that Quinlan is at present in hospital, and has never recovered from the injuries indicted while at Government work; whether medical certificates proving the injuries Quinlan suffered from will be taken into account, and whether he can state why his pension has not been granted and his sick pay never given; and whether the case will be thoroughly inquired into and substantial compensation awarded Quinlan.

A promise was given to inquire further into the case, provided sufficient details were supplied to enable it to be identified. The honourable Member has not yet supplied the necessary information. If he will do so, I shall be happy to have the case thoroughly considered.

What information does the hon. Gentleman want?

The part of the factory in which he was employed, and the date on which he entered the service.

Why did not the hon. Gentleman tell me that three months ago?

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been recently directed to the condition of the laundry at the Duke of York's School; whether he is aware that the present building and arrangements have been described by the medical officer as old-fashioned, antiquated, insanitary, and unsatisfactory, and by a War Office Committee as deficient in labour-saving appliances, and causing an atmosphere unbearable when drying or folding clothes in wet weather; and whether he will endeavour to remedy a state of matters which has been further condemned by the Visiting Committee to the Board as not in a creditable state for a Government building.

Yes, Sir; I believe the facts to be as stated. We have hitherto been prevented from renewing the plant and from carrying out the improvements asked for by want of funds. The matter will be carefully considered with the Estimates for next year.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the report that during the naval manœuvres of the French fleet the submarine boats "Narval" and "Morse" went through their various trials without a hitch.

My attention is invariably called to anything interesting and instructive in connection with foreign fleets, and which may be regarded as authentic.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now inform the House of the result of the inquiry by the Ordnance Committee into the cause or origin of the explosion of cordite in the magazine of H.M.S. "Revenge," in the Mediterranean some months ago.

The cause or origin of the explosion of cordite in the magazine of H.M.S. "Revenge" is still under consideration by the Ordnance Committee. On May 9th that Committee made an interim Report, in which they summarised the facts of the case, and stated that they had asked for some further information and were awaiting this and the result of certain trials that were being carried out. From the evidence then before them they were unable to assign any cause for the said explosion.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether representation was made by their Lordships to the Treasury respecting the making provision of a suitable residence for the First Sea Lord in Queen Anne's Gate, so that he should be near the Admiralty for the better discharge of his official duties, especially in time of war; whether, on the expiration of the lease of the house recently occupied by the late First Sea Lord, the landlord was willing to renew the lease at an increased rental of only £100, and did the Admiralty submit the proposal for Treasury approval, and with what result; and, seeing that in the evidence before the Duke of Somerset's Committee of 1871, stress was laid on the importance of one or more Sea Lords residing in the vicinity of the Admiralty, whether further representations will be made to the First Commissioner of Works, and to the Treasury, as to the necessity of thus meeting the wishes of the Admiralty in this matter in the interests of the public service.

It is not the custom to communicate to the House Departmental correspondence of the kind referred to. I am in agreement with the Committee of 1871, as to the importance of the Senior Naval Lord residing in the vicinity of the Admiralty, and as I stated in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh, endeavours are being made to arrive at a settlement.

I beg to ask the First Lord of. the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to the constitution of the Committee on Boilers for Her Majesty's ships.

I am not yet in a position to state the constitution of the Committee in question. Many persons have to be communicated with. I may possibly be in a position to answer the question on Monday, but I cannot pledge myself to a day.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Shah of Persia, on his forthcoming visit to Her Majesty the Queen, is to witness a Naval Review, similar to that witnessed by his late predecessor; if so, will he state whether arrangements will be made, and vessels provided, for the Members of both Houses of Parliament to take part in the procession and review.

It is a misunderstanding that there is going to be a Naval Review. The Channel squadron and probably a certain number of other ships will be at Spit head for inspection by the Shah, but there will be no procession or review.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that nearly nine months have now elapsed since the training squadron was put out of commission and laid up on 31st October, 1899, the Admiralty have arrived at any conclusion as to re-commissioning the squadron; if not, can he state the cause of the delay in arriving at a conclusion, and when a decision is likely to be reached; does he, in the meantime, propose to take any measures for providing the Navy with any training squadron whatever; or does he contemplate the advisability of leaving the Navy without any training squadron of any description; has he received reports showing that the captains of the Fleet are generally convinced that the sailing training squadron produces officers with qualities of excellence that cannot be obtained by any other training; if not, will he, before deciding to abolish the training squadron, take measures to ascertain the opinion of the captains, and communicate the general results of his inquiry to the House; and will he, in any case, before deciding to abolish the squadron, give this House an opportunity of discussing the matter.

The Admiralty have not arrived at a final decision with regard to re-commissioning the masted training squadron. Their crews were turned over to a similar number of modern ships in which their general training is being continued. The sea training of the officers and men of the Navy is now being carried on in the sea-going ships in commission, over 200 in number. I have not received reports showing that the captains of the Fleet are generally convinced that the sailing training squadron produces officers with qualities not to be obtained by any other training; opinion in the service is much divided in this respect. It is open to the hon. Member to discuss the matter in question, should he wish to do so, when the Naval Estimates are before the House. No immediate decision is likely to be come to.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to abolish the squadron before the next Navy Estimates are introduced?

I cannot give any undertaking of that kind, but I think it is highly improbable that a decision will be come to before then.

Then will the right hon. Gentleman take measures to inform himself of the opinions of the captains, as suggested in the third part of the question?

It would be most unusual and undesirable for the Board of Admiralty, in forming their decisions, for which they alone are responsible, to refer to the service afloat in the way suggested. Their Lordships would, no doubt, to a great extent be guided by the opinions of experienced officers in the service, but it must remain with the Board—on whose shoulders responsibility rests, and who must necessarily have wider information as to the calls made on the Navy—to decide how far the opinions of those who have not the same information nor responsibilities can be accepted with regard to the requirements of the service.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the fact that the exports of coal from this country to France have increased during two years from 2,670,000 tons to 4,230,000 tons for a period of six months.

I beg at the same time to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the supplies of coal which are daily being shipped to foreign countries for storage for naval purposes; and whether, as the Government are bringing in a Bill to check the exportation of arms, ammunition, and military and naval stores from Great Britain, he will consider the desirability of extending the provisions of the Bill so as to include so important a munition of war as steam coal for foreign navies.

I believe the facts as regards the export of coal are as stated. The Bill which awaits Third Reading in the House of Lords does apply to coal as well as to other naval and military stores.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the methods of calculating the rates of interest (which were settled by the Bank of England), regarding the termination in 1884 and and 1886 of the Eastern Bengal and Scinde Railway contracts, have never been checked or investigated by the India Office; and, if no knowledge of this financial transaction is on record at the India Office, whether he will now seek to secure this information for official purposes, and also for publication.

In the cases to which the question refers the contracts prescribed that the rate of interest should be determined by the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. As I stated on Monday last,^* I have no knowledge of the manner in which they calculated the rate, and it would have been most improper for the Secretary of State for India to interfere. I do not propose to take any such steps as are suggested in the latter part of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the estimated annual cost to be incurred by the proposed addition of ninety-two European officers to Punjab and Bengal native regiments; and whether these officers will be always selected from the Indian Staff Corps, or from officers of British regiments serving their term in India, in some cases, appointed by patronage or by the Commander-in-Chief; and whether selections for these additional officers could be made from experienced native commissioned officers already borne on the strength of these Punjab and Bengal regiments.

The addition of ninety-two British officers to the Indian Establishment will involve a

^* See page 865 of this volume.

gradually increasing expenditure, which it is estimated will eventually amount, about twenty-five years hence, to about eight and a quarter lakhs of rupees per annum. These officers will form an increase to the Indian Staff Corps, which is recruited partly by appointments direct; from Sandhurst, and partly, under strictly defined regulations, from British regiments serving in India. The object of the measure is to increase the number of British officers in India, and this obviously would not be attained by selecting native commissioned officers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will give in separate figures the value of manufactured articles and raw materials respectively which are comprised in the general headings "Export of Merchandise," and "Imports of Merchandise," in the table relating to trade at page 9 of his Explanatory Memorandum for 1900–1901.

The hon. Member will find the details for which he asks at pages 24 and 25 of the Explanatory Memorandum.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the case of the "Kowshing" has ever been submitted to arbitration; if it has been so submitted, can he state with what result; and, if not, will he explain the cause of the delay.

The case has not yet been submitted to arbitration, and the delay has arisen in consequence of a difference of opinion between the Chinese Minister and Her Majesty's Government with regard to the terms of reference, which the Minister has been obliged to refer to his Government.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received information of the bacterial impurity of the vaccine lymph now or recently supplied for vaccination; whether he is aware that certain brands of lymph, including that supplied by the Local Government Board, have developed colonies of germs, rendering their use improper for vaccination; and whether he will prohibit the use of such lymphs in vaccination until freedom from contamination by them may be ensured.

In reply to the first paragraph, I have received no information as to the bacterial impurity of the vaccine lymph now or recently supplied by the Local Government Board which renders its use improper for vaccination. The answer to the second and third paragraphs is in the negative.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state when the Departmental Committee on the use of preservatives in food may be expected to report; whether he is aware that summonses are being now issued by local authorities for adding to Devonshire clotted cream a small quantity of boracic acid solely as a preservative; and whether he will communicate to such local authorities the undesirability of proceeding with prosecutions on this point until the Report of the Departmental Committee has been issued.

I am informed that some delay has been occasioned by a series of experiments the issue of which will not be known for some months yet, but the Committee hope to complete their Report by the end of this year. I understand that some local authorities have recently instituted proceedings in cases such as those referred to in the question. The Local Government Board, however, have no authority to prevent such proceedings being taken, and they could not undertake to interfere with the discretion of local authorities in the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to communicate to the local authorities the fact that the Committee will report by the end of this year?

No doubt the information will reach them in due course.

But it will have more weight if sent direct.

I do not see any necessity for it.

As this is a matter which affects Ireland, I will ask, if it be considered a reasonable request, that the Home Office should issue a circular to magistrates advising them to defer prosecutions in relation to these matters until the scientific point has been settled.

I cannot give any advice to the Home Office.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in the township of Didsbury, Manchester, a voluntary school rate is applied for by the collector of, and in conjunction with, the ordinary rates of the township, and in some cases on the same demand note; and whether the Board has taken any, and what, action in the matter.

I am aware of the facts referred to in the question. The Local Government Board have made inquiry into the matter, and they informed the collector on the 24th instant that the demand note for a voluntary rate should not be sent out with the demand for a compulsory rate. I understand that in a few cases the demand for the voluntary rate was made on the same demand note as the poor and general district rate. It was done without the collector's instructions by one of his clerks, and the collector immediately stopped it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now given full consideration to the petitions presented to him on behalf of a section of the miners of the Burnley district to be relieved from their present exemption, and to be placed under the provisions of the weighing clauses of the Mines Regulation Acts; whether he has caused examination to be made into the genuineness of these petitions, showing as they do in the case of the pits in question an almost unanimous desire on the part of the underground workers to be placed under the protection of the ordinary law regulating the payment of wages calculated by weight and not by measurement; whether he has received an assurance that such an inquiry, or a ballot jointly conducted on behalf both of the employers and employed, would be welcomed by the miners themselves; and whether, seeing that the Secretary of State has the power, under the Mines Regulation Acts, to make an order enforcing the check-weighing clauses of those Acts in respect of any mine or group of mines, on being satisfied as to the feeling among the miners employed in the mines in question, he will make an order giving them the protection accorded by Parliament to miners in general.

The matter has been constantly before both myself and my predecessors, and I have again considered it very carefully. I am satisfied that the signatures to the recent petitions are genuine, but on the other hand they do not show by any means an unanimous desire on the part of the miners for the revocation of the exemptions. I am not, however, in favour of continuing the exemptions unless it is clear that it is desirable in the best interests of all parties. But the matter appears to me to be so difficult that I have resolved to direct a special inquiry to be held, at which the representatives of all persons interested can be heard.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an inquiry was held in 1899 into the nature of employment in the extraction of arsenic; whether he has received a Report upon the subject; and, if so, whether it will be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether it is proposed to amend the existing special rules relating to this employment.

I instituted an inquiry last year with regard to the health of the persons employed in certain works for the reduction of arsenic in Devon and Cornwall. I have not yet received the final Report on this inquiry, but I gather from an interim Report made some time ago that it is not likely that the establishment of any new special rules in those works will be necessary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Papers when the Report is completed?

I should think there will be no objection to that.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government made it a condition, when granting a subsidy to the Plymouth Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association, that space should be provided for the carrying on of investigation by such official bodies as the Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade; and whether any naturalist has ever been employed by the Board of Trade or other Government authority to make investigations on fishes at the Plymouth Laboratory; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds.

In 1885 the Treasury, when agreeing to a grant to the Plymouth Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association, made it a condition "that the Council undertakes to place space in the Plymouth Laboratory at the disposal of any competent investigator deputed by a recognised authority to carry out any investigation into fish questions which the laboratory can give facilities." The Board of Trade have never employed any naturalist to make investigations on fishes at the laboratory, and they have no staff or funds to devote to such a purpose. I have no information as to what has been done by other Government authorities.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has ever consulted the council of the Marine Biological Association (a body in receipt of public money) on any subject connected with fisheries; and, if so, when and on what subject, and in particular whether the council was consulted with regard to the Bill dealing with undersized fish, now withdrawn.

The Board of Trade have occasionally consulted the council of the Marine Biological Association on fishery subjects. The latest occasion had reference to the question of the fisheries exhibit at the Paris Exhibition. The inspectors of the Board of Trade have on many occasions consulted the officials of the association in an informal manner. The association were not directly consulted by the Board of Trade as to the Bill dealing with undersized fish, which, however, was founded on the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1893, who took evidence from the association.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Marine Biological Association was consulted with respect to the Fisheries Conference held at Stockholm last year, to which Her Majesty's Government sent several delegates; whether any delegate was selected from the staff or council of that association; and whether he will consider the advisability both of increasing the Government grant to the association to £2,000 a year, and at the same time making use of the information so paid for before entering upon restrictive legislation or international agreements with regard to fishing matters.

So far as I am aware the Marine Biological Association were not consulted with respect to the Fisheries. Conference at Stockholm, and no delegate-was selected from the staff or council of that association. The question of increasing the grant of public money to the association is one for the consideration of the Treasury. Any information or advice that may be afforded by the association will always receive careful consideration from the Board of Trade, who are most desirous of acting in friendly relation with the association.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that passenger steamers from Jersey to England are often delayed for two or three hours at Guernsey, and whether he would make representations to the railway companies concerned to minimise this delay.

I have communicated with the railway companies concerned, and understand that the delays to which the hon. Member refers are chiefly due to the fact that the steamers in question are cargo as well as passenger vessels. The matter is not one in which the Board of Trade have any jurisdiction, but I am assured that everything practicable is done to minimise delay.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the railway companies have come to an arrangement as to the amount of passengers' luggage which they will allow to be carried free of charge; and whether he can state the rates which are to be charged for excess luggage.

The Board of Trade have not at present received any further communication from the Railway Association, and I am not, therefore, in a position to say whether the railway companies have adopted any concerted action in the matter. I have, however, seen it stated that some of them have agreed to an allowance of free luggage of 150, 120 and 100 lbs.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that the daily double journey between Hornsey and King's Cross costs first class passengers about 6d., second class passengers about 4½d., and third class passengers 8d.; and whether he will endeavour to obtain a proportionate equalisation of rates in the treatment of third with the other classes of passengers.

I will communicate with the Great Northern Railway Company upon the subject of the hon. Member's question, and inform him of the result.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has information, or could procure information, to make a Return showing the comparative cost for the conveyance of first, second, and third class passengers upon the London and suburban railways.

No, Sir; I am afraid not. The maximum powers of charge are of course laid down by the Acts of the several companies; but the actual comparative cost of conveyance would be impossible to obtain with accuracy.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet approached the directors of the Great Eastern Railway Company and the representatives of the railway men, with a view to inducing them to accept arbitration under the terms of the Conciliation Act, 1896; and if not, whether he will hasten to do so, in view of the imminent danger of great public inconvenience arising from the cessation of traffic on one of the chief lines in the country.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a dispute has arisen between the directors and a section of the workmen on the Great Eastern Railway, and that a number of the men propose to hand in their strike notices early in August; and whether he can intervene, so as to avert an open conflict; and if so, under what conditions would he be prepared to act.

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the industrial crisis on the Great Eastern Railway; whether either the directors or the workmen have applied for the intercession of the Board of Trade; and whether he has any possible ground of intervention to avert the inconvenience to the public and the dislocation of trade which must arise from the refusal of the directors to treat with the representatives whom the workpeople have selected.

There are several questions on this subject. The matter has, of course, been receiving my careful attention, but perhaps the best way of informing the House as to the present position of affairs will be to read a letter which I have addressed to Mr. Bell. The letter is as follows—

"Board of Trade,

"Whitehall Gardens, S. W.,

"July 26, 1900.

"Sir,—Mr. Ritchie desires me to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 24th inst., and to say that reading your letter together with that of the chairman of the Great Eastern Railway, which has appeared in the press, it seems to him that any difference there may be between the position taken up by Lord Claud Hamilton and yourself on behalf of the railway servants does not warrant anything in the nature of a strike, such as Mr. Ritchie sees is in contemplation, and which would be attended with the greatest inconvenience to the travelling public, especially at this period of the year. He therefore desires me to say that the first condition of any advice he may offer in connection with the dispute is that any idea of a cessation of work by the railway servants at present should be abandoned.

"With regard to the question in dispute, Mr. Ritchie observes that it is not what concessions, if any, should be made to the railway servants by the company, but how an interview between the directors of the company and their employees for the discussion of the points at issue can be secured. The chairman of the Great Eastern Railway has, Mr. Ritchie notices, expressed on behalf of himself and his colleagues their willingness to receive deputations of their employees in grades, though not collectively. Mr. Ritchie is of opinion that this is a reasonable condition to impose. It is obvious that a much more effective and useful discussion of alleged grievances can thus be secured. It also appears to Mr. Ritchie that such deputations should consist of persons freely elected by the employees, regardless of whether they belong to the Amalgamated Society or not, and that any meeting at which the delegates are elected should be a meeting summoned in such a way as not to give to it the character of having been called together under the auspices of any section of the employees.

"If the course indicated by Mr. Ritchie is adopted he cannot doubt, having regard to the declarations made by Lord Claud Hamilton, that the directors of the Great Eastern Railway will readily consent to receive and to discuss the points at issue with the delegates duly elected in the manner suggested."

I may say that I have had an interview with Mr. Bell, and I have good reason to hope that the suggestions I make will be favourably received.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, seeing that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, given in 1864, regarding the records and documents in the Land Revenue Record Office, is thirty-six years old, and that the law appertaining to estates which have escheated to the Crown through want of ownership has been altered and simplified in the meantime by the 50 and 51 Vic., c. 53 — Escheat (Procedure) Act, 1887—he will at once advise the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests in future to allow inspection and copies of all Court Rolls relating to manorial properties held by the Crown, on payment of the legal fees, for the convenience of legitimate claimants.

The passing of the Escheat (Procedure) Act, 1887, does not appear to afford any reason for altering the rules regarding inspection by the public of documents in the Land Revenue Record Office. A rule allowing to persons who are not copyholders inspection and copies of all Court Rolls relating to manorial properties held by the Crown would be objectionable, particularly as the Rolls are the records of the tenant's rather than the lord's title. The present rules appear to be proper, and in special cases such as those alluded to in the question applications for leave to inspect documents can always be made to the Commissioners of Woods, and will be duly considered.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if any progress is being made towards the promised increase of accommodation for Members of this House.

The vacating of Sir Reginald Palgrave's residence has set free a considerable amount of accommodation on the Terrace front, and I am having plans prepared showing how it could be utilised for the convenience of Members. The scheme shows that large and costly structural alterations are involved, such as it has never been the practice to carry out without a recommendation from a Committee of the House. I propose, therefore, at the commencement of next session to move the appointment of a Select Committee on the accommodation of the House, and to lay these plans before it.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will arrange before next summer to have outside blinds fixed to the windows of the committee rooms facing the south and the west, of which the temperature last week, during the protracted sittings of the Standing Committee on Trade, owing to the absence of outside blinds, obliged several Members to leave the committee room.

I beg, at the same time, to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has had recently under consideration the question of ventilation of the committee rooms and dining rooms of this House; and, if so, whether he is in a position to make any statement on the subject.

In reply to these questions, I have to say that I have been giving attention to the subjects referred to, and that I propose to ask the Treasury to sanction provision in the Estimates to enable mo to proceed with the improvements in the ventilation of the committee rooms by means of electric fans, in accordance with the arrangements in the rooms already satisfactorily treated. As an accessory measure, and to provide a more comfortable atmosphere, I hope to have outside blinds fitted before next summer.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is possible to improve the collection and delivery of letters, which have been for so long a time defective, in Norwood Green, Middlesex; and, if it be possible, whether the Department will proceed forthwith to make the necessary improvement.

The Postmaster General regrets to find that on several days recently the delivery of letters in the neighbourhood of Norwood Green was delayed owing to the illness of the postman. The service is now being worked with punctuality.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if attention will be given to the supplying of straw hats in the present hot weather to postmen in lieu of the kepi, and if some alteration will be made in the present summer uniform; and can he state whether postmen are required to wear waistcoats tightly buttoned up in this weather.

Postmen are already supplied with serge uniform for summer wear. Postmen in London are also supplied with a light summer shako. In hot weather the men are allowed to wear straw hats, though they are not a part of the official uniform. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the order as to the wearing of straw hats in London is not general? Will he make it so?

It is not an order; it is a permission.

Is it true that postmen on very hot days are punished if they take their coats off and carry them on their arms? Can that not be allowed?

I will consult the Post Office authorities as to that.

Seeing that other uniformed servants are not required to wear waistcoats, cannot the same regulation be applied to postmen?

I said the answer to the second paragraph was in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that permission to wear straw hats has not been given to the postmen in the East End of London yet?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can see his way to allowing overseers to sign a special holiday sheet, instead of blocking postmen out for the better portions of the year for their holiday season.

At all offices, where the arrangements permit it, postmen sign a separate holiday sheet, but this cannot be done everywhere without injustice to some of the persons affected or waste of force. The postmen receive their annual leave during the eight months from March to October inclusive.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether there is either rule or practice at present in the Post Office Department by which candidates for the position of sorter or telegraph learner in head provincial offices, who at their first examination do not gain the minimum percentage for appointment, are excluded from ever again being admitted to examination; whether a similar rule prevails in any other branch of the public service; and whether arrangements will be made in this Department, as in all other branches of the Civil Service, to admit candidates within the prescribed limits of age irrespective of previous failures at examinations.

Where positions as sorters or learners in the Post Office service are offered as the result of open Competition, competitors who have been unsuccessful are allowed to compete again so long as they are within the limits of age. There are, however, chiefly at the smaller offices, posts which are filled by nomination subject to a qualifying Civil Service examination, and persons who have received nominations, but reach such a low standard in the examination that their ultimate success is improbable, are not as a rule allowed to try again, it being in their own interests that they should at once seek more suitable employment.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he state whether the District Messenger Company pays any royalty or tax to the Post Office; and, if so, what the amount of the royalty is, how it is calculated, and where the amount will be found in any accounts laid beford the House; on what ground the royalty in question is exacted from the company, and whether in pursuance of any judicial decision affirming the liability of the company to pay it; has the Post Office, since the establishment of the company, organised a special service with the special object of competing with the company; and, if so, has this special service resulted so far in a loss or in a profit to the Post Office; and will the Post Office, in view of the great and increasing use to the public of the District Messenger Company's services, consider the propriety of ceasing to exact from the company the royalty hitherto paid by it.

The company pays a royalty on telegraph call boxes calculated at the rate of 6d. per call box, with a general royalty of £25 per annum. This royalty is exacted on account of the company's operations in the use of such call boxes being an infringement of the Postmaster General's telegraph monopoly. On the 14 th of April, 1891, a decree was made by the Queen's Bench Division restraining the company from transmitting telegrams and conveying letters in violation of the exclusive privileges conferred upon the Postmaster General; and the company has since carried on business as regards telegrams and letters under the licence and authority of the Postmaster General. The company is required to pay to the Postmaster General 1d. upon each letter which it delivers, and pay over such postage to the Postmaster General. On the other hand, the Postmaster General pays to the company for services rendered ½d. per letter out of moneys voted by Parliament. The amounts paid over by the company appear in the finance accounts presented to Parliament under the heading of "Gross Receipts." They are not shown separately. The Post Office organised an express delivery service for the purpose of meeting a public want as soon as this was ascertained to exist, and the service is largely used by the public. Its establishment has not resulted in a loss to the Department, and it is believed to be profitable; but owing to its being worked in connection with the other services of the Department it is not possible to state exactly the amount of profit earned. It is not proposed to make any further reduction in the Royalty upon call boxes, or to increase the payment made to the company for the delivery of letters.

May I ask my right hon. friend whether he can arrange that this royalty shall appear separately in the finance account, and whether he is aware that eleven out of nineteen Cabinet Ministers are box-holders?

I cannot say anything about the latter point, but with regard to a separate account I think a Return ought to be made to the House showing what the expenses are.

Will my right hon. friend agree to a Return if I move for it?

I do not like to reply for the Post Office, but I should think there would be no difficulty about it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he explain why it is proposed to amend the rules of the Civil Service Commissioners, which provided that those who passed the Junior Civil Service Examinations could, when competing for other Civil Service examinations, deduct from their actual ago any time up to five years which they may have spent in the service, so that a junior can now only deduct one year when competing for an Excise assistant-ship; whether he is aware that this rule would operate hardly against persons who entered the service under the old rules; and whether he will take steps to exempt from the operations of the new rule the said persons.

The principal reason for this change was that it is considered inexpedient in the interests of the public service that anyone should become an assistant of Excise at an ago exceeding twenty-three years. More than a year's notice of this change was given, as it will not come into force until July next; so that anyone interested has ample time to make his arrangements. There seems no reason for any further postponement of a desirable reform. No vested interest in the old regulations can be recognised.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has taken any steps to carry out the suggestions made by him with a view to increasing the wages of deserving Customs watchers after a certain number of years service; and can he hold out any hopes that such improved conditions of service will be assured to these men.

Yes; improved conditions of service will be assured to the more deserving Customs watchers after a certain number of years service.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if any report has yet been received from the Departmental Committee on Sheriff Court Procedure appointed more than two years ago; and, if such report has been received, whether the Government propose to take any action on the same; and, if no report has yet been made, can he state when the same may be expected.

The Report has not yet been made, nor can I name any definite time at which it may be expected. The reference to the Committee was a very wide one, and the constitution of the Committee is such that it can only meet during the winter months.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the number of admissions to the Carrickmacross workhouse during the past year, according to the report recently issued by the local board, appears to be about twice as great as the admissions to Castleblaney and Monaghan workhouses, although the valuation of Carrickmacross union is only about half the valuation of Monaghan and less valuation than Castle blaney union; whether he is aware that the admissions to the Carrickmacross workhouse during the past twelve months was about three times as great as to Clones workhouse, and that the 2,172 admissions to Carrickmacross workhouse during the year were almost entirely composed of tramps or casuals; and whether the Local Government Board inspector for Carrickmacross district has reported on this matter and suggested any remedy; and, if not, will he ask for a report, with a view to preventing further loss to the ratepayers of Carrickmacross union by having to support a number of persons who do not belong to the district.

The figures in the first and second paragraphs are approximately correct. The Local Government Board are not aware that the admissions to the Carrickmacross workhouse during the past year were almost entirely composed of tramps or casuals, though it is probable that a large proportion of the admissions did belong to this class. The Board's inspector has made no special recommendations as to the relief to be afforded to the tramps, but the Board have issued circulars on the subject to boards of guardians from time to time, and are prepared to instruct the inspector to confer with the Carrickmacross guardians at any time in the matter should the guardians so desire.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at recent meetings of the Monaghan County Council complaints were made against the Board of Works and the Lough Erne Drainage Board in consequence of the flooding of thousands of acres of land between Ballybay, Sporthall, and Coot-hill, owing to the want of drainage of the river passing through these districts; and whether he will take steps to prevent a recurrence of the flooding of the districts mentioned by clearing an obstruction in the Dromore river near Tullyvin, and thus prevent a loss of the crops of the people holding land in the low-lying districts between Ballybay and Tullyvin.

Representations to the effect mentioned in the first paragraph have already been made by the County Council to the Board of Public Works, and the matter has been investigated by that Department, who have informed the Council that as the Dromore river is not within the area of any drainage district no steps can be taken by the Board with a view to the removal of the obstruction complained of.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the telegraph messengers of Limerick are entitled to receive one halfpenny per message on all messages they deliver, he will explain why this payment has been withheld from them during the past three months; and, will he take steps for the arrears to be paid and the rule of one halfpenny per message to be observed regularly in future.

It is not the case that the telegraph messengers are entitled to receive one halfpenny per message on all messages they deliver. The payment made to them is already high and cannot be increased; and no arrears are due.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the intention of the Department to build a new post office in the town of Cahir, county Tipperary; and if so, when will they be prepared to commence the work of building it.

A scheme for the erection of a new post office at Cahir is under the consideration of the Post Office, but has not yet been sanctioned by the Postmaster General. I cannot, therefore, state when the building is likely to be commenced.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to a memorial received by the Controller, Dublin, over three months ago, from members of the Dublin staff complaining of punishments for the mis-sending of letters, alleging that the increase in mis-sending was due to insufficiency of time at roads, and the quick rate at which p.m. despatching officers have to sort correspondence, the sorting of letters on the new divisions, and asking that letter-despatching officers be exempt from sorting at the primary tables in the evening; and can he state whether the memorial has been acknowledged yet; and if so, with what result.

The memorial was duly received and acknowledged by the Controller, Dublin. Inquiry has shown that some additional force is necessary on evening duty in the Dublin Sorting Office, and steps are being taken to afford relief. For the present extra staff is brought on duty whenever it is known that the work will be heavier than the average. The bulk of the mis-sending is found to be confined to comparatively few men, and increases when these men are on duty. No record of mis-sending is made against any officer when there is any doubt as to his responsibility.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can explain the delay in establishing the house to house delivery of letters in the townlands of Boggan and Blanchfieldboy, county Kilkenny, and say when it will come into operation.

A house-to-house delivery of letters once a week was commenced on the 18th of June in the town-lands of Boggan and Blanchfieldboy, county Kilkenny. There are very few letters for these places, and a more frequent delivery is not at present warranted.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has recived a further detailed statement from the residents of Coagh, county Tyrone, suggesting how the defects in their postal service could be remedied at slight, if any, cost; and, whether the Coagh memorial praying for redress, which was refused last year on the ground of expense, will be reconsidered in view of the fresh information furnished.

The Postmaster General has received a further detailed statement from the inhabitants of Coagh, county Tyrone, suggesting how a better postal service to that place could be provided. The desired improvements, however, could not be afforded without considerable additional cost. Even if a service between Cookstown and Coagh could be provided at practically the same cost as the present service between Moneymore and Coagh, which does not seem likely, considerable additional expenditure would still be necessary in order to maintain the existing delivery to places on the road between Moneymore and Coagh; and such expenditure would not be warranted.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the inconvenience entailed on the inhabitants of Bundoran by the delay in the day mails from Dublin and the consequent inability to reply by evening post to letters received by those mails; whether he is aware that the Bundoran letters are sent by the 6.5 a.m. train from Dublin, viâ Portadown and Omagh; are detained at Omagh, where they arrive at 9.30 a.m., till 12.25; do not reach Bundoran till 3 p.m.; and are not delivered till 4 p.m., the time when the evening mail goes out; whether he is aware that, while an express train leaves Dublin at 9 a.m., and reaches Bundoran, viâ Clones, at 1.40 p.m., the letters for Bundoran are sent some hours earlier and reach Bundoran some hours later than the parcel post, which is sent by this train; whether letters for Bundoran could be sent from Dublin by the 6.5 a.m. train, which arrives in Enniskillen at 10.5 a.m. and be taken up by the express passing Enniskillen at 12.33, and due in Bundoran at 1.40; and whether immediate steps will be taken to secure that letters should reach Bundoran from Dublin in time to be answered by the evening post.

These letters now arrive at Bundoran at 2.25 p.m., and are sent out for delivery at 2.50 p.m. Some persons, however, living near the end of the delivery do not receive them in time to post replies for the return mail at 4 p.m. During the summer months an express train, as stated in the question, leaves Dublin at 9 a.m., and to reach Bundoran at 1.40 p.m. This train, however, could not be used for correspondence from Omagh and other places north of Dundalk, and even if it were used for the mails from Dublin, it is doubtful whether the residents at Bundoran would be willing that the afternoon delivery should be made before the arrival of the correspondence from Omagh, etc. The question whether a double service to Bundoran would be justified during the summer is being considered, and if that is found to be the case, inquiry shall be made as to the wishes of the residents in regard to the time of the delivery.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received a memorial influentially signed by the gentry and traders of Drumconrath, asking for the establishment of direct postal communication between Drumconrath and Nobber; and whether it is intended to establish the service asked for; and, if so, when.

This memorial has been received. It is proposed to arrange for the postman from Nobber and the postman from Drumconrath to meet every week day at Summerhill and exchange letters. By this means local letters will be available to callers at the Post Office at either place shortly after one o'clock on the day of despatch. This arrangement will be commenced at an early date.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has considered the memorial presented more than twelve months ago from the residents of Ashburton, Dillon's Cross, Mayfield, and neighbourhood on the north-east side of the city of Cork, to have a post office established at Dillon's Cross, the district being at present only served by a wall letter-box; and whether, in view of the fact that the nearest post office is a mile away from the greater portion of the district in question, which is one where the population is increasing and many new houses are being built, and of the inconvenience caused by the present want of postal facilities in this important and growing district, a post office will be opened there, as requested.

No such memorial has been received. The Postmaster General has called for a report, and will communicate his decision upon it in due course to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that dissatisfaction exists among the inhabitants of Clones with the quality of the water supplied to that town; and can he say when a report upon the condition of the filter beds of this supply was received from the sanitary officer; and will he instruct the Local Government Board to send an inspector to Clones to report upon this matter, so that all apprehension as to the purity of the water may be allayed.

No representations have been made to the Local Government Board as to the quality of the Clones water supply, and the Board are unable to say when a report upon the condition of the filter beds was received from the sanitary officer. The medical inspector of the Board has been directed to make special inquiries into the matter on the occasion of his next visit to Clones.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain why the tenants of Rossavalley, county Fermanagh, who purchased their holdings from Messrs. Bracken and Gordon, joint landlords, in November, 1898, have had to pay, and are still paying, half-yearly instalments to the Irish Land Commission at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum on the purchase money, whilst the tenants on the adjoining estate of the Commissioners of Education, who purchased about the same time, had to pay instalments at the rate of only 4 per cent. per annum.

This question refers to interest in lieu of rent payable by the tenants to the vendor pending the completion of the sale, and not to half-yearly instalments of annuities payable to the Land Commission. The amount of interest payable in such circumstances is a matter of agreement between the tenants and the landlord.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will arrange for an annual return of the number of new public-house licences granted and extinguished in each quarter sessions division in Ireland, showing in each case whether the new licence was granted in substitution for an existing licence.

I would refer the hon. Member to Table 60 in the volume of Judicial Statistics (Ireland) for 1899, recently presented to Parliament, the information in which may serve the purpose he has in view. If not, perhaps he will communicate with me further in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can say whether any and what progress is being made towards the publication of the promised volumes of the Irish Brehon Laws; and whether, on account of the death in July, 1899, of the Eight Rev. Dr. Graves, one of the Brehon Law Commissioners, he deems it advisable to appoint another Gaelic scholar in his place, and so expedite the work of publication, and give confidence to all who feel interested in the due preparation of the volumes.

The Glossary, which will form Volume 6 of the series, is nearly completed, and it is hoped that it will be ready for printing, together with Volume 5, by Christmas. No special steps are therefore necessary to expedite the work of publication.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board for Ireland have yet obtained a test case to determine the question as to whether contracts of tenancy are to disqualify persons from being members of district councils whose tenants they are; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to settle the matter by a decision of the higher courts.

The Local Government Board have taken proceedings in a case where a rural district councillor was a tenant of a labourer's cottage, but as the magistrates convicted and imposed a nominal fine the case did not come before the higher courts. The magistrates' decision in this case was communicated by circular to all rural district councils. The Board have instructed their solicitors to endeavour to obtain a test case to decide the question in the higher courts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state why the county Meath was not allowed to adopt the Staffordshire bye-law as to resignation of members of the county council.

I am not aware whether the Staffordshire bye-law requires confirmation by any Government Department. The County Meath bye-law, in the opinion of the Irish law officers, was ultra vires.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what steps have been taken by the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbour Company to carry out the undertaking embodied in their agreement with the Treasury of the year 1898 to construct a direct line of railway between Cork and Fermoy; and whether a contract for the construction of the line has yet been entered into; and when work on the line is likely to be commenced.

No steps have been taken towards the construction of this portion of the company's undertaking, and no contract has been entered into. No portion whatever of the proposed Treasury grant of £93,000 will be paid until at least half of each line (that from Fermoy to Cork, as well as that from Rosslare to Waterford) is completed, and the grant as a whole is dependent upon the whole work being completed before 1st August, 1904. The £93,000 payable to the Treasury by the company has been allowed to remain outstanding at a low rate of interest; but in view of the apparent reluctance to begin the Fermoy and Cork portion of the undertaking I propose to require the immediate payment of this sum, unless satisfactory assurance is at once given that the Fermoy and Cork branch will be undertaken without further delay and completed before August, 1904.

Has any portion of the line been surveyed?

I have no information beyond that I have given.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway Company have, without legal authority, removed the fence of the public road from Sutton to Censure, and constructed a railway partly on its site and partly on private land, and raised over a foot above the public road, but unfenced therefrom; and whether, seeing that the only power enjoyed by the company in regard to the highway between these points is, under their Act of 1897, to make a tramway along the public road and with the rails level with the road, the Irish Executive will take any steps for the public protection, and the vindication of the law affecting highways.

Anything the Great Northern Railway Company have done they have done either at the suggestion or with the consent of the county survey or, the officer of the road authority, and for the protection and convenience of the public. On the limited information in my possession it would undoubtedly appear to me that prima facie the provisions of the statute have not been strictly observed. I shall carefully consider all the facts.

Has a County of Dublin grand jury power to suspend the law in Ireland?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the possibility of the Railway Amalgamation Bill now before Parliament, which would establish a railway monopoly over nearly three-fourths of the entire area of Ireland, becoming law, he can say whether the Government intend, and if so when, to create some tribunal, cheap and easy of access, in Ireland, other than the existing Railway and Canal Commissioners, to which Irish traders and passengers can appeal in causes of complaint in the matter of railway rates, fares, and facilities against railway companies; whether he can state what powers (if any) the Irish Department of Agriculture have to deal with such railway questions; and whether it is proposed to give to that Department the powers now possessed by the Railway and Canal Commissioners to deal with them, or in what other way the Government propose to meet the necessities of the case.