I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government, in appointing to vacancies in the various Government departments, would preferentially consider the cases of the dependents of officers and soldiers who had been killed in action or died from wounds or disease contracted on active service, before selecting other candidates for clerkships, typewriterships, and messengerships in the public service.

Other things being equal, any appointed authority would be anxious to find suitable employment for the dependents of men who have died in the service of their country. But, of course, I cannot hold out the possibility of upsetting the basis on which appointments throughout the service generally rest.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state, without detriment to the public interests, why no reparation can be made to Mr. Merriman for the want of consideration shown to him in withholding from him any opportunity of passing observations on his letter published in August by Her Majesty's Government.

I am not aware that Mr. Merriman has suffered any injury, and I do not see that any reparation is required.

Is it intended to remove in any way the impression in the public mind——

Order, order !

Then I shall call attention to this matter to-morrow.

With reference to the speech which the Colonial Secretary made in the House and in which he said that a mistake had been made in coding the telegram and the words "sold to the Boers" had been substituted for "gained by the Boers," may I ask the right lion. Gentleman if his attention has been called to a statement in the Civil Service Times as follows—

Order, order ! The hon. Member cannot read the paper.

The statement is that the right hon. Gentleman's memory had failed him. [Cries of "Order !"]

The hon. Member must not put such a statement forward on the authority of a newspaper.

Is the statement true?

I shall be glad to have an opportunity of replying to the question which the hon. Gentleman wished to put to me, because it evidently is calculated to cause misapprehension. Whatever may have been said outside the House to a contrary effect is certainly the result of misinformation. The statement I made was that I applied to the postmaster, and the postmaster admitted that a, mistake had been made in the office, and no doubt the orginal telegram was in the office. That is the fact. A mistake was made in the office. If I had had notice I would have brought down the letter of the postmaster and read it to the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any of the proclamations issued by Lord Roberts, besides the proclamations of annexation of the two Republics, were drawn up in this country and issued by Lord Roberts on the instructions of the War Office or the Colonial Office; and, if so, which of the proclamations issued as a Parliamentary Paper were drawn up in this country.

I cannot answer that question in detail, but I may say that Her Majesty's Government accept full responsibility for all Lord Roberts's proclamations.

asked a supplementary question, which was inaudible in the Gallery.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to give the House any further information with regard to a mishap at Magaliesberg, and whether he can state whether the four companies of the Northumberland Fusiliers have been captured, and to what battalion they belonged.

Will the Secretary of State say whether this is guerilla warfare, or actual warfare?

I have communicated to the papers the whole of the information received from Lord Kitchener with regard to the action in question. We have no reason to suppose from anything Lord Kitchener has said that any troops have been captured. We only know we have to regret the loss by death of four British officers.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give the lowest and highest prices paid per ton for the hire of transports during the African war, the names of the steamers, their owners, size, speed performed, and the dates on which they were chartered.

It would be quite impossible to give the information asked for by the hon. Member within the limits of an answer to a question without running the risk of giving a misleading impression, but if the hon. Member will call at the Admiralty every endeavour will be made to give him the information he desires.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state who is responsible for advising the Secretary of State as to the Military requirements of a probable campaign; and, whether such advice is voluntarily tendered, or does it await inquiry by the Secretary of State.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, by the memorandum showing the duties of the principal officers of the War Office, dated 7th March, 1899, the Secretary of State or the Commander-in-Chief is held responsible for the Military efficiency and preparedness for war of our Military forces.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Commander-in-Chief, who is charged with the collection and compilation of military information, and has in his department the Director of Military Intelligence, who deals with the collection and distribution of information relating to the military geography, resources, and armed forces of foreign countries and of the British Colonies and possessions, was responsible for an efficient military survey of those parts of the frontiers of Natal and Cape Colony presumably likely to become a theatre of war in case of invasion by the Transvaal or Orange Free State; or whether the Secretary of State for War was responsible for the authorising and making of that survey.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Adjutant-General who is charged with the military education and training of the officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Regular and Reserve forces and Militia of the United Kingdom was responsible to the Secretary of State for War, or to the Commander-in-Chief, that the military training and education of those who sailed from this country for the South African war were efficient.

No change has taken place in the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War to Parliament for the military efficiency and preparedness for war of our military forces. The Commander-in-Chief is the chief military adviser of the Secretary of State, and has the general supervision of all military departments of the War Office. All orders to the Army, whatever department they affect, are submitted to and signed by him. It is the duty of the Commander-in-Chief to tender any advice which he thinks necessary for the proper conduct of a campaign.

Was the Commander-in-Chief or the Secretary of State responsible for the survey referred to in my second question?

That point is covered by the answer I have given.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain in what way?

I am responsible to Parliament, and the Commander-in-Chief is responsible for the Army. My hon. and gallant friend must adjust any responsibility which he thinks may result with one or the other according to this statement.

But who was responsible for the military surveying of Natal and Cape Colony? Am I to take it it was the Secretary for War?

The responsibility to Parliament rests with the Secretary for War, and I shall not endeavour to divest myself of any portion of it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is able to communicate to the House the steps which he has taken, or proposes to take, in reference to the reconstruction of the military and civil departments of the War Office, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee presided over by the Financial Secretary to the War Office; and whether he will accelerate the superannuation of officials who have already reached the age of sixty years and completed forty years service.

I am giving this subject close consideration, but am not in a position to make a statement. There are seven members of the higher division civil department of the War Office over sixty years of age. Three of them retire within a few months.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether any batteries of artillery have been procured from abroad for use in South Africa; if so, how many, and whether such batteries are uniform in any respect with those in the service; and whether he can state how many different kinds of artillery have been employed in South Africa.

One battery of howitzers was purchased abroad of a different type to the other howitzers in the service. Sixteen different types of ordnance were employed in South Africa. Three of these were naval guns, and two were supplied from private sources to Volunteers.

Was that the only battery purchased abroad?

Yes, for use in South Africa.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause an inquiry to be made in the case of the widow of Private J. Hasler, of 2nd Somerset Light Infantry, who died of enteric fever at Kimberley 9th November (Mrs. Hasler wrote on 16th November to the commanding officer of the said regiment asking for the effects and deferred pay of the said J. Hasler, but no reply has been vouchsafed to her); and whether the Secretary of State for War will expedite matters so that Mrs. Hasler and her two children are not compelled to go to the workhouse.

I have no information as to the case, but will be very glad to make inquiry into it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the gratuities granted to officers and men of the Army for war service in South Africa, will be extended to include those Militia battalions which, having volunteered for active service, have been employed in garrison duty abroad during the war.

The gratuity will only be issued to the officers and men, whether Imperial or colonial, who have served in the South African command from the 10th October, 1899, to such date as may hereafter be notified in Army Orders.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that many of the local funds of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association are exhausted, or nearly exhausted, with the result of serious reduction in the help given to the wives and children of men at the front; and whether Her Majesty's Government will now make provision from the Treasury to meet these cases.

I understand that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association are making great efforts to maintain their grants. The Government grant to the married women is 1s. 1d. a day separation allowance, with 2d. for each child, while the allotment of pay by the soldier amounts to 4d., and a further 1d. a day for each child up to 6d. In the case of men in public employ before the war began the wife is granted half wages. Her Majesty's Government do not think it desirable to ask Parliament to raise the provision further from public funds.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the statement, on 12th December, of Baron von Richthofen, the Imperial German Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that a large number of field batteries of German guns have been ordered by the British War Office of the Rhenish Machine and Metal Goods Company, and that the Imperial Government had stopped the further execution of the order until the guns were no longer needed; whether he will state what steps were taken by the War Office to ascertain if similar guns could be made in Sheffield or elsewhere in the United Kingdom or British Empire under royalty or other business arrangements as to patents; and whether, having regard to the danger of being dependent upon foreign manufacturers, controlled by foreign Governments, for munitions of war, he will encourage industrial enterprise and the laying down of the necessary plant in the Queen's Dominions by a guarantee that the Government will place its orders with its own taxpayers and not with foreigners.

Yes, Sir. I have seen the statement. Early this year it became necessary to give large additional orders for field guns for early delivery. The ordnance factories and the only gun-making firms in the United Kingdom received orders for more field guns and carriages than they could execute within the current year, and an order, about equivalent to that given to each English firm, was placed in Germany a month later. The ordnance factories have at this date completed their order. The German firm has delivered the whole order and the guns are available for issue; one of the English firms has delivered one-third of the order, and the other has delivered nothing at all. The Government have every desire to give priority to British manufactures. Every encouragement has been given to gun-making firms in this country to lay down plant by giving orders to the value of several millions sterling, and I will take care that everything is done which foresight can suggest to secure continuity of orders. But in view of the figures quoted above and the absolute necessity of securing prompt delivery, I can give no guarantee that orders will not be placed abroad when the public interest requires it.

Was the delivery of batteries ordered in Germany stopped by the German Government?

No, on the contrary, they were received hero, but, unfortunately, the batteries which ought to have been delivered by English firms were not delivered. As I read the speech of the German Secretary of State, an order was issued to stop further delivery, but the guns had been delivered.

Can the Return of warlike material purchased abroad which was refused earlier on grounds of public policy now be given?

Possibly it might be given at the close of the year, or some convenient date. Of course, it will take some time to prepare, as a certain amount of research will be required.

Is there any objection to giving the names of the contractors who failed to fulfil their contracts?

I would rather not give the names now; I am having investigation made in reference to each factory and case of non-delivery. It may be necessary to take further steps.

Was it since the Anglo-German Convention was entered into that these guns were stopped?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the profits of the Military Tournament for 1900 amounted to £7,600 and were paid to the Commander-in-Chief in July; whether £2,000 of this amount was allocated for a swimming bath at Aldershot; and, if so, will he explain why this expense should not fall on the Estimates instead of on funds hitherto available for military charities.

The profits amounted to £7,500. The disposal of the moneys rests entirely with the Commander-in-Chief, and Lord Wolseley considered it expedient to spend £4,000 on the soldiers' swimming bath at Aldershot.

Why should not this fall on the Estimates?

I am not entirely cognisant of the precise amount of demand there was for the swimming bath, but I presume Lord Wolseley considered it was a purpose to which these funds were applicable.

Is Lord Wolseley or the Secretary of State responsible for this?

I do not know whether the Secretary of State has any power over the Military Tournament which is not held under the statutes under which the War Office is conducted. It has been conducted by the Commander-in-Chief; the proceeds are administered by him, and applied to such purposes as he considers desirable for the Army.

Has the Secretary of State authority to see that a swimming bath is provided at Aldershot?

In whom does the title to the swimming bath rest?

I presume it rests with the Crown, like other property administered by the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are at present in the Royal Artillery only 130 first lieutenants serving as against 435 second lieutenants; whether the second lieutenants in question often have to perform the duty of first lieutenants, but only receive second lieutenant's pay; and whether the military authorities will now be willing to alter the rule which precludes second lieutenants in the Royal Artillery and Engineers from receiving promotion till they have served for three years in the Army, whereas no such rule is in force as regards cavalry and infantry.

In the horse, field, and garrison artillery there are 221 first lieutenants and 808 second lieutenants. The first and second lieutenants perform the same duties. It is, however, manifestly of importance that the senior subalterns who frequently perform captains' duties should have higher rank. The question of the promotion of second lieutenants, referred to in the third paragraph, is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the finding of a court of inquiry assembled to investigate certain statements recently made with reference to the alleged use of abusive language to the Volunteer Corps 1st Gordon Highlanders at Lemiston, on 3rd July, by an officer of that battalion.

No detailed report of the court of inquiry which Lord Roberts ordered to assemble has yet reached the War Office. Lord Roberts, however, stated in a telegram that from the evidence of the court he considered that the words of the officer had been grossly misrepresented, and that the reprimand administered by the officer commanding the battalion was necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what has been done in reference to improving the clothing of Militiamen of those battalions serving in the United Kingdom or abroad who, being embodied, have the same duties as Regulars to perform, but have up to the present had inferior clothing to the Regulars.

The clothing of the Militiaman differs in scale, but not in quality, from that of the Regular soldier. During embodiment the Militia have been allowed to retain time-expired garments for fatigue duties, and to condemn and replace with new garments those considered by a board of officers to be in bad condition, though not time-expired. The whole question of Militia clothing is under consideration.

What is the meaning of "scale"? Is it a difference between the cloth and serge?

The meaning is that the garments issued are precisely the same.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the nature of the hospital accommodation at Piershill Barracks, Jock's Lodge, near Edinburgh; and will he give instructions for better arrangements to be made for the comfort of the patients, and arrange for the medical officers to be supplied with modern surgical instruments.

The accommodation in this hospital is considered ample—twenty-seven beds constitute the normal provision for an establishment of 447 soldiers in barracks, and thirty-two beds are provided in this case. The surgical instruments are of a modern pattern, and can readily be supplemented from the district equipment store. No complaints have been received as to the comfort and welfare of the patients. The buildings are in a satisfactory condition.

I shall take an early opportunity of calling attention to this matter, and of moving a reduction of the salary of the official concerned.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a memorial from the civil staff of the department of the Inspector General of Fortifications drawing attention to their treatment and praying for a redress of their grievances; whether the memorial was recommended to the Secretary of State's consideration by General Sir Richard Harrison and other military officers under whom the petitioners had served; and whether any reply has been, or will be, sent to the Inspector General.

The memorial will receive consideration, with the general question of War Office organisation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will favourably reconsider the cases of assistant clerks and abstractors who had been recommended for advancement to vacant clerkships of the Second Division of the War Office by the principal clerks in charge of their respective branches, and whose recommendations had not been acted upon.

Only so recently as August last six promotions by selection were made from twenty-four eligible clerks of this class to the position of second division clerk. The question of further promotions will be considered.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have declined to approve of the promotion to the higher division of the Civil Service of second division clerks serving in the War Office on the ground that the men recommended had attained the age of forty years; whether he could hold out any hope of the rule in question being rescinded; and whether their Lordships would reconsider the cases of second division clerks who had already suffered in consequence of the operation of the forty years rule at the War Office.

I am assured that there is no general rule of the service fixing a limit of age above which a clerk of the second division cannot be appointed to the first division. The recommendation in each case is in the discretion of the head of the department when a vacancy occurs. At the same time it must be taken into account that the first consideration is the fitness of candidates for the duties to be done, and it is obvious that as a man advances in middle life he becomes less qualified for the post of junior clerk.

Has it come to the knowledge of the Government that Messrs. Wilson and Co., of Belfast, who are engaged on a War Office contract, have reduced the wages of their men from 32s. to 22s.; that those who refused the lower sum have been dismissed; that their places have been filled with unskilled labour, and is not this a violation of the conditions under which the contract was given out?

I have only just received notice of this question, but I will make further inquiry into the new allegations, which, I believe, are made under a misapprehension.

I will repeat the question to-morrow.

That will not give me time to make inquiries at Belfast.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to reorganise the Contract Department of the War Office, in consequence of the investigations of the Select Committee.

I am afraid I cannot at present answer any questions of this kind, the whole subject of War Office organisation is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the complaint of members of the City Imperial Volunteers who now find it impossible to find employment, and whether the War Office proposes taking any action in the matter.

I am not aware that such is the case, but I believe that those who left employment to serve abroad have been received back by their employers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the condition of affairs in South Africa remains such as to postpone the return of the Volunteers, Imperial Yeomen, Militia, and married Reservists until far into the new year, whether he will consider the desirability of making a further appeal to the Volunteer force for drafts to take the place of such of the 10,000 members of that force still at the seat of war, who may find themselves compelled to take their discharge if possible, either by sickness, or the calls of their civil occupation in the United Kingdom.

I should wish to consult Lord Roberts on this question before arriving at a decision.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any compensation is given to troops during a campaign when they have short rations in lieu of the rations which are ordinarily issued.

No, SIR. There is no regulation granting compensation in such a case, nor is it apparent on what principles such compensation could be granted the only remedy seems to be a more liberal treatment of the soldier when supplies are available. This is left entirely to the discretion of the General Officers commanding, whose first object is the well-being of the troops.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the officers in command of battalions in South Africa have frequently been put to great expense in telegraphing the news of the deaths of soldiers to their relations after actions in the war; and whether the Government propose to refund such sums of money.

No, SIR. I have not heard of such cases the deaths of soldiers have all been communicated from the seat of war to the War Office at the public expense and forthwith published. Any direct communications from the officers commanding battalions to the relations of the soldiers are of the nature of private messages, and would not be a charge on public funds.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the total number of British troops withdrawn from India for service in South Africa and China; and whether men of more than eight years colour service have been retained in India.

The number of British troops withdrawn from India for service in South Africa amounts to about 8,500 and in China to about 450. Men of over eight years service are detained in India under the terms of the Royal Proclamation.

May I ask whether a number of Indian troops have not been stationed at Mauritius and other places to relieve British soldiers now serving in South Africa?

Those are Indian and not British troops, and they are paid for by the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now give to the House any particulars of the number of soldiers who were inoculated against enteric and who have died from that disease; and whether, in any case, it has been proved that inoculation has in any degree mitigated the severity of the disease.

No, Sir. I am afraid that statistics for the war in South Africa are not yet available.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to publish a Return of the number of horses purchased for the South African campaign, showing the countries where they were bought, the average price paid, and the number that died in transport to the Cape; also a Return showing the number of horses belonging to the forces in South Africa at different times during the war, and the death casualties that occurred amongst them.

I am afraid such a Return must wait for a time till we have done purchasing, and have fuller information from South Africa.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether certain remittances of money from soldiers serving in South Africa, through the Post Office, were lost in the wreck of the steamer "Mexican;" whether, though more than six months have since elapsed, those sums have not been recovered; and what reason exists for that difficulty.

It is the case that many letters containing remittances from soldiers serving in South Africa were lost in the wreck of the "Mexican." So far as these remittances consisted of money orders and postal orders, duplicates have been issued in all cases in which proof of sending could be supplied. It is believed that the banknotes sent in registered letters have been made good by the banks. A certain amount of coin remitted is actually lost the Cape Government, which provided the sea conveyance, does not accept responsibility for such losses; but the Postmaster General has undertaken certain legal proceedings, which, if successful, may possibly enable him to replace some portion of the lost coin and give compensation for other valuable articles lost in the mails.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can say what is being done towards putting Hong Kong in a proper state of defence, especially the arming of the forts with modern breech-loading guns, providing the Volunteers with breech-loading guns, and providing smokeless ammunition.

The re-armament of Hong Kong is making steady progress, but it would not be expedient to give any details.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that there is excellent anchorage for Her Majesty's Fleet in Cromarty Firth opposite the towns of Invergordon and Cromarty, Ross-shire; and, in view of the fact that no such good anchorage or shelter is available for the fleet elsewhere on the east coast of Scotland, will he consider the expediency of fortifying the two headlands known as the Sutors at the entrance to the Firth.

The anchorage in Cromarty Firth is well known as a good one, but is not superior to other anchorages in Scottish waters. The question of fortifications must be considered as a whole by the Admiralty and War Office.

I beg to ask the representative of the Admiralty if the recent breakdown of the guns of H.M.S. "Thunderer" has been investigated; and, if so, with what result.

The facts relating to the explosion in question have been referred to the Ordnance Committee for opinion, but no reply has yet been received.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, as representing the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he can state when the two vacancies in the chief gunners, Royal Navy, list are likely to be filled up; and whether, in future, vacancies occurring in the chief warrant officers' ranks will be filled up by the Admiralty with the same promptitude as occurs when vacancies take place in the Admirals' and other lists of the Royal Navy.

The merits of the gunners eligible for promotion are under consideration, and replies are awaited to references that have been made respecting their qualifications. With the exception of flag vacancies, the executive lists are not necessarily filled as vacancies occur, but no delay takes place in making promotions.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the attention of the Admiralty has been called to the provision for eighteen additional submarine boats said to be contained in the new French naval programme; and whether there has been any modification in the policy of the Admiralty in this matter.

The provision of additional submarine boats in the new French naval programme has received the attention of the Admiralty. A statement will be made on the subject when the Estimates are laid before Parliament.

Have any experiments been made or are any to be made by the Admiralty?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the number of men who have left the West India Dock Naval Store and Deptford Victualling Yard since March 31st, 1899, in consequence of the conditions under which they are employed; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into this matter.

There has been no abnormal change in the usual numbers of men joining and leaving the Naval departments referred to, and consequently there are no circumstances which call for any special action on the part of the Admiralty, All complaints by the men put forward in the recognised manner will naturally receive the careful attention of the Board.

If I furnish the hon. Gentleman with a statement showing that the information furnished to him is incorrect, will he reconsider his answer?

Anything the hon. Member forwards will have careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, of which private notice has been given, what is the reason for the delay in the completion of the Carr Rocks Jetty at Pembroke Dockyard; whether any means can be adopted to expedite the work, as it is understood the facilities the jetty will afford will materially reduce the time required for completion of, as well as the cost of fitting out, vessels at Pembroke.

The Admiralty are so dissatisfied with the rate of progress at which this work is being executed by the contractors that special measures are being taken to deal with the situation.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a recent statement by Lord Charles Beresford that during the last twenty years only three commissions have been offered to Naval men who entered service as bluejacket boys; and whether the Government intend to take any steps to remedy this state of things.

The statement as to the number of men promoted to commissioned rank during the period referred to is correct the question of such promotions is one to which the Admiralty have given much attention, and though no bar has been placed upon the promotion of deserving men, the great difficulties surrounding the question have limited the number made.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the First Lord of the Admiralty is solely responsible to the country for the efficiency of naval administration, or whether his responsibility is shared to any, and, if so, what extent with the Naval Lords.

The First Lord of the Admiralty is responsible to Her Majesty and Parliament for all the business of the Admiralty, but all members of the Board are necessarily concerned by virtue of the Royal Patent under which they act in the efficient administration of the Navy.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-German Agreement nullifies the agreement of the 2nd September, 1898, made between the representatives of certain British and German corporations, defining the respective spheres of interest of Great Britain and Germany as regards railway concessions; and, if not, whether such agreement applies only to the parties immediately concerned in it, or whether it represents an understanding arrived at by the Governments of Great Britain and Germany; and whether the Anglo-German Agreement in any way affects the agreement of the 28th April, 1899, between Great Britain and Russia defining the respective spheres of each country for railway concessions.

The agreement of the 2nd September, 1898, between the British and German syndicates was concluded with the cognisance and approval of the two Governments, and is in no way prejudiced by the Anglo-German Agreement of the 16th October last the answer to the second question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is in a position to inform the House as to the terms of a settlement in China, and especially as to whether the Chinese Sovereigns are about to return to Pekin.

Her Majesty's Government hope the cases to be determined before negotiations can be entered upon are on the point of being agreed upon by the Powers. I have no information as to the last part of my hon. friend's question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Report of the Trade of the East Africa Protectorate for the year ending 31st March, 1900, does not show the approximate tonnage of the imports and exports; and will he consider the advisability of arranging for this information to be given in future Reports.

The attention of the Commissioner will be called to the matter, and he will be instructed to arrange that the desired information is included in next year's Report.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Commissioner Sharpe, in his Report on the British Central Africa Protectorate for the year ending 31st March, strongly urges the construction of the proposed Nyasa Railway, especially the portion between Chiromo and Blantyre; and in view of the fact that the imports for the Protectorate show an increase of £69,551 17s. 4d. over the previous year, and the exports an increase of £41,383 14s. 7d., will he state whether the Government have yet determined to construct the proposed railway at an early date.

The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second paragraph Her Majesty's Government have noted the gratifying increase in the trade returns, but the answer to the question must be in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has any reason to believe that other European Governments would agree to regard as neutral a ship canal in Central America occupied and fortified by the United States Government; whether Her Majesty's Government has reason to believe that the Republic of Nicaragua accepts the view expressed by the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, that the relationship between the United States and Nicaragua is analagous to that between Turkey and Egypt at the time of the construction of the Suez Canal, namely, the relationship between suzerain and vassal; and whether Her Majesty's Government understands that the United States Government associates itself with the protocol signed by all the Great Powers of Europe at the London Conference on 13th March, 1871, to the effect that it is an essential part of the law of nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a Treaty except with the assent of the contracting parties, by means of an amicable arrangement.

With regard to the first paragraph of the question no communication whatever has passed between Her Majesty's Government and other European Governments upon the subject. We think that no useful purpose will be served by dealing with paragraphs 2 and 3 at the present moment.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the Conference recently held in Paris to further the abolition of the sugar bounties; and whether Her Majesty's Government adheres to the statement of policy contained in the instructions to the British delegates at the Brussels Conference, 1898, that it is the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government to secure the suppression of all bounties on sugar, which they consider to be prejudicial to the general interests of the British Empire.

Her Majesty's Government have not been officially informed of what passed at the recent meeting at Paris between representatives of the French Government and delegates of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Her Majesty's Government still adhere to the statement of policy referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to insure that tests of the materials to be used in the Uganda bridges shall be made, and that there shall be a thorough inspection of the bridges when erected at makers' works before being sent away, in the same manner as would be the case if the bridges were made in this country; whether he has seen a book published by Professor Vose, the eminent American engineer, entitled "Bridge Disasters in America"; and, whether he is aware that on the average about twenty bridges break down in that country every year.

The materials and work on the Uganda viaducts will be inspected in the same way as if they were built in England, and by an English engineer of large experience in ironwork. Inasmuch as the contractors have undertaken the erection of the bridges in situ, it is not probable that they will erect the girders in their yard in America in the same way as is customary for bridges in this country where the conditions are commonplace. We have no information as to the circumstances under which the failures mentioned in the question have taken place, but the risks referred to were no doubt carefully con- sidered. In the present instance the bridges have been designed in England.

Will there be any inquiry to see that these contractors pay the trades' union scale of wages, as British firms have to do?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any rule in the Foreign Office precluding the department from affording contractors an opportunity of revising their tenders, and whether such rule is as invariably observed as it was in the recent case of the British and American firms who tendered for the erection of bridges for the Uganda Railway.

I stated yesterday what the practice in respect of asking firms to revise their tenders has hitherto been. We do not think it possible to depart from this practice as a general rule. Whether this rule should invariably be observed is a matter for consideration. I need not say that the Government would be very glad if they were able to place their work with British firms with due regard to economy and rapidity of delivery.

Then there is no such rule in connection with the Foreign Office?

Practically not.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and, if any, what progress has been made regarding the Conversion of the Turkish 1885 Guaranteed (Crimean) Loan, as to which a Convention was signed in August, 1898, or whether the Convention has entirely lapsed.

The negotiations on this subject are still suspended. I am unable to make any further statement in regard to them.