I bog to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the telegram of 3rd June, 1900, published in Vol. II. South Africa Despatches from Lord Roberts in reply to General Buller, and stating that Lord Roberts's terms with the Transvaal Government are unconditional surrender, whether His Majesty's Government were informed prior to the sending of the telegram by the Commander-in-Chief of General Bidder's views, as expressed by him after his interview with General Botha, that about half the Transvaal forces then in the field were before him, and that he thought they were inclined to give in, and also of the terms mentioned by General Buller to the Boers, which terms were in his opinion suitable for the military situation to secure the surrender of the Boers, or if Lord Roberts acted on his own responsibility in this matter; and if no intimation of General Buller's views was at that time sent to His Majesty's Government, when was such intimation received, and was it taken into consideration.

No communication was made to Her Majesty's Government, Lord Roberts acting under the general powers given to him. As regards the last paragraph of the question, I think General Buller's despatch is dated 9th July, and probably, therefore, reached us in August.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position of Sir Alfred Milner and Sir Walter Hely Hutchinson respectively as regards the Governorship of Cape Colony and the High Commissionership of the two late Dutch Republics.

Sir Alfred Milner became Administrator of the Transvaal and of the Orange River Colony on the departure of Lord Roberts from South Africa, and remains Governor of the Cape Colony until Sir W. Hely Hutchinson assumes the Governorship of the Cape-Colony. Sir Alfred Milner will continue to be High Commissioner for South Africa, but his relations as such with the late-Dutch Republics necessarily lapsed with their annexation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that Sir W. Hely Hutchinson will assume the Governorship of the Cape Colony?

No, Sir, I should be sorry to fix a date at this moment.

When will Sir Alfred Milner proceed to Pretoria?

I cannot give the information at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the South African Constabulary were embarked per steamship I "Aurania" on Friday for the front, without arms and uniform, and totally undrilled.

These 900 men of the South African Constabulary, like other detachments of the force sent from this country, will be attested on their arrival, and will then be provided with arms and uniform, and will be trained under the personal superintendence of Major-General Baden-Powell. A certain number of them have already served in the Army and Militia. These, and all other arrangements in connection with this force, have been made in strict accordance with General Baden-Powell's wishes and requirements.

What will be the total strength of the Constabulary force when this contingent arrives?

I cannot now state with certainty what the total number will be when this contingent arrives in South Africa, but of course the hon. Member is aware what the strength of the force is to be eventually. I believe that over 2,000 have been attested in this I country.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of cases of typhoid fever among the forces in South Africa, and the number of deaths for each of the months of October, November, and December, and also the total number of cases of typhoid fever from the beginning of the war to 31st December last, giving the number of deaths, and the number sent home as invalids.

The figures are approximately as follow—October, 568 cases, 98 deaths; November, 1,213 cases, 207 deaths; December, 1,665 cases, 286 deaths. The total number of Cases from the beginning of the war to December, 1900, is 19,101 and of deaths 4,233. The number of officers and men invalided for enteric fever who have arrived in England from the beginning of the war to December, 1900, is 10,975.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the terms of the original engagements of Brabant's Horse and the other, colonial troops that have taken part in the South African War differed in any, and what, respect, and especially as to the duration of the engagements, from the terms of which the Imperial Yeomanry and the British Volunteers were engaged.

The terms of service of the colonial contingents varied considerably, and were different to those of the Imperial Yeomanry and British Volunteers. It is not possible to give the full details in reply to a question. All have been treated according to their engagements.

But will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House a statement of the different terms?

I have made the only statement I can, but if the hon. Member wishes to know the particulars of each engagement I will see what can be done.

Is there any difference in the duration of the engagements?

I have said that the terms vary.

Do these people get better pay than the common or garden Tommy Atkins?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether untrained men who have not hitherto formed part of the Yeomanry are accepted as Volunteers to the Imperial Yeomanry now proposed to be sent out to the war.

All men accepted for the Imperial Yeomanry have to pass the riding and shooting tests previously imposed. They need not necessarily belong to the Yeomanry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is proposed to re-embody some or all the Militia now not embodied.

I am not in a position at present to reply to this question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there is any scheme for continuing the existence of the Royal Reserve Regiments; and if he is aware that the delay in letting the men know whether they will be able to re-engage and the terms of re-engagement, is not only causing inconvenience to the men, but losing the services of many men who would otherwise have reengaged.

A communication will be addressed to the men forthwith on this subject. An opportunity will be given to the men to re-engage on special terms for garrison duty. Any officer or non-commissioned officer who may not desire to return at once to civil life will be found temporary employment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House of the number of horses bought for the South African army since the war began, specifying the number bought in Great Britain and the number bought in other countries; what was the average purchase price in each country; and what are the official reports as to the comparative merits of the animals bought in each country.

The total number of horses and cobs purchased for South Africa between October, 1899, and 31st January, 1901, was as follows:—Great Britain and Ireland, 35,775 horses; 3,827 cobs. Other countries, 36,314 horses; 35,506 cobs. Of the former about 80 per cent. were sent to South Africa. The English and Irish were considered the best, and the next best were the American and Canadian. It is not considered expedient to state the prices.

Will you give me the figures for Ireland and Great Britain separately instead of lumping them together?

I cannot give them offhand, but will see if I can get them.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the number of troop horses purchased for the purpose of the South African war in Hungary, America, and Ireland respectively between 1st January and 31st December, 1900; and whether any agent was employed by the War Office during that period for the purchase of troop horses in the south of Ireland.

The figures are as follows:—Hungary, 7,000; America, United States, 21,000: Canada, 3,750; Ireland, 6,178. Of those bought in Ireland about 20 per cent, were for units at home. Colonel Hanford was the agent employed in Ireland during the period referred to, and he bought horses in all parts of the country.

Can the noble Lord state if in the American figures the horses from the Argentine are included?

No, these are not included, but I cannot say what numbers came from the Argentine.

May I ask why preference was given to Hungary and America in view of the fact that Irish horses are the best in the world?

Can the noble Lord state what part of the war tax is paid in Hungary and America?

And is it true that when the Irish Members opposed the War Vote an order was given that no more horses should be bought in Ireland?

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can communicate to the House full details of all communications which passed between Lord Roberts and any of the Boer generals in reference to negotiations for the conclusion of peace, and a full statement of the causes which prevented the proposed meeting between Lord Roberts and General Botha in June last.

Yes, Sir, I will lay the correspondence to-day. I owe the hon. Gentleman and the House an apology, which I take the first opportunity of tendering. In answer to the honourable Member's question interjected during my speech on Friday, I inadvertently stated that I believed the negotiations were stopped owing to the demand for independence. I find on referring to papers, which I had not at hand, that although Lord Roberts endeavoured to meet General Botha's wishes as to an armistice, the arrangement fell through because the armistice proposed by the Boers was one which on military grounds it was impossible to accept.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the increasing complaints that the supplies for the troops in Ireland now largely consist of foreign materials, and that the number of local contractors is steadily diminishing; and whether he could furnish the House with any document showing who are the contractors to the Army in Ireland for all purposes and the nature and price of the materials supplied.

At the same time may I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the proportion of foreign beef and mutton at present supplied to the troops stationed in Ireland; and whether, in view of the fact that cattle and sheep are produced in abundance in Ireland, and that Irish taxpayers contribute towards the maintenance of the Army, tenders will in future be inclusively for home fed meat.

I am not aware of any complaints as to supplies of foreign materials to the troops in Ireland, except as regards meat, nor am I aware that local contractors are diminishing in number. When local manufacture exists in Ireland every effort is made to encourage it as far as possible. It would cause much labour to furnish from all stations in Ireland a list of the contractors and their supplies. As regards the meat supply the whole question of supply throughout the United Kingdom is being considered.

May I ask how many Irish manufactured bicycles have been sent to South Africa?

How much do the countries which supply these foreign goods contribute towards the maintenance of the Army?

The noble Lord has referred to the trouble it would involve to give us this information. That is the very reason I want the Return. I want to cause trouble. I wish to ask the noble Lord if he will direct his subordinates to go to the trouble of furnishing the information?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the contract for the supply of beer, porter, and stout to the regiments stationed at the Curragh, county Kildare, was not given to an Irish firm; and whether the Government has agreed to pay an English firm a price higher than that quoted by Irish breweries.

Discretion as to making contracts for the supply of malt liquor to the troops is vested in the General Officers Commanding Districts, who may either make a district contract or allow commanding officers of units to make their own. There is no regulation under which canteen contracts are bound to be placed locally, and it is a fact that a considerable amount of Irish stout is sold in canteens in England. It is not proposed to question the manner in which the General Officer Commanding has used his discretion.

Will the noble Lord answer the latter portion of the question?

I think I have. We do not propose to question the discretion of the commanding officer.

Does the Irish beer supplied to soldiers contain no poison, and is that the reason you send for English beer?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take into consideration the case of married soldiers serving in South Africa whose first period of enlistment had come to an end and whose discharge and admission into the Reserve would have taken place but for the war, with a view to granting separation allowance for their wives on the scale of that provided for the Reservists; and whether he is aware that there are many cases in which discharge had actually been sanctioned and yet stopped at the last moment, the hardship being great owing to many such men having married without leave in view of their then ancicipated approaching discharge into the Reserve.

In cases where a soldier married without leave would have become a Reservist but for the war, it will be considered whether separation allowance can be issued by the Government. Every case must be dealt with on its merits.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, for what reason the Government have ceased to publish telegrams on Sundays at post offices giving information from South Africa, and to ask if they intend resuming the practice of publishing such telegrams during the continuance of the war.

The Postmaster General was informed by the Secretary of State for War in October last that in view of the alteration in the position of affairs in South Africa, he considered that the practice of telegraphing information for exhibition in post offices on Sundays might reasonably be discontinued, and the Postmaster General has no knowledge of any intention to resume the practice.

Did the military authorities cease the publication of the telegrams at the time the war was declared to be over?

They ceased to publish them in October last.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state the decision arrived at with reference to the abolition of the prefix to the titles of the officers of the Army Veterinary Department.

As the hon. Member has been informed on a previous occasion, it has been decided to await the conclusion of the war before making any changes that may be deemed necessary for this Department.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the order issued last week that no camp allowances will be granted as heretofore for the Easter training of Volunteers, he will cause to be notified without delay the regulations it is proposed to substitute, in order that regiments and individuals may make arrangements without delay for conforming thereto as far as practicable.

The military authorities do not consider that the advantage gained by the short Easter training of Volunteers is sufficient to justify the issue of camp allowances. The general scheme of camp arrangements for the year is being carefully considered, and every effort will be made to issue regulations as early as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the report of an action taken against a War Department contractor named Broderick, before the Recorder of Dublin, by a labourer named Reddy for damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act for injuries received while employed in the execution of contract work at the Royal Barracks; whether he is aware that Roddy swore at the trial that he was a labourer employed by Broderick to do plastering work at 18s. per week, while Broderick swore that his contract was for painting only; whether the employment of labourers at 18s. per week either on plastering or painting contracts for the War Department is in accordance with the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution of February, 1891; and whether he is aware that repeated complaints against this con tractor have been made to the War Office within the past six months by the Amal gamated Painters' Society at Dublin with unsatisfactory results; and whether, in view of the fact that Broderick has secured the painting contracts for other military barracks in Ireland, the Department will undertake that these contracts shall be cancelled in the event of Broderick continuing to evade the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution.

The answer to the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The General Officer Commanding has been directed to make inquiries into the matter. War Department contracts require payment by the contractor of the wages current in the district. The position taken by this contractor in answer to the complaints referred to by the hon. Member has been that he has paid the full union rate of 8d. an hour to his painters, and a less rate to improvers, boys and lime-whiters. As regards the work which he is carrying out at other stations in Ireland, it has been ascertained by the General Officer Commanding that he is paying the men employed the usual rates current in the district.

asked a further question as to the number of improvers employed by this contractor.

I must ask for notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have recently given orders that four of His Majesty's vessels—viz., the "Encounter," the "Cornwall," the "Queen," and the "Prince of Wales," should be fitted with the Belleville water-tube boilers; and, if so, why this has been done pending the Report of the Committee of experts now inquiring into the matter, and when it is expected that such Report will be made.

The Admiralty policy in the matter of boilers was described in the Memorandum on Water - tube Boilers which was presented to Parliament, and in accordance with that policy the four ships named in the question were ordered to be fitted with the Belleville boiler; but in the event of the Report of the Committee indicating the necessity of a change in the type of boiler this decision will be reviewed in all cases where it may be found practicable. The "Challenger," the sister ship to the "Encounter," is being fitted with Babeock and Wilcox boilers for comparison with the Belleville boilers in the latter ship. Babeock and Wilcox boilers are also being fitted in the "Espiegle" and "Odin," and Niclausse boilers in the "Suffolk," sister ship to the "Cornwall," and in the "Merlin," for comparison with other ships of the same classes fitted with the Belleville boiler. The Committee have been requested to make an interim Report on any of the points referred to them, as soon as they have collected sufficient evidence or experimental proof to enable them to form a reliable opinion.

May I ask whether the Admiralty will request the Committee to. make a trial of one of His Majesty's ships fitted with water-tube boilers for a whole ocean voyage—say, across the Atlantic —before they make their Report.

I cannot say what instructions have been given to the Committee on that point. I have no doubt whatever that a trial of ships under these conditions will be made, but I cannot give particulars as to the extent, or duration of the voyage.

But cannot the Admiralty request that an ocean voyage be made at full speed?

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

I will put a question on the subject on Thursday.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when the order was given to fit these ships with Belleville boilers—by the late or present Board of Admiralty?

The orders; were given in the ordinary routine when the orders for the ships were given.

Were some of them given by the late and some by the present Board?

Yes, Sir.

Were any of the orders placed in Belfast, and if not, why not?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can give the total number of persons in receipt of famine relief in India.

The number of persons in receipt of famine relief in India last week was 214,000, of whom 179,000 were in British districts and 35,000 in Native States.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state what was the effective strength of noncommissioned officers and men of the British forces in India on 1st January, 1896; 1st January, 1897: 1st January, 1898; 1st January, 1899; 1st January, 1900; and 1st January, 1901.

The effective strength of non-commisioned officers and men of the British forces in India on the 1st January in each year from 1896 to 1901 was as follows:—1st January, 1896, 70,615; 1897, 70,400; 1898, 67,808; 1899, 68,578: 1900, 64,213; 1901, 58,702.

How many of the men now serving in India are serving beyond their terms of engagement?

was understood to reply: A very considerable number—probably about 12,000.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state what was the strength in non-commissioned officers and men of the forces on the Indian establishment in India, British and native respectively, on 1st January, 1901.

The strength in non-commissioned officers and men of the forces on the Indian establishment in India on 1st January, 1901, was: British, 58,702; native, 127,666.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what number of British and native troops of the Indian Army are now being employed beyond the frontiers of India; and if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return giving full particulars of such employment.

There are of the Indian establishment about 5,200 British troops in South Africa; about 300 British and about 16,300 native troops in China (including Hong Kong): about 1,500 native troops in the Mauritius; about 800 native troops in Singapore; about 2,100 British troops and about 800 natives in Ceylon; and about 600 native troops in Jubaland; making a total of 7,600 British troops and 20,000 native troops. I have no objection to a Return, but I do not think that it would add anything material to the information which I have given.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has yet considered the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure, as contained in Clause 364 of the Report, that a grant of £50,000 should be made by the Imperial Government in aid of the charge for the India Office; and, if so, how he proposes to deal with it.

The correspondence on the subject of the measures to be taken for the relief of Indian revenues, in consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure, has been laid before Parliament. It shows that the matter has been fully considered, and that His Majesty's Government have accepted in their entirety the recommendations of the Commission so far as the amount of relief to be received by India is concerned. As regards the heads under which that relief is given, they have in the main accepted the recommendations of the Commissioners, but on some points they have made other arrangements which appeared to be more convenient for administrative-purposes. They do not propose to increase the total amount of relief which has been already agreed to, and which, as I have said, is the amount recommended by the Commission.

Did not the Commission recommend a grant in all of £293,000, and have you not allotted less?

I am afraid they made an arithmetical mistake by substituting tens of rupees for pounds sterling. We have given actually about, £4,000 more than they recommended.

But this particular £50,000 has not been dealt with.

No, Sir.

And is the reason for not dealing with it the desire that it shall not appear on the yearly Estimates?

That is rather a matter of argument. The Commission suggested as an alternative that it should be put on the Consolidated Fund, in which case a discussion on it would be impossible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the report of the Rev. D. Richards, chaplain of H.M.S. "Flora," on the condition of Welshmen in Patagonia has been received; whether it confirms the complaint of Mr. John Morley that his flocks and herds are being decimated by a gang of cattle thieves, who are in league with the police authorities and are favoured by Pedro P. Martinez, the chief of police; and whether Mr. Richards' report will be made public.

The report of the chaplain of His Majesty's ship "Flora" has not been received in the Department. A report from the commander of that vessel on his visit to Chubut in June last was communicated by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty and has already been laid before Parliament (by the Secretary of State for the Colonies), but no mention is made therein of Mr. Morley's case. A complaint from Mr. Morley himself has however been received from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Buenos Ayres, who has already made representations to the Argentine Government on the subject. These representations have, it appears, been well received. The exact result is not yet known, but Mr. Morley has acknowledged the steps taken on his behalf as valuable and efficacious.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has taken any steps, in view of the appointment of a Russian consul general to Bombay, to secure British consular representation at any point in the Russian Empire east of Batoum.

The Russian Government agreed in 1892 to the extension of the authority of the British Consul at Batoum to the Governments of Baku, Elizabetpol, Erivan, Tiflis, Kutais, and Tchernomoria, and it is understood that no objection would be raised by them to the appointment of a consular officer to reside at Tiflis should His Majesty's Government at any time find it desirable to make such an appointment. A British vice-consul has been appointed at Baku.

Is it intended to appoint a consular officer for Tiflis?

asked for notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the official figures of cases of lead poisoning in the Potteries for 1900 show but slight diminution from those of 1899, and that in the months of April, July, August, October, and December the figures exceed those for the corresponding months of the previous year; and whether, in view of the failure of the Special Rules of 1898 to put a stop to lead poisoning, he is prepared to issue as special rules the whole of the recommendations which were contained in a Homo Office circular to manufacturers dated 14th December 1899, and again submitted to them as proposed special rules in August 1900.

I am aware that in the months of July, August, October, and December, 1900 (but not in April or in any other month), the reported cases of plumbism in the industry of china and earthenware making were more numerous than in the corresponding months of 1899, the totals being 71 and 50 respectively. But the net result for the year as a whole was a reduction from 249 in 1899 to 200 in 1900, and this has fol- lowed upon a previous large reduction between 1898 and 1899. In answer to the second paragraph of the question I think the right hon. Baronet and the House may like to hear in some detail what is the present position of the matter. I have a few days ago formally proposed a set of new rules to the manufacturers following in the main the draft issued in August last but containing certain amendments which appeared to me necessary and reasonable. I might have proposed the rules in this form some time ago, but I have been in negotiation with the representatives of the manufacturers in hope of arriving at a settlement and avoiding arbitration, and I have found them ready to accept with a few slight modifications most of my proposals. On the proposed '"standard of insolubility," however, a serious difference of opinion arose between the Government chemist and the manufacturers' expert advisers, and I have come to the conclusion that this difference I should be settled by arbitration. There are also points on which I am anxious that the workpeople should have an opportunity of stating their views before they are finally settled, and these will be dealt with on the arbitration, at which the workpeople are entitled to be represented.

Arising out of the answer I should like to ask two questions—namely, whether the figures just given tally with those printed from month to month in the Labour Gazette; also whether the arbitration is to be on the rules as they were formerly or on the rules modified.

The rules have been referred to the arbitrator as they originally were, because this would give the workmen an opportunity of expressing their views before the arbitrator goes into the modification which the Home Office might think fit to suggest. I am not aware what the figures in the Labour Gazette are, but I will inquire and let the right hon. baronet know if there is any difference, and, if so, why.

Has there not been a diminution in the number of cases of lead poisoning reported, and have not those reported been less serious than formerly?

I believe that, generally, there has been a yearly reduc- tion, but I cannot say to what extent without notice. In answer to a query by another hon. Member, Mr. RITCHIE said that if only the modified rules had been referred to the arbitration it would have been impossible to hear the workmen on other points, and he therefore thought it better to lot the whole thing go before the arbitrator and give the men an opportunity of expressing their views on any amendments which might be suggested by the manufacturers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any changes are contemplated in the arrangement of His Majesty's Prison, Carmarthen; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of the proposed changes and the reasons for them.

The answer is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received various representations from county authorities urging the establishment of a State inebriate reformatory; and whether he is now prepared to make any statement on the subject.

Yes, Sir; I have received numerous representations such as my hon. friend suggests, and I am myself anxious that a State inebriate reformatory should be established. I am now in communication with the Treasury on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what action, if any, he has taken to give effect to the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, by making rules or orders to enforce compliance with the twelve clauses contained in the Schedule of the Act.

Steps are being taken to prepare and make rules under Section 1, Sub-section 1 of the Act referred to, and, in the meantime, I understand that the leading railway companies are themselves taking steps to minimise the effect of the dangerous operations described in the Schedule.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to take any steps for the substitution of automatic or other couplings in the place of the present method of coupling goods and mineral vehicles on railways under the power conferred upon the Board of Trade in the Railways (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900.

I am not in a position to make any statement on this question at present. It has not been lost sight of.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Chelsea Electricity Supply Company are trying to force users of electricity at 100 volts to take 200 volts current by giving a preferential rate to users of 200 volts; and whether the giving of preferential rates by the company is within their power without the authority of the Board.

I am informed that the Chelsea Electricity Supply Company, Limited, desire to change their standard pressure from 100 volts to 200 volts, and that, in order to induce consumers to take the higher pressure, they have given notice that after the 1st of July next consumers taking a supply at the lower pressure will be charged a rate higher than that to be charged for supply at the higher pressure. The higher rate is within the maximum price fixed by the Provisional Order, but whether the company are entitled to charge different rates to consumers supplied at different pressures is a legal question on which I am not prepared to express an opinion. I have no power to give or refuse sanction to the proposed charge.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a dredger bound to Japan from an English port capsized at the entrance to Cork Harbour in December last with the loss of all hands; and whether this craft was inspected and pronounced seaworthy; and, if so, by whom was this duty performed.

Yes, Sir; I am aware that the dredger referred to in the question was lost in heavy weather in December last, and I regret to say that twelve out of a crew of seventeen were lost. Before the vessel left port she was inspected by two Board of Trade surveyors, who saw no reason to object in any way to her construction or equipment. I am informed that she was also surveyed by one of the chief surveyors to Bureau Veritas, who reported her to be in a "completely seaworthy condition."

Has a craft of this description ever before attempted to undertake such a long voyage?

I am unable to say.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railway rate for foreign fruit from Dover to London is 1s. 8d. per ton, whilst English fruit from Dover to London cost 12s 3d. per ton, and that the Railway and Shipping Conference average through rates to Ireland upon the same system; whether the Board of Trade consider such an arrangement to constitute a preferential rate in favour of the foreign importer; and whether an inquiry will be made respecting the schedule of through rates, and a comparison instituted as to the mileage rate charged for the carriage of native produce throughout the United Kingdom.

No, Sir; I have no information which would justify me in accepting as correct the figures set out in the question of the hon. Member. The Board of Trade are always prepared to investigate any specific complaint under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.

But will not the right hon. Gentleman seek information as to the specific complaint contained in my question?

I have asked the hon. Member to name specific cases. My present information is that his figures are not correct.

Will you answer the last paragraph of my question?

There is no intention of making such an inquiry.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the consignors of live stock from Ireland to Great Britain are compelled by the carrying companies to sign through consignment notes, which relieve the companies from the conditions of the Carriers Act; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into this matter, with a view to safeguard the humane transit and speedy delivery of live stock from Ireland to Great Britain.

No, Sir, I am not aware that carrying companies in Ireland compel, or have any power to compel, consignors of live or any other stock to sign through consignment notes relieving the companies of liability; and I do not think any inquiry into the question of consignment notes necessary.

If evidence is produced to prove the facts stated in the question, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps in regard to the matter?

Any evidence produced to show the necessity for further steps will be duly considered.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether two more deaths from arsenical beer poisoning occurred in Crumpsall workhouse hospital quite recently.

Two deaths from arsenical poisoning occurred in the Crumpsall workhouse infirmary last week, and inquests were held on them on Friday. The cases were admitted to the infirmary on the 4th of December and the 18th of January respectively, but the medical officer of the infirmary reports that in each case the illness had been of several months duration.

Have any cases of poisoning been traced to the consumption of Irish beer?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why the facilities which were granted by the Admiralty to the fully accredited representatives of the foreign press to view the funeral obsequies of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria were refused by the military authorities on the passage of the cortege through London and at the service in St. George's Chapel, Windsor.

All representatives of the press who applied were informed by the General Officer Commanding the Home District that as the issue of passes was in the hands of the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, the applications should be addressed to them. No written application was received from any foreign press representatives. In regard to the service in St. George's Chapel the issue of permits was solely in the hands of the Court officials, to whom all applicants would be referred.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has yet been able to come to a satisfactory arrangement with Lady Gordon Cathcart to provide land for the crofters and cottars in the island of Barra; and whether the report by Mr. M'Intyre, of the Crofters' Commission on the subject will be published.

No arrangement has been concluded, but negotiations for the purchase of a portion of the island of Barra are in progress. If they are suc- cessful an announcement will be made so far as circumstances admit. It is not proposed to publish the report referred to.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in the case of Provisional Orders applied for under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which, in consequence of the decision of the Chairmen, will now be proceeded with as private Bills, it will be competent for county councils to petition in the usual way under the General Standing Orders applicable to private Bills before Parliament, as these county councils will not now have the opportunity of making a report, under Section 11 (3), which was the alternative method of procedure provided under the Act of 1899.

I understand it will be competent to petition against those Bills in the usual way in terms of Standing Order 210.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the population of the Moville Petty Sessions, county Donegal, is three-fourths Roman Catholic, and if he will state the number of Roman Catholic magistrates in the petty sessions district and the number of non-Roman Catholic magistrates in said district, and if the Government will take steps to have the number of Roman Catholic magistrates increased in proportion to the number of Roman Catholics in said district.

I have no means of verifying the statement in the first part of the question, but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. Of the fourteen magistrates who attended the petty sessions one or more times during the past year, ten appear to be Protestants and four Roman Catholics. Applications and recommendations for the Commission of the Peace are made to the Lieutenant of county, who transmits them, if he thinks them suitable, for the consideration of the Lord Chancellor.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that complaints have been made by various local authorities in Ireland regarding the law by which rates leviable off railways and other lands are on only one-fourth of their net annual value; and whether he will consider the expediency of amending the law so as to make the liability of such property to rates similar to that of all real property in Ireland.

Both in England and Ireland rates in urban districts on railways and certain lands are assessed on a proportion of their net annual value, save where exceptions are made by local Acts. In England this proportion is one-third, and in Ireland one-fourth. Complaints have been made in the matter by local authorities in Ireland, but the question is obviously of far-reaching importance, and there is much to be said on both sides. Any proposal to amend the law would, meet with strong opposition, and I cannot undertake to introduce legislation as suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many police were brought into Foxford on the 1st January, 1901, and what was the total cost of police operations in connection with the suppression of the meeting announced to be held in Foxford on that day.

The police force brought into Foxford on the occasion mentioned consisted: of seven officers and 204 men. The expenses of this concentration amounted to £159, of which a sum of £5 will be charged to the local rates.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire- land whether a petition has been received in favour of the reduction of the sentence of six months' imprison- merit, passed by the petty sessions on Lewis Lowrison; whether he is aware that county court Judge Curran described this sentence as a savage sentence, and expressed his willingness to reduce it if, on appeal, a reduction were asked for; and whether, considering the offence, if technically an offence at all, was a trivial one, accused will now be liberated.

I am unable to say whether this county court judge used the language attributed to him, but in any case, he confirmed the sentence on appeal. A memorial on behalf of the prisoner was received on Thursday last and is now under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant, whose decision will be communicated in due course.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to proceedings before the petty session court at New market (county Cork) on 12th October last; will he state on what grounds was a large number of police drafted into the town for the occasion; and from what source will the costs of this extra force be defrayed; and whether, in view of the peaceable condition of the locality, the constabulary authorities authorised the introduction of a large force of armed police.

The authorities responsible for the peace of the district assembled a force of police for the preservation of order on the occasion. The police present were supplied from within the county, and consequently there will be no charge to local rates for their services.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Deputy Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary applied for and received from the Cork Borough Council a sum of £137 for extra constabulary employed during the recent city election; will he explain why, although this election was carried out in the most peaceable and orderly manner, the extra police were drafted into the city; also, why the Cork Corporation were not consulted with regard to bringing them in.

The amount claimed from and paid by the Cork Borough Council in respect of the extra constabulary employed on the occasion referred to was £68 18s. 6d. The election involved considerable local excitement, and it became necessary to augment the ordinary force of the city, which is not adequate to discharge abnormal duties on occasions of this kind. It has not been the practice to consult the Corporation in such matters. I may remind the hon. Member that the ordinary police work of Cork is performed entirely free to local rates.

Who fixes the rates? Have the local authorities no right of appeal?

was understood to reply that the Constabulary authorities usually increased the force in times of excitement without consulting the local authorities, as they were responsible for the maintenance of order.

inquired how it happened to be the fact that Londonderry and Belfast alone, of all the other Irish cities, had to contribute towards maintenance of the ordinary police force, but the Speaker ruled it out of order.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the traders of Carnew, county Wicklow, were compelled by an order of the police to keep their shops closed on Saturday, 2nd February; and, if so, upon whose authority did the police issue the order; and whether he is aware that the shopkeepers of adjoining towns, such as Shillelagh and Newtownbarry, were permitted to carry on their business on the day named without any interference on the part of the local police.

The police at Car-new, as well as in the other towns mentioned, merely directed public attention to the Proclamation, and in no way interfered with the closing or opening of shops. At Carnew the traders closed, whereas in the other two places the shops remained open.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Ireland directions by the police have to be looked upon as commands? Will he direct them to mind their own business in the future?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will consider the advisability of recommending the appointment of a Viceregal Commission to consider the conditions and circumstances connected with the port of Dublin and to report thereon, with a view to legislation next session.

The Port and Docks Board is, I believe, controlled by an Act passed so recently as in 1898. The expediency of appointing a Viceregal Commission at this stage in the Board's existence seems questionable. I will, however, look farther into the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the grounds upon which the Local Government Board have declined to sanction the appointment of a night nurse in Longford Union, although she had been pronounced fully qualified by training in the Union Infirmary under the personal supervision of the late Dr. Cochrane, F.R.C.S.I.; whether the Board did on a previous occasion agree to her appointment to same office, but Dr. Cochrane would not then agree; and whether the matter will now be dealt with and closed by her appointment.

The Local Government Board declined to sanction the appointment of Miss Brown as night nurse in the workhouse infirmary on the ground that she did not possess the requisite qualifications for the office. The late Dr. Cochrane reported favourably on her in the capacity of wardsmaid, but she has not undergone a proper course of training in a fully equipped hospital. There is no foundation for the statement in the second paragraph. The Board feel that for night-work the services of a fully qualified nurse are indispensable.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Local Government Board propose to issue to the credit of the Boyle Board of Guardians the sum of £252 13s. 3d., standing to their credit under the grant of £40,000 voted by Parliament in 1890, seeing that the Union are now building 37 cottages under the Labourers Acts.

Steps are now being taken with a view to the distribution of the unexpended balance of the grant in question, and the Boyle Guardians will receive the share to which they may be entitled under the regulations. I do not anticipate any great delay.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board and other responsible authorities will take steps to inform district councils and boards of guardians as to the various grants which they forward to county councils, and are placed to the credit of these district councils and unions; and whether, in future, notification will be sent to the district councils and unions when grants are forwarded to county councils.

The Board will be happy to supply this information each year to any district council or board of guardians who may apply to them for it, but as these bodies have direct financial relations with the county councils they can obtain the information from the secretaries of these councils, and many of them, no doubt, would prefer to do so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Report of the Commission on Irish Local Taxation has been printed; and whether he can state when it will be published.

The hon. Member presumably refers to the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation generally. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department stated last Friday that it was impossible to fix a date for the publication of the Report, which is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will furnish a copy of the correspondence between the Board of Works and the Church representative body on the subject of the preservation of the ruins of the ancient Cathedral Church of St. Mel, at Ardagh, county Longford.

I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is no correspondence on this matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any complaints have reached his Department as to the failure to supply a Sunday delivery of letters from Edge worthstown to Coolarty viâ Lisryan; and whether such service will now be given; and also whether a collection box will be erected at Spring park for the purpose of facilitating the families resident in the vicinity to avail themselves of the services of the rural carrier.

No complaint appears to have been received respecting the failure of the Post Office to provide a delivery of letters on Sundays at Coolarty, but inquiry shall be made whether it is practicable to afford the desired delivery, and also a wall letter box at Springpark, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the attention of the Post Office authorities has been directed to the inconvenience caused to the residents in the district between Mohill and Farnaught, in South Leitrim, owing to the postman who makes the house to house delivery not remaining in Farnaught sufficiently long each evening to enable residents to despatch replies on the same day to letters which they receive; and will he state what steps will be taken to remedy this inconvenience.

The Postmaster General has received no representation that inconvenience is caused to residents at Mohill and Farnaught under the present postal arrangements; but inquiry shall be made with the view to ascertain if an improvement is warranted.

had on the Paper the following question: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to eliminate from His Majesty's Coronation Oath that portion which describes the religion of His Majesty's Catholic subjects as idolatrous and superstitious. In putting the question the hon. Member said the Oath referred to was not the Coronation Oath, but the Oath taken by His Majesty in opening Parliament.

Yes, Sir, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is not an oath, but a statement, and the statement was made on the opening of Parliament, and will, of course, not have to be repeated at the coronation.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement to which he refers was not, as a matter of fact, in the nature of an oath?

I thought it was more properly described as a statement —a statutory declaration.^*

^* By the Statute I William & Mary, Session 2, cap. 2 ("For declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and settling the Succession of the Crown") it was in section 10 enacted that the Monarch should "on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the Throne…make subscribe and audibly repeat the: Declaration mentioned in the Statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of Charles II., intituled 'An Act for the more effectual preserving the King's person and Government, by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament.'" The last mentioned Act clearly distinguishes "Oath" and "Declaration." By Section 2, Peers and Members of the House of Commons are to "take the several Oaths of Allegiance and

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not true that in making this statement His Majesty kissed the Bible and actually took an oath; and, further, I would ask him whether any steps are to be taken to secure that in future this Oath shall not be taken by His Majesty?

I am no particular admirer of the form of words used in the Declaration. But the hon. Gentleman will see that the practical question is passed, and it will not arise again, we hope, for many long years to come.

The question is not whether it is a practical question. Is it not true that millions of His Majesty's subjects in every part of the Empire regard this Oath as wantonly insulting?

I hope that is not the case.

Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg respectfully to point out that as long as this Oath is in existence and His Majesty swears that Catholics are idolatrous, I for one will oppose His Majesty's salary.

Is it proposed to continue to pay out of public

Supremacy," "and make subscribe and audibly repeat this Declaration following: ' I do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess testify and declare that I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint and the sacrifice of the mass as they are now used in the Church of Rome are superstitious and idolatrous, and I do solemnly in the presence of God profess testify and declare that I do make this declaration and every part thereof in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof although the Pope or any other person or persons or power whatsoever should dispense with or annul the same, or declare that it was null or void from the beginning.'"—ED.]

Order, order! That has nothing to do with the question.

Does the Declaration mean that the Catholics of the United Kingdom—

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is absolutely irregular. He is asking what a Declaration means. That is a question of law or opinion.

I was asking a question arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman.

I have endeavoured to explain to the hon. Gentleman that it is out of order.

As a matter of fact, I did not ask any question at all.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ministers of the Allied Powers in Peking are pressing that four high officials of the Chinese Government should be ordered to commit suicide.

No. The action of the Powers is confined to urging upon the Chinese Government the imposition of the death penalty in the case of certain officials chiefly responsible for the recent outrages.

Have the Ministers intimated to the Chinese Government that they will accept suicide as a substitute for the death penalty?

Will the noble Lord not deign to give me an answer?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. friend the Leader of the House has already stated that there is an understanding that the Under Secretary shall not answer supplementary questions.

I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege. I wish to ask whether it is not a breach of the privileges of this House for the Leader of the House to forbid a Minister to reply to the question of an hon. Member?

It is a matter for the Minister who is asked the question to answer it or decline to answer it on public grounds, as he thinks fit. What those public grounds are, whether they are sufficient or not, must be a question for him and the other members of the Ministry.

That, Sir, is not the question I desire to put to you, but whether it is not a matter for the discretion of the Minister himself—whether it is in accordance with the practices and privileges of this House for any one Minister to forbid another Minister to answer the question of an hon. Member of the House instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Minister himself.

That is not a matter for me to decide. I cannot say that it is a breach of the privileges of the House. If the House chooses to pass a resolution condemning such a practice, that is a matter for the House. If the head of a Department or the Leader of the House says that it is not in the public interest that such a course should be taken it is not a matter that the Speaker can deal with. It is a matter for the House.

May I ask whether I shall be at liberty to raise a question of privilege now or immediately after questions?

It is not a question of privilege.

May I ask whether it has not been the custom in this House for a Minister to answer a question fully when it has been properly brought before him?

Certainly not, if the Minister says he declines on grounds which are always assumed to be, unless the contrary is stated, the grounds of public convenience.

May I ask whether we are to understand from your ruling just given that in each case of a question put to a Minister, the Minister, if he declines to answer, is bound to state that he declines to answer that specific question on grounds of public policy?

I certainly should not feel myself bound to call on him to state that in answer to each particular question, if a general statement had been already made.

Arising out of your last answer, Mr. Speaker, what I complained of was that the Minister on this occasion did not refuse to answer me on any public grounds. He refused to answer me on the specific ground that the First Lord of the Treasuary had laid it down as a principle that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was not to reply to supplementary questions. I desire, with your permission, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether that dictum would apply to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if we were blessed with such an institution as that in this House?

Order, order! This matter cannot be carried on by debate in form of question and answer across the floor of the House. If the hon. Member has reason to complain of the action of the Government he must take the usual course.

May I ask if this trouble has not arisen because the Government is too largely dominated by one family?