I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government are prepared to consider favourably the erection at the proper moment of an Imperial memorial, which shall record the first co-operation of British and Colonial troops in war, by the preservation in London of the names of the fallen; and whether the Government are prepared to receive a deputation of Members of Parliament and others interested in this matter, in order to take advantage, in any commemoration of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, of the funds promised and the support already given to this proposal, and not only in the United Kingdom but also in the Colonies.

At the present stage, at all events, of the proceedings in connection with the memorial to Queen Victoria, the Government have no responsibility, and therefore it would be impossible for them to receive a deputation upon the subject the hon. Gentleman is interested in.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government will take any steps publicly to contradict a statement alleged to have been made by Lieutenant Morrison, Canadian Artillery, serving under General Smith-Dorrien, to the effect that outrages of a gross character were perpetrated by His Majesty's troops in the Steilpoort Valley, South Africa, and, having assured themselves of the genuineness or otherwise of the report, deal with the author of the statement accordingly.

Inquiries are being made both at home and in South Africa on the subject.

Will the report when received be published?

I must defer my answer to that question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Commission upon Emigration and Settlement in South Africa presided over by the Secretary to the Admiralty.

On Tuesday last I informed the hon. Member I could not say when the Report in question would be issued. The evidence has not yet reached me.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to propose any votes of money to Lord Roberts, Sir Redvers Buller, and Lord Kitchener during the present session.

I can make no statement on this subject, but full notice will be given of any proceedings of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Roberts, in proclaiming the annexation of the two Boer Republics, acted on his own initiative or on instructions from the Colonial Office; whether, in declining to agree to the terms of surrender of General Botha's forces, suggested by Sir Redvers Buller, Lord Roberts was acting on his, own initiative or carrying out instructions previously communicated to him by the Colonial Office; and whether, if so, he will lay upon the Table of the House these instructions, together with all other despatches exchanged between Sir Alfred Milner and the Colonial Office, and between that Office and the War Office, in regard to the terms of accommodation which might be offered to the burghers of the two Republics; whether he can say what is the legal status of the inhabitants of the Transvaal Colony and of the Orange River Colony; and whether those in arms against His Majesty's forces are belligerents or rebels.

(1) Lord Roberts proclaimed the annexations under Commissions empowering him to do so at the time he thought proper, as is shown by reference to page 136 of Cd. 261 and page 9 of Cd 420. (2) The terms of Lord Roberts's telegram to Sir Redvers Buller of 3rd June were founded upon the instructions of Her Majesty's Government. I refer the hon. Member to Cd. 35 and Cd. 426, page 3 and page 7. I also refer the hon. Member to Cd. 458, pages 86, 87, and 88, from which he will see that the offer of General Buller to allow Commandant Botha's commando to return to their farms and take their rifles with them, subject to Lord Roberts's decision as to their ultimate disarmament, was refused by Commandant Botha. I believe that Lord Roberts's telegram was not communicated to Commandant Botha, and did not therefore influence his decision in any way. (3) The effect of the annexations was to confer upon the inhabitants the legal status of British subjects. (4) I understand that burghers guilty of no acts other than fighting against us have hitherto been treated as belligerents without reference to their legal position as British subjects.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Reverend Adrian Hofmeyr has been sent to the Transvaal as a Peace Commissioner, and, if so, by whose authority; whether this is the same person who was until lately minister of the Dutch Reformed Church of Wynburg, and, if so, if he is aware that this person was compelled to resign his position in the church for notorious misconduct, for which he was suspended for an unlimited period; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter.

I have no official information upon the subject of the hon. Member's question, but I am inquiring whether Mr. Hofmeyr has been sent to the Transvaal in the capacity mentioned.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what is the salary that is to be paid to Sir Alfred Milner in the post to which he has been recently appointed as High Commissioner of South Africa and Administrator of the annexed Republics.

He is to receive a salary of £8,000 a year as Administrator of the Transvaal and of the Orange River Colony, and £3,000 a year as High Commissioner.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the circumstances under which the Special Court of Three Judges, in October last, acquitted a Cape policeman named Smith, on the charge of murdering a native named Dollery, on 22nd November, 1899; whether the defendant was acquitted on the expressly stated ground that he was merely obeying the orders of his superior officer, Captain Cox; whether Captain Cox has since this decision of the Court been arrested and put on his trial; whether the Cape Colony Attorney General has made any report to the Colonial Office or to the High Commissioner giving reasons for not placing Captain Cox on trial; and whether he will take steps to secure the trial of Captain Cox for a murder admittedly done at his order.

The answer to the first question is that I have received the report of the trial published in the Cape Times in October last. The answer to the second is in the affirmative, and to the third in the negative. In reply to the fourth and fifth, I have to say that under Cape law absolute discretion with regard to all criminal prosecutions is vested in the Attorney General of the Cape Colony, who is responsible to the Cape Parliament. I am informed by Sir A. Milner, to whom I telegraphed on the subject, that the Attorney General has made no report on the case, but states that after careful consideration he has decided not to prosecute.

I shall take an early opportunity of drawing attention to this case.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether some Boer prisoners have escaped from one of our ships; and, if so, whether he will tell the House the name of the ship, and the name of the person responsible for the safe custody of the prisoners.

No report of any escape of Boer prisoners from men-of-war has yet been received by the Admiralty, with the exception of the case of C. K. de Meillon, a prisoner who escaped from H.M.S. "Penelope" in December, 1899. The captain of the ship was responsible for the safety of the prisoners. The court of inquiry which was held did not blame the captain for the occurrence. No intelligence has been received as to the escape of prisoners from transports.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can say how many Victoria Crosses have been bestowed since the beginning of the South African War.

Thirty-nine Victoria Crosses have been granted up to date.

What number of these crosses have been awarded to the Boers?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in the Army over the protracted delay in announcing the rewards to officers and men who have rendered distinguished services in South Africa, and that several of the officers and men who were recommended for reward in despatches written nearly a year ago have since died unrewarded, or have left the service; and whether it would be possible in future to adopt the Continental custom of conferring rewards promptly upon troops whilst in the field, or at any rate to issue such rewards before the services for which they are granted are forgotten both by the renderers thereof and by the general public.

I have no doubt that the publication of the rewards for services rendered in the South African War is being anxiously awaited, and I regret that it is the case that some officers mentioned in despatches have died. But I do not think there has been any avoidable delay in dealing with the subject; the work entailed in connection with it is very great, and many of the recommendations have only recently been received. Some are still awaited. The consideration of the names to be recommended is receiving the most constant attention by the Commander-in-Chief and myself, but some thousands of names have been mentioned, and the House will understand that the labour at present falling on the heads of the War Office is exceptionally arduous. I have already considered with the Commander-in-Chief the desirability of empowering the General in the field to give certain rewards promptly as I believe that such recognition is very valuable.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in our last great war —the Crimea—awards were distributed within three months of the battles of Alma and Inkermann? Why should not that example be followed now?

said rewards could not be given before despatches were published, and Lord Roberts's most recent despatches had not yet been fully considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Divisional Commanders at Paardeberg addressed despatches to the Commander-in-Chief in the battle; and, if so, whether, in view of the casualty list in the Highland Brigade, these despatches will be published.

The only report addressed to the Commander in-Chief respecting the battle of Paardeberg was one from General Kelly-Kenny, the main points of which were incorporated by Lord Roberts in his despatch recently published. Although it is not customary to publish such reports, there will be no objection to giving this report, and I will lay it on the Table. Perhaps I might mention at the same time that, by an accident due to the rapid movements in the field in March last, a despatch of Sir Redvers Buller relating to the action at Vaal Krantz was not transmitted by Lord Roberts to the War Office. As the Commander-in-Chief in arranging his papers after the campaign has come upon this despatch in the last few days, I will law it on the Table.

Did Lord Kitchener make any report on this battle?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a soldier serving in the Regular Arm) in South Africa, with less than six years service, and being desirous of joining the South African Constabulary, is obliged to purchase his discharge before doing so; and whether it would be desirable to allow men, with the sanction of their commanding officer, to be transferred from the Army to the Constabulary without payment.

Soldiers serving in the Regular Army who have not less than three years colour service will, if accepted for the South African Constabulary, be passed to the Reserve to complete their term of engagement. They will, therefore, not be required to purchase discharge.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any official confirmation of the alleged flogging of a coloured man, at Calvinia, named Esau, until his bowels protruded and his subsequently being shot, by the orders or with the approval of General De Wet; and if so, whether he will communicate it to the House; whether he has received any official confirmation of General De Wet flogging and shooting members of the Peace Committee, or of his flogging his own men who desire to surrender; whether the members of the Peace Committee who entered the lines of the forces of General De Wet carried the terms on which the Boers were urged to surrender to General De Wet, or whether they addressed themselves to his soldiers with a view to induce them to surrender, or to withdraw from his forces; and whether this latter action was taken with the sanction of General Kitchener.

I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War what was his authority for the statement he made on Thursday with respect to the alleged ill-treatment of a coloured man named Esau by the Boer leaders.

The authority for the statement of the flogging by the Boers of a coloured man named Esau at Calvinia was a Renter's telegram, confirmed subsequently by the report made to Cape Town by the district surgeon of Calvinia. As regards the Peace Committee, Lord Kitchener reported in a telegram of 13th January, published in the morning papers of 14th January, that three agents of the Peace Committee were taken prisoners to De Wet's laager on the 10th, and that one British subject had been flogged and then shot, and two burghers flogged by De Wet's orders. We have no information as to the third and fourth paragraphs of the hon. Member for Northampton's question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the agency to which he now refers is the same agency which he repudiated the other day?

The telegrams followed each other on separate days, and we have every reason to believe they are accurate.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information with regard to the district surgeon beyond what he read in Reuter's telegram?

Reuter's telegram contained not merely a general but a specific statement, and it was corroborated.

May I ask whether we are to understand that the other day the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown made a statement in the House of Commons without any official information?

I must remind the hon. Member that it is out of order to discuss the answer to a previous question.

Is there any truth in the report?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the district surgeon?

I cannot give the name now, but I will ascertain it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when acting as Under Secretary for War, refused over and over again to answer questions based on newspaper reports and telegrams?

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

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the circulation of certain newspapers published in this country has been prohibited in districts of the Cape Colony under martial law; what is the reason for this prohibition; whether the prohibition is by his directions or by the directions of Lord Kitchener, or by those of the local military authorities in those districts; and whether any communication has been made to the head of the Post Office at Cape Town by the military authorities in regard to the circulation of any newspapers published in this country, with a view to such papers not being transmitted through the post.

No report on this subject has reached the War Office. If such a prohibition has been issued, it has been issued by the local military authorities in the exercise of their discretion. It appears to His Majesty's Government highly desirable that such discretion should be exercised.

Does the restriction apply to Punch?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what orders have been issued by the General Commanding His Majesty's troops in South Africa regulating the burning of Boer farmhouses, and what General was in charge of the Klopskil, Jagersfontein, and Potchef-stroom districts during the month of December, 1900; whether the farmhouses in these districts were all burned and the cattle and horses belonging to the inhabitants all taken away, although no resistance was offered to the British forces; and if any steps have been taken to put a stop to the practice of house-burning in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.

The information promised in regard to farm-burning is in course of transit from South Africa, and I am not prepared to reply to the question without it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the abandoned horses passed by our column which is pursuing De Wet are being systematically collected or destroyed, to ensure that they may not when rested furnish the Boers with much needed remounts.

I have had no special report to this effect, but I think Lord Kitchener may be trusted to take all possible steps to prevent the Boers obtaining remounts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the terms of the original engagement of Brabant's Horse differed in point of duration from the terms of the original engagement of the British Imperial Yeomanry; and, if so, to what extent.

Brabant's Horse were enrolled for six months or as much longer as required. The Imperial Yeomanry were enlisted for a year or for the duration of the war.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lord Roberts expressed a wish that the Welsh Military Hospital in South Africa should be maintained there for three months longer than the term fixed for its continuance, and that the executive committee of the; hospital agreed to maintain it for a further period of three months; whether Lord Lansdowne, on 5th November, 1900, accepted the offer of the committee; and whether the hospital was broken up or disbanded on 15th November, 1900; and, if so, why.

The reply to the first two paragraphs of the question is in the affirmative. As regards paragraph 3, the hospital was absorbed in No. 2 General Hospital on the 15th November for convenience of administration.

Does the word "absorbed" mean that the staff of the hospital was continued on the same terms? And are the funds collected for this hospital now being used for an ordinary military hospital?

I am afraid I cannot answer without notice. If the hon. Gentleman will put the question down I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the Government is now offering 5s. per day to the recruits for the Imperial Yeomanry, can he state if any increase of pay is being offered, and, if so, how much, to recruits for other mounted infantry and cavalry regiments in His Majesty's service; and what rate per day is being offered to the infantry and engineer volunteers who are invited to join the Volunteer service companies now being organised for active service in South Africa.

The recruits for the mounted infantry and the cavalry of the Regular forces, and the volunteers for the Volunteer service companies are being offered and paid the ordinary Army rates of pay.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many men of the rank and file in South Africa are receiving in pay or in pay and allowances as much as 5s. a day, and to what regiments they belong.

I am unable to give the details asked for. I may state that the Imperial Yeomanry, Imperial Bushmen, and the majority of the colonial corps are paid at this rate. In cases in which a lower rate of pay has been issued to colonials it has been supplemented by the different Colonial Governments.

Will the noble Lord state the reason why the colonial troops are paid at this rate—so much higher than the Regular Army?

They would not go otherwise.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state how many Irish horses were bought from dealers in the year 1900, and how many from farmers or non-dealers, and what was the average price paid to the dealers and what was the average paid to the farmers.

The figures are as follows:—From dealers, 5,907 horses and cobs; from persons other than dealers, 207 horses and cobs. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the prices paid while purchases are still in progress.

Can the noble Lord say if orders were issued by the War Office not to purchase horses in Ireland?

No, Sir, I believe such is not the case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Chief Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why, during a, portion of the past year, the Army Department ceased to buy horses in Ireland; and whether he has any official information showing which are the best and most suitable horses for Army purposes.

The hon. Member has been misinformed. The War Department has not ceased buying horses in Ireland during the past year. Irish and English horses have proved the best of those imported into the Cape for Army purposes, and considerable purchases are contemplated in the immediate future.

Is it not the fact that orders were given to cease buying horses in Ireland because of the opposition of the Irish people to the war?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the horses purchased in Hungary as remounts for South Africa included a number of young unseasoned horses, and mares too old even for breeding purposes; and whether the officer responsible for the purchase of these animals is still employed in buying remounts for the British Army.

The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. Two officers of the Department have been employed in Hungary; one of these is still there.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many of the Yeomanry recruits who recently arrived at Aldershot were kept for several days unprovided with overcoats or boots; that they have been drilled in the snow unprovided with proper clothing or boots; that hundreds of recruits have been obliged to sleep on the floor every night, no beds being provided; and that, notwithstanding the cold and absence of overcoats, they have been compelled to wear thin khaki clothes; and will he cause a full inquiry to be made into the matter.

I will ask the hon. Member to postpone his question for a few days to enable inquiry to be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can tell the House what are the rates of pay and expenses of living for officers in the various regiments of His Majesty's forces.

The hon. Member will find the rates of pay in the Pay Warrant. It is clearly impossible to state the expenses of living for officers in the various regiments.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the Militia regiments which volunteered for service abroad, and have been or are garrisoning the Channel Islands, will receive similar advantages to those Militia regiments which are garrisoning stations in the Mediterranean and elsewhere as laid down in paragraphs 601B and 601C of the Royal Warrant—namely, that each officer not on retired Army pay will on the disembodiment of his regiment receive a gratuity of £100, and after the first twelve months of service a further gratuity of £100 for each year of service; and whether the regiments stationed in the Channel Islands will be given the six months additional service granted to the regiments in South Africa and elsewhere.

The reply to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The reply to the second is in the negative, as the gratuity referred to therein is specifically limited to battalions serving in South Africa.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, considering the length of time during which many Militia battalions now serving abroad have already been embodied, the time has arrived when, at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, other battalions should be embodied to relieve them.

As I recently explained to the House, I am not in a position at present to reply to this question.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position?

I must take time to consider, as it is a large and important question. Regiments can only be relieved by others volunteering to replace them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the deliberations of the War Office Reform Committee have reached a stage which enables him to inform the House as to the intentions of His Majesty's Government in respect of the allocation of Army contracts by persons having expert knowledge of commercial pursuits, and the inspection of deliveries under such contracts by officials possessing technical and professional acquaintance with the stores supplied for the service of His Majesty's Army.

No, Sir. I have not yet received a report, and I must await the opinion of the Committee before taking steps.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the action of a contractor named Broderick, who is alleged by the Dublin Amalgamated Society of Painters to have employed in executing certain painting work at the Royal Barracks, Dublin, an undue proportion of boys and improvers; and whether he will inquire if the terms of the contract authorised the employment of such a proportion of boys and improvers; and if so, whether such a contract is in accordance with the Fair Wages Resolution of this House.

I am not aware that an undue proportion of boys and improvers were employed on the work in question. The General Officer commanding has reported that the work is completed, and that he therefore cannot verify the contractors' statements. War Office contracts require, in accordance with the Fair Wages Resolution of this House, that the wage current in the district for competent workmen shall be paid by the contractor.

Is the noble Lord aware it has been acknowledged that this contractor employed only six painters, and eight boys and improvers? Is not that an excessive employment of boy labour, and an invasion of the Fair Wages clause?

Order, order ! The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government still maintain that Ireland gains over £2,000,000 a year by Army expenditure; and he will undertake that, without grave cause, no change is introduced into the Army contract system previously prevailing in Ireland; on what grounds was Colonel Richardson, of the Army Service Corps, allowed four years ago to introduce changes to all canteens in the Dublin District; and was it with the sanction of the War Office that Major King, Director of Canteen Supplies, was brought from London to assist him; will he explain why the Curragh Camp in the following year adopted the new system, with the consequence that not only ale, but Irish porter and Irish whisky are now contracted for by an English firm; and also why was the Cork District subsequently placed under the new system; will he explain why the new system was never enforced in the Belfast District; is there any intention to establish in Ireland what is called the tenant system as regards these Army contracts, and can he state its nature; and will the Government consider the advisability of allowing regiments quartered in Ireland to give local merchants the benefit of their expenditure.

As I have already explained to the House, the discretion of making contracts for canteens rests with the General Officers commanding districts. The necessity of decentralising such matters is obvious. It would be impossible for the War Office to undertake the control of such contracts, and I am not prepared to interfere with the discretion of the General Officers, but I will draw the attention of General Officers commanding to the desirability as far as possible of employing local firms.

asked if the officer referred to in the question was connected with the Canteen Co-operative Society.

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the beer and porter used by the troops stationed in Ireland are now got from English brewers; whether he can state if the beer for the soldiers in Ireland is from any of the districts in England where poison was found in the beer; whether he is aware that the ordering of beer from England for the troops in Ireland is a loss to Irish brewers as well as to the labouring and farming classes in Ireland, where barley and oats are grown; and whether he will advise the War Office to order from Irish brewers beer for the soldiers stationed in Ireland.

I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question by the hon. Member for North Meath on Monday, the 18th instant.^* I may add that General and other Commanding Officers are fully alive to the necessity of occasionally having malt liquor analysed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an order for 1,000 barrels of ale for the use of the troops in South Africa was recently taken from a Dublin firm and handed over to an English brewery company; and whether, in view of the recent revelations as to the dangerous nature of certain British beers, he will direct that the supply in future for the troops in South Africa and Ireland shall be obtained from Dublin brewers.

I must refer the hon. Gentleman to other answers I have given on the same subject. Nothing is known of the matter alluded to.

Will the noble Lord answer the last paragraph of the question?

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the oats and hay supplied to the Army horses stationed in Ireland are purchased in that country; and, if not, can he say why this is not done.

All forage contracts for the troops in Ireland are made locally and with two exceptions are held by Irish firms.

Is the noble Lord aware of the fact that Irish farmers do not supply the contractors?

I am not aware of that.

Will you inquire?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can explain the reason why the warrant officers of the Navy who were landed from their ships on the Cape station, and took an active and distinguished part in the general advance from Enslin, remaining with the Naval Brigade throughout the operations of last year, have had no participation in the promotions and honours awarded, notwithstanding the fact that all of them have been favourably mentioned in despatches, and that almost all the commissioned and subordinate officers have been promoted or noted for promotion.

A warrant officer who distinguished himself in the defence of Ladysmith has been promoted to commissioned rank, and the names of other officers have been noted for special consideration when the opportunity of recognising their services presents itself. Warrant officers are not eligible for honours which are limited by the Statutes of the Orders to Officers of Commissioned rank, but their position in this respect has been for some time under consideration, and it is hoped that a means of recognising the services of this valuable class of officer may be shortly approved.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty are making experiments with a view to ascertain whether submarine boats can be successfully utilised for purposes of naval warfare; and, if so, whether the particulars of these experiments can be communicated to Members of this House.

The question of submarine boats has for some time past seriously engaged the attention of the Admiralty, and a statement will shortly be made by the First Lord as to the steps which have been or are to be taken. I would, therefore, ask leave to postpone answering the hon. Member's question more fully pending the publication of that statement, which will be presented to the House in a few days.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the reason why the annuity of £25 per annum usually awarded to the widow of a warrant officer has been denied to the widow of W. Ball, late carpenter, R.N., who died on the 19th July last, and who at the time of his death was in receipt of a warrant officer's pension.

Mrs. Ball was ineligible for the award of a widow's pension, her husband having been placed on the retired list on account of misconduct.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Reynolds, a fireman belonging to H.M. Naval Reserve, who in August or September of 1899 left Pembroke Dock in charge of time-expired men, and was stabbed by one of them in the eye and in consequence lost his eyesight; and whether, seeing that Reynolds was discharged without any pension or compensation and left destitute, and in view of all the circumstances of the case, he has any power to grant him any compensation or allowance; and, if so, whether he will exercise such power.

Yes, Sir; and Reynolds has been granted 1s. a day for life.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether naval cadets, whether on duty or on leave, in inclement weather are debarred by official regulations from wearing great coats; and whether, as a consequence of recent exposure without great coats, several cadets are now suffering from pulmonary disease, and one cadet has already succumbed to it.

I have endeavoured to get the information asked for, but the notice was too short. If the hon. Member will postpone the major part of the question, I will answer it another day. But I may say that the cadet who succumbed was not one of those who suffered from the inclemency of the weather on the occasion referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state how many time-expired soldiers are now serving with the colours in India.

The Viceroy reported on 20th January, 1901, that the time-expired men in India numbered 15,000.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether His Majesty's Government contemplate the creation of a new frontier province which is to comprise several districts of the Punjab; and, if so, to what kind of administration will the new province be subjected.

His Majesty's Government have approved of the principle of a scheme for the creation of an Agency immediately under the control of the Government of India. The scheme contemplates the detachment of two whole Districts, and parts of two others from the Punjab Government; but the details of the administration are not yet settled. I hope to present to the House Papers on the subject at an early date.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government have now any information of Count Von Waldersee's reported further expedition into China; whether British commanders have asked for instructions as to co-operation; if so, what instructions have been given them.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have now received information regarding the proposed expedition of Count Waldersee; if so, when the information arrived, and whether he can explain the delay in its transmission; and whether the British troops could take part or prepare to take part in such an expedition without the direct authorisation of the Government.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government will issue orders to the General commanding the British forces in China instructing him not to take part in any further military expeditions without specific orders from the Home Government.

We have been informed that Field Marshal Count von Waldersee has issued an Army Order in which the Field Marshal announces that in his judgment, owing to the unsatisfactory progress of the peace negotiations, a resumption of larger operations may become shortly necessary. We have asked to be supplied with full information as to the scope and purpose of these movements, and upon receipt of this information His Majesty's Government will consider whether any instructions different from those already given should be sent to Sir A. Gaselee.

Will precautions be taken that no military movements by British troops shall be carried out until the Government has taken this information into consideration?

As my right hon. friend is aware, a state of war prevails in certain parts of North China, and under such conditions it is hardly reasonable to put to me such a question without notice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received notice of the supplementary provisions which M. de Witte is reported to desire to add to the agreement between China and Russia with regard to Manchuria; and, if so, whether such provisions conflict with his statement that the guarantee which the Russians expected from China with regard to Manchuria would not take the form of an acquisition of territory or of a virtual or actual protectorate; and whether it is the intention of the Government to secure for this country the full enjoyment of the rights which are guaranteed to it in Manchuria, as well as in other portions of the Chinese Empire, by its treaties with China.

The answer to the first question is in the negative. No agreement in respect of Manchuria has been communicated by the Russian Government to His Majesty's Government. The statement which I made on Monday was based on a report furnished by His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, and upon the authority of the Russian Government. The arrangement to which the hon. Member refers is, I assume, that made between the Russian and the Chinese local authorities for temporary and provisional purposes, and such an arrangement cannot affect the rights enjoyed by this country under our treaties with the Chinese Empire.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Minister in Peking has been a consenting party to any communication to the Government of China indicating that the Foreign Ministers would approve of an edict requiring a number of Chinese officials to commit suicide.

The reply is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the property occupied for twenty-two years by Sir Robert Hart and his staff in Peking has been annexed by the Italian Legation.

We have no information on the specific point alluded to. The question is, however, involved in that of the defence of the Legation quarter, which is now under consideration by a military Commission appointed by the foreign representatives at Peking. No decision has yet been arrived at. In this connection I may perhaps be allowed to refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer on Tuesday last.†

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether since the relief of the Legations at Peking any cases have been transmitted by British officials in China on His Majesty's vessels either to Hong Kong or to any other port; and whether, if so, he is in a position to say that none of these cases contained loot acquired from the Chinese.

No information in respect of any such occurence as that described by the hon. Member has reached the Admiralty.

† See page 476.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Admirals on the station if anything of the kind has occurred?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the proposed Sugar Conference; whether formal or informal invitations have been issued, and by and to what Power or Powers; when and where it is proposed to meet, together with any further information he can, consistently with the public interest, give to the House.

Suggestions have recently been received from the Belgian Government for the reassembling of the Brussels Conference upon certain bases. These suggestions are at present under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, but at the present stage it would not be desirable to indicate their exact nature. The Powers represented at the last Conference were Great Britain, Germany, Austria - Hungary, Belgium, Spain, France, Holland, Russia, Sweden. It is presumed the above-mentioned suggestions have been made to these Powers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can see his way to order the abolition of penal labour, and especially shot drill, in Grenada and other West Indian prisons; and whether, seeing remunerative labour has already been substituted in many of these institutions for the treadmill and other forms of punishment, some small proportion of the money earned by these methods might be allocated to the prisoners as a further inducement to their good behaviour.

The prison rules and practice in West Indian prisons are based upon and as far as possible assimilated to the rules and practice in the prisons of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member may be assured that so far as circumstances and resources allow I shall be glad to further the views embodied in his question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the systems of old age pensions adopted in certain colonies, together with a Report as to the cost and working of such systems up to the present time.

The only colonies in which old age pensions systems have been adopted are New Zealand, New South Wales, and Victoria. In the case of the two latter States the Acts were only passed at the end of last year, and I have not yet received a copy of the Victorian Act. The New Zealand Act came into force on 1st November, 1898, and I have received reports on its working up to June, 1900, which I shall be happy to place in the Library, with copies of the three Acts.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Master of the Mint, if in the quarterings on any new coinage that may be issued in the reign of His Majesty King Edward he will see that the Principality of Wales is not ignored; and whether he will consider the desirability of marking the value clearly upon the face of every denomination of coin.

It does not rest with the Master of the Mint to decide what the quarterings of the Royal Arms should be. His duty is only to consider whether they should be represented on the coinage. Unless they are altered, of course they would be represented, if at all, in their present form. Before any new coinage is issued, the question whether any alteration of present designs is advisable will be fully considered, including the point mentioned by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, in view of the recent conviction and fining of itinerant palmists, he can give an assurance that the law will be put in force against the fashionable palmists, clairvoyants, and phrenologists in London.

I have been asked by my hon. and learned friend to answer this question. The important point to consider in determining whether or not it is desirable to prosecute such persons under the Vagrant Act is whether or not the practice is followed with a view to fraud or other unlawful purpose. The police have instructions to watch suspicious cases, and whenever there is good ground for believing that fraud or imposition is being practised they will be directed to prosecute.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the present justices of the peace will have to be resworn in their allegiance to the King; and, if so, whether the magistrates' clerks at petty sessions can administer the oath, or whether they will have to attend quarter sessions for this purpose.

I am advised that it is not necessary in consequence of the demise of the Crown that justices should take anew the Judicial Oath and the Oath of Allegiance, but that it is desirable that they should do so. If they do, the oaths are required by the Promissory Oaths Act, 1871, to be taken before one of His Majesty's judges in open court, or in open court at general or quarter sessions, except that borough justices may take the oaths before the mayor. It would not, in my opinion, be lawful for county justices to take the oaths in petty sessions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home De- partment whether it is possible that a reduction could be made in the fees charged for the naturalisation of aliens which now press hardly on members of the working classes; whether a general reduction could be made; and whether it could be arranged that working men whose incomes are less than £80 a year, and who have lived over ten years in this country, paying rates and taxes and bearing a good character, could have some special exemption made in their favour.

I do not propose to make a general reduction in the fee for a naturalisation certificate, and I do not think that the suggestion in the second paragraph is desirable or practicable.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what was the number of collisions at sea in which British ships were engaged during the six months ending 31st December, 1900; and in how many cases of such collisions have the Board of Trade held an inquiry.

The number of collisions at sea in which British ships were involved and which were reported to the Board of Trade during the six months ended 31st December, 1900, was 431. The Board ordered formal inquiry in six of those cases. Three inquiries have been held. Three have been abandoned owing to the cases being taken to the Admiralty Court, and two are pending. In addition to the inquiries ordered by the Board of Trade six were held abroad either by Naval or Colonial Courts. I should like to add that the majority of the 431 cases to which I have referred were trivial, that loss of life occurred in only eighteen of them, and that in many instances the Board of Trade did not order inquiry because the cases were already before the Admiralty Court.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department have considered the desirability of prescribing a standard gauge for electric trams in future Acts, so as to enable towns to be electrically connected in this country, as in America, without break of gauge.

The Board of Trade are fully aware of the importance of a uniform gauge, and when opportunity offers press their views on the subject upon promoters. I think it would be a mistake, however, to insist on the adoption of the standard gauge as an absolutely invariable rule; in hilly districts and in towns with very narrow streets it is sometimes desirable to adopt a gauge less than the usual 4 feet 8½ inches.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the captain of the sailing ship "Primrose Hill" stated publicly, before sailing from Liverpool, that his ship had been delayed during fine weather for several days wanting a crew, which could not be supplied by the Board of Trade officials; that other persons could have supplied the crew but doing so would have been contrary to the Act of 1854; and that two days after leaving Liverpool the "Primrose Hill" was driven ashore and became a total wreck, only one of the crew being saved; and whether, under the circumstances, he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to increasing the facilities for captains obtaining crews.

Yes, Sir; I am aware of the circumstances of the case to which my hon. friend refers and of the statements made by the captain. An inquiry into the wreck of the "Primrose Hill" has been ordered, and I am informed that proceedings for libel are being taken in connection with the case. Until the inquiry has been held I can express no opinion on the point referred to in the last paragraph of the question.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state what proportion of apprentices was carried by this vessel, and if they were so carried with a view to obtaining a reduction of the light dues?

I am afraid I cannot without notice, but probably this is one of the questions being inquired into.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recent case of murder and attempted murder in a railway compartment; and whether he has taken or will take steps to discourage the employment of separate compartment railway carriages on express trains.

The introduction of corridor trains and carriages is a matter within the discretion of the railway companies themselves, and I am not in a position to interfere. Considerable progress in this respect has been made during recent years.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the negotiations for the sale to the London and North Western Railway Company of certain property at Holyhead, and the proposals to erect a new mail pier and extend the Mackenzie Pier at Holyhead, have been abandoned; or whether the Board of Trade intend to proceed, during the next session of Parliament, with the Bill to enable them to carry out those arrangements.

Yes, Sir; the negotiations for the sale to the London and North Western Railway Company of certain property at Holyhead have been abandoned having regard to the great cost which would be entailed by the erection of a new mail pier, a cost largely in excess of what was at one time anticipated.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state how many localities have adopted the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899; how much money was advanced by these local authorities last year under that Act; and how many dwellings were purchased under its provisions.

My information is limited to cases in which the borrowing of money by local authorities in England and Wales has been sanctioned for the purposes of the Act. Three local authorities were authorised to borrow money last year in respect of the purchase of eight houses, the amount sanctioned being £1,830.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of deaths which have taken place in Great Britain during the past twelve months from the effect of drinking arsenicised beer, and also the number of cases reported during the same period in Great Britain in which people were reported or stated to have been poisoned, or to have suffered from the effects of drinking beer unfit for human use.

The amount of exceptional sickness and death in England and Wales attributable to poisoning by arsenic is one of the qestions referred to the Royal Commission recently appointed. The Local Government Board are not in possession of the particulars asked for by the hon. Member. The latest information they have on the subject is contained in the Report made to them by Dr. Buchanan, which was presented to both Houses of Parliament last week.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps are being taken to preserve London from the danger of an outbreak of the small-pox epidemic so prevalent in Glasgow.

I am happy to say that according to the latest Returns there is at present practically no smallpox in London. It is by the vaccination of unvaccinated persons and the revaccination of adults that effective steps can best be taken to prevent an outbreak of this disease.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture how many cases of swine fever occurred in 1898, 1899, and 1900 respectively; what was the total cost in each year in measures for suppressing swine fever; and whether any sums, if so, how much, were deducted each year from the grants in aid of local taxation.

The number of outbreaks of swine fever which occurred in 1898 was 2,514; in 1899 there were 2,322, and in 1900 1,940. The net expenditure incurred in dealing with the disease was, approximately, £112,000 in 1898–9, £71,500 in 1899–1900, and, according to our latest estimate, it will amount to £52,000 for the current year. The amount drawn from the Local Taxation Accounts was £70,000 in 1898–9, and £38,000 in 1899– 1900. We shall probably require £15,000 from the same source from swine fever business during the present year.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether postmen who offer themselves as candidates for postmaster and sub-postmaster vacancies that are advertised in the Official Circular are required to have a knowledge of telegraph duties.

It is open to any officer of the Department whatever his rank and whether possessed of telegraph qualifications or not, to apply for any appointment as postmaster or sub-postmaster advertised in the Official Circular. Of course a candidate who possessed such qualifications would have a better chance of success, other things being equal, than one who did not.

But is a knowledge of telegraphic duties insisted upon?

No. Sir; but, other things being equal, the candidate with the knowledge stands the better chance of success.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will grant a Return showing the number of hours overtime, under the various heads in which overtime is claimed, performed at the Central Telegraph Office, London, and in the telegraph department of all the offices in Schedule A, during the twelve months ending 31st December, 1900.

A general Return for the offices in question would involve a good deal of labour in compilation, and would not in the opinion of the Postmaster General be of any general interest. But if the hon. Member desires to have the figures for any particular office the Postmaster General will endeavour to supply him with the information.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the sporting rights mentioned in the last Report of His Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests and Land Revenues as having been leased in the counties of Radnor and Merioneth to certain persons for terms of 10 and 20 years were duly advertised so that the public had an opportunity of applying for them; and whether a valuation was made by a responsible agent of the sporting right in the county of Radnor which is now leased at a less rent than was previously obtained.

The leases referred to in the question are three in number, two being of sporting in Merionethshire, and one of sporting in Radnorshire; they were not advertised. The first Merionethshire lease was to the old tenant who agreed to pay its full value as estimated by the Crown valuer; the second Merionethshire lease comprised the shooting over three farms recently bought by the Crown, and over some Crown waste adjoining them. It was part of the bargain with the vendor of the farms that he should have such a lease. The Radnorshire lease was granted to the only person who could be got to make an offer for it. The previous tenant refused to renew, and all likely persons were invited to tender, but it was not thought worth while to incur the expense of advertising or getting a valuation in such a small case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Public Prosecutor will take proceedings against the persons scheduled in the Report of the judges who tried the Maidstone Petition, or whether other steps will be taken locally or by His Majesty's Government to bring these persons to justice; and whether the persons so scheduled will in any case be disqualified from voting in the election of a member to fill the vacancy created by the decision.

Persons scheduled who have received certificates of indemnity cannot be prosecuted. The few cases in which such certificates were not granted are under consideration. The persons so scheduled are in all cases disqualified from voting in the election to fill the vacancy.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General if his attention has been directed to the judgment given in the Maidstone Election Petition case, when Mr. Justice Kennedy stated that there seemed to have been a more or less systematic provision made for the corrupt wants of the lower class voters, but that the total number of cases of bribery proved was only 25, and that there was no evidence which enabled the court to form a satisfactory opinion as to the proportion of the bribable class of voters; whether the representatives of the Director of Prosecutions who attended the trial called any witnesses able to give material evidence, as directed by Section 43 (3) of the Corrupt Practices Act, 1883, or took any steps, by applying for an adjournment or otherwise, to assist the election judges to form a satisfactory opinion as to the extent to which corrupt practices prevailed in the borough; and what further steps the Government propose to take to ascertain the truth before assenting to the issue of a new writ.

My attention has been called to the judgment in this case. The representative of the Director of Public Prosecutions was not in possession of any material evidence, and had no grounds on which he could properly have applied for an adjournment. I am informed by him that the court stated that they had no reason to doubt that all cases in support of which satisfactory evidence could be produced had been brought before them, and that he has no ground to suppose that this is not correct. It is extremely difficult to obtain legal proof in such cases. Under these circumstances it does not appear that any good would result from further delay.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, in view of the fact that the business of the King's Bench Division is at present much delayed through the absence of its Judges on circuit, he can promise any reform of the present circuit system.

The fact that two judges have been of late required for Election Petitions, and that one judge has been ill, has caused some interruption in the normal despatch of business in the King's Bench Division. Any proposal to deprive any counties of Assizes is attended with great practical difficulties. The whole question of improving the conduct of business in the King's Bench Division is being carefully considered.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he can state on what grounds the names of witnesses in the recent case of Cory-Thomas v. Spink were suppressed.

The names of some of the witnesses in the case referred to were, in pursuance of an arrangement made by the counsel in the case, not mentioned, with the very proper object of avoiding the infliction of un-necessary pain and annoyance.

I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thinks the practice should be extended.

It is not in order when a question on the Paper has been answered for an hon. Member to ask another on a matter of opinion.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, pending the decision in the Court of Appeal in the case of Regina v. Cocker-ton, he will advise the Board to continue the grants to such Schools as may be affected by the judgment of Justices Wills and Kennedy, and whether any legislation' is in contemplation on the subject should their judgment be confirmed.

The Board has already informed the schools affected that the status quo will be maintained until final judgment. The Board will want to see what that judgment is before deciding what action should be taken upon it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a bomb was discharged some months ago from the city walls of Londonderry into the yard of a house in Wellington Street in the said city; whether complaint about this matter was made by the occupier of the said house to the justices sitting in petty sessions, and if they directed the police authorities to investigate the occurrence; can he state whether any investigation was made as so directed; and, if so, with what result; and, will he see that the police authorities take steps to have the law at present in force in the said city carried out, and thereby prevent the discharge of firearms and explosives at future Orange anniversaries.

The occurrence referred to in the first paragraph took place on the 6th June last. A rocket of a dangerous character was discharged on the occasion. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. The matter was very carefully in vestigated by the police, and the police communicated with the organiser of the demonstration, who was aware that rockets of the character referred to had been used and expressed his regret that they had been discharged. The police are alive to the importance of enforcing the law as regards the use of firearms and explosives, and will use their best endeavours to prevent a breach of the law in this respect in future.

And is a mere expression of regret from a leader of the Orange party sufficient to satisfy the Constabulary?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount of money granted by Parliament for the construction of railways in Ireland which is yet unexpended; under what account and to what fund these unexpended sums are credited; and, in cases where original plans have fallen through, can these sums or any of them be devoted to the construction or extension of other lines.

The amount of the grant referred to so far unexpended is £270, 286. This sum is not held in a Suspense Account, as the money is lent when required to the Treasury by the National Debt Commissioners, on the application of the Board of Public Works. The whole of the money made available under the Act of 1896, except a small balance to meet possible excess expenditure in carrying out the schemes already undertaken, has been hypothecated.

Have any schemes had to be abandoned?

A sufficient number have not been abandoned to make it necessary to retain the money in hand.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that the drainage of the Owenmore river in South Sligo would be the means of converting hundreds of acres of marsh now practically useless into good arable land; and whether, as this river passes through a congested district, he will favourably consider the question of a grant by the Board of Agriculture in aid of a scheme for having it drained.

I have no information respecting the first paragraph. No application with reference to a scheme for the drainage of the river mentioned has been made to the Department of Agriculture, and I am unable to say that the Department would favourably entertain any such application if made to them. The matter appears to me to be one in which application should be made to the Commissioners of Public Works, who are invested with statutory powers in reference to the formation and maintenance of drainage districts.

Seeing that this is a matter of great importance locally, will the right hon. Gentleman further consider it?

I am willing to consider any matter laid before me, but there is not enough money available to take up every project, however much it may be desired locally.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to grant the Return in regard to the Land Judges Court on the Order Paper for this day.

I am not prepared to grant the Return in the form asked for. Its compilation would impose a great deal of labour on a Department which is barely able to cope with its work. Moreover, the Return would prove misleading, since it would embrace many particulars which have no bearing on the question of Land Purchase.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will lay a Return upon the Table showing the number of estates in the Land Judges' Court in Ireland; the number of officials (including local receivers) employed in their management; the gross total of the rents collected in respect of such estates by the receivers during the year 1899; and the net total available in respect of that year for those beneficially interested after deduction of all charges for administration and collection.

I regret I am unable to grant this Return, for reasons similar to those given by me in answer to a previous question standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Tyrone.

put a supplementary question, which could not be heard, and Mr. WYNDHAM promised to speak to him privately.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police suffering from illness or injury contracted while discharging their duty are sent to hospital at their own expense; (2) whether the sum deducted from their pay is equivalent in the case of sergeants to about half their pay; (3) whether a Dublin policeman, if nursed by his wife, suffers a stoppage of a shilling a day, and if it is expected that he can support his family and pay for medical requisites in these circumstances; (4) whether members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are obliged, in case of sickness requiring hospital treatment, to go to a hospital selected by the authorities, which pro- vides for the religious comfort of no patients except those belonging to the Irish Protestant Church; and (5) whether the Government will inquire into the whole question of treating members of the two forces when ill, and either provide a hospital or else allow the men to select their own hospital and arrange their own terms of payment.

Members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police and Royal Irish Constabulary who are sent to hospital are required to defray the hospital charges. In the case of the former force, these charges amount to 2s. a day for single men, and 1s. 6d. for married men. The rates charged to men of the Constabulary treated at Steevens' Hospital are 2s. 3d. for single men and 1s. 4d. for married men. Men of this force treated in the depot are charged 1s. 1d. a day. The stoppage of a shilling, to which reference is made in the third question, is not enforced in all cases. If the man's officer and the doctor con cur in recommending him for exemption, no such stoppage is made. In reply to the fourth question, Steevens' Hospital has been selected by the Constabulary authorities for the treatment of men from that force, except in cases of fever. I understand that clergymen of all denominations have free access to this hospital. It is not proposed to make any alteration in the existing hospital arrangements in either of the two forces.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what amount of money was paid to the late Inspector General of Constabulary from the Constabulary Force Fund on the occasion of his retirement: whether unmarried members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are forced to pay an annual subscription to this fund against their will, and whether there is any provision for their reaping any benefit except their travelling expenses home on retirement; and whether he can state what amount of money has been paid into the Constabulary Force Fund by unmarried policemen since it was subsidised by the Government, and what amount was disbursed in respect of unmarried policemen during the same period.

At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. The late Inspector General received a sum of £171 from the Constabulary Force Fund. Unmarried members of the force who joined before the 18th June, 1883, are subject to a statutory deduction of 30s. per cent. from their pay for the fund, and should they marry, their wives and children would be entitled, subject to the rules governing the fund, to participate in the benefits of the fund in addition to the grants on retirement, referred to in the question as "travelling expenses." As regards the second paragraph, I am informed that the books and accounts do not distinguish between payments made by married and unmarried members, respectively.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the sergeant of police at Ballybofey, county Donegal, on 1st February last, called upon the publicans of Ballybofey and Stranorlar, county Donegal, and peremptorily ordered them to close their places of business during the next day, being the occasion of the late Queen's funeral, and by whose authority and under what Act of Parliament the sergeant acted.

The facts are not correctly stated in the question. It appears that some publicans asked the sergeant of police whether they were required to close their places of business. The sergeant replied in the affirmative, but subsequently he saw his error and at once informed the publicans it was unnecessary to close. They opened their places of business as usual on the 2nd instant,