I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before the month of September, 1899, the Government were in possession of information that, in the event of war breaking out with the Transvaal, the Orange Free State would take the side of the sister Republic, and that this country would have to face the combined forces of the two States; and, if not, at what period this information reached them.

I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means by this question. There was no treaty that I am aware of between the Orange Free State and the Transvaal Republic of an offensive character.

I referred to the Report, a copy of which has within the last few days been placed on the Library, issued by the Intelligence Department of the War Office about four months before the war began, in which it is stated that—

Order, order! Notice had better be given of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House evidence showing that the Chartered Company had a claim of £5 to every £1 claimed by the late Transvaal Government for the Jameson raid.

No, Sir; I have not received any such claim from the Chartered Company.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this question further, as the statement was made in the House on his behalf by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

No, Sir. I do not think that my right hon. friend used the words which are repeated in the question. In any case I can only deal with the claim if made by the company in question. No such claim has been made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the words he refers to?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the case of the late George Kerr, a member of the dock police of Cape Town, who died early last year, and is believed to have left property undisposed of in Cape Town; whether he is aware that the police authorities at Cape Town realised the property referred to and sent to his relatives in Ireland as the result a sum of about £19; and can he state by what right the police authorities so acted, and whether there is now any means of ascertaining if the sum mentioned represented the whole value of the estate.

I have no information on the matter, which appears to be one entirely for the consideration and decision, of the Cape Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what portions of the Vote of £7,800, under Subhead O 1 of Vote for Colonial Services, in Supplementary Estimates is due to the Transvaal Concessions, the Land Settlement, and the Transvaal Financial Commissions respectively, and when the House may expect to be in possession of the Reports of these three Commissions or missions of inquiry.

(1) The figures are as follows: Transvaal Concessions, £3,500; Land Settlement Commission, £2,650; Transvaal Financial Commission, £1,650—total £7,800. (2) I cannot say until I have received and considered them.

Is the Land Settlement Commission proceeding?

Yes; it is considering its Report. As I stated the other day, the evidence has not yet reached me.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can inform the House what general granted the armistice of twenty-four hours to General Cronje, which Lord Roberts on his arrival at Paardeberg, as he states in his despatch of the 28th February, 1900, immediately revoked on the ground that the request for an armistice was obviously only an expedient to gain time for reinforcements to arrive.

The paragraph referred to is a little misleading. The facts are as follows: On the morning of the 19th February a message arrived from General Cronje asking for an armistice for twenty-four hours to enable him to bury his dead and send out his wounded. Lord Kitchener, as chief of the staff, replied to the message in the name of the senior officer at Paardeberg— Lieutenant-General French — who was with the cavalry some little distance off, to the effect that the message was being sent to the Field Marshal commanding, and that, pending his reply, Cronje's laager would not be attacked. Lord Roberts received the message about 10 a.m. the same day, on his arrival at Paardeberg, and gave orders that the armistice could not be granted for the reason given in the despatch.

May I ask the right lion. Gentleman whether when Lord Kitchener replied he was actually in command of the British army on that day at Paardeberg?

No, Sir; the actual control was in the hands of the senior general officer, who, at that moment, by local rank, was not Lord Kitchener. Lord Kitchener was empowered by Lord Roberts to offer advice if he thought it necessary, and, if he offered such advice, no doubt it was taken by the senior officer on the spot.

What was the strength of Cronje's force as compared with the British?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an officer whose conduct forms the subject of a court of inquiry has the right or is afforded the opportunity of appearing in person before such court, and of calling witnesses in his defence; and whether officers of all ranks, against whom steps have been taken by the War Office in consequence of the finding of a court of inquiry before which they have not had the opportunity of appearing, have the right, whether on full or on half-pay, to demand a court-martial; and, if not, whether they have any, and, if so, what right of appeal.

The officer on whom a court of inquiry is held has the right and is afforded the opportunity of appearing before the court. The court of inquiry may report circumstances directly or indirectly affecting other officers, but in such cases the fact that they have not been called is considered in dealing with the finding of the court. No officer has a right of appeal to a court-martial, but to the Commander-in-Chief and the Sovereign, in accordance with Section 42 of the Army Act.

May I ask if steps are being taken by the War Office to alter these rules in accordance with the promise given by the right lion. Gentleman and the First Lord of the Treasury the other day.

No promise was given as to the alteration of rules, but certain pledges were given as to the way in which officers were to be treated in certain cases, and these pledges will be adhered to.

What I would like to ask the right lion. Gentleman is, are all officers whose conduct may be the subject of a court of inquiry given the opportunity of appearing before the court?

It is impossible to assure the procedure to such a degree that, when the conduct of one officer is under consideration by a court of inquiry, no evidence may be by any chance brought forward which may affect some other officer who may not be present. But should any action be taken on such evidence, or on the report made on it, of course the fact of such officer not being present is taken into account.

I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether where punishment is passed upon an officer in accordance with the result of a court of inquiry that officer is given as a matter of right the opportunity of having his case heard before sentence is passed upon him?

I think the hon. Member had better put his question down. I am quite aware of the case to which he refers, and I am prepared, at the proper time, to answer it, but I am not prepared to enter into a debate on this question in the form of a question and answer across the floor of the House. But I may state that the officer to whom the hon. Member refers had had an opportunity of making an explanation, and the substance of his explanation was well known to the officer who made the recommendation in regard to it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is possible to state the number of men sent to South Africa by the Dominion of Canada, the Colony of New Zealand, and each of the six Australian Colonies respectively, and the number in each case who have completed their service and returned to the Colonies; also the number in the case of each of these Colonies now serving in South Africa.

I fear I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone this question for a fortnight, in order to obtain the information.

Have the Government any official information as to the reported surrender of General Botha?

No official information has been received.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence between Lord Roberts and General Louis Botha in reference to the burning of farms in the vicinity of railways damaged by the Boers.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that the pay of the Imperial Yeomanry is now 5s. per day both for the newly enrolled members of that corps and for those who are already serving in South Africa, whether he will take into his favourable consideration an increase of pay to the artillery, engineer, and rifle Volunteers who are now serving in South Africa, and to the members of the Volunteer service companies which have recently been enrolled for active service, so as to place the members of these corps on an equal footing with those of the Imperial Yeomanry.

It would be impossible to place members of the Volunteer service companies on a different footing as regards pay from the Regular infantry with whom they are serving. We are endeavouring to relieve as many as possible of the Volunteers who went out to South Africa last year.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, if a soldier on active service in South Africa dies of disease contracted during and incidental to such service, his widow is entitled to either a gratuity or a pension; and can he say when the Government propose to initiate a pension scheme for the widows of such men; and whether they will undertake to do so before making any grants to victorious generals.

Under existing regulations the widow of a soldier dying under the circumstances stated does not receive pension or gratuity from public funds. Under a scheme, which will shortly be issued, pensions will be given in such cases.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if ho can state approximately what was the contribution in men of the Volunteer Force to the first levy of the body styled Imperial Yeomanry, and what to the new levy, and how many came respectively from the Yeomanry Cavalry of Great Britain.

The number contributed to the first levy of the Imperial Yeomanry by the Yeomanry Cavalry was 1,898, and by the Volunteers 1,145. Corresponding figures for the second levy are not at present available.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Woodstock Hospital, Cape Town, is still being used for enteric patients; and whether, in view of the smells which are acknowledged to exist at Woodstock, any steps have been taken to find another and more suitable site in the neighbourhood of Cape Town.

The hospital is still being used for enteric patients. Many improvements have recently been made in the hospital, and the senior medical officer in charge now describes everything as satisfactory. The only change contemplated is the removal of the drainage outfall.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, considering the inconvenience and expense incurred by Militia officers now actually embodied and serving, he will grant them, on completion of a year's service, the gratuity of £100 now paid to officers whose regiment has been disembodied.

This question has been thoroughly considered. I am not prepared to alter the decision already arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the conditions which will apply to Volunteer camps this year; and, in particular, whether fourteen days service in camp will be required, and whether the same rate of pay as last year will be allowed; and can he remove the doubts which arose last year as to the first and last day of the period in camp by stating what the War Office regards as a day.

An announcement with regard to this subject will be made very shortly.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can now state the results of his investigations into the charges made against Messrs. Musgrave and Company, ironfounders, and Messrs. Wilson and Sons, tent and sail makers, both of Belfast, of having violated the conditions under which they held their contracts from the Government.

With regard to Messrs. Musgrave, the Department was; misled by the firm in the reply given to the House on the 13th December, 1900, as regards sub-letting, † It has: since been ascertained from personal inquiries made by the Director of Contracts that this firm did to a certain, extent infringe the terms of their contract in respect of sub-letting, and they have-been warned that this must not be repeated. With regard to Messrs. Wilson, the case has been further considered, but I can see no reason for altering the answer given to the hon. Member on the-13th December by my predecessor.

Will a Commissioner be sent to Belfast to investigate the case against Messrs. Wilson, as was done in the case of Messrs. Musgrave?

The matter has been fully considered. I am afraid I cannot give any further answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the recruits for the Imperial Yeomanry who are sent to Aldershot find no proper barrack accommodation ready for them; whether rifles in some cases have not been issued to them for a fortnight; and whether, as under these circumstances it is difficult to drill the men, he will take steps to have proper arrangements made.

The General Officer Commanding at Aldershot reports that there has naturally been considerable difficulty in accommodating, almost at a moment's notice, over 6,000 recruits who came there immediately on enrolment without any military organisation. This difficulty has been rendered greater by many of the men arriving unexpectedly after the authorised hours. As the barracks are temporarily occupied by more than the normal number, it has been necessary to provide trestle camp

† See The parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxxviii., p.678.

beds, but every man has been provided with a bed and plenty of bedding. As regards clothing, there has been no unnecessary delay, as every man has to be carefully fitted, more especially with boots. It is not true that men have been drilled in the snow un-provided with proper clothing or boots. Every man is provided with a warm jersey to wear under his khaki serge frock. As regards the rifles, all demands of the Commandant, Imperial Yeomanry, have been met without any hitch or delay. The Commander-in-Chief has sent General Mackinnon to Aldershot to take command, under Sir Redvers Buller, of the large body of Yeomanry now there. Arrangements have been made to cope with the difficulties, and drafts are being rapidly despatched to South Africa.

Why send the men to Aldershot at all?

Because it is the most convenient station at which to deal with them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that forty-three men of the Lancashire Hussars, who had volunteered for service in South Africa, were ordered to join at Aldershot on the 4th of February last; that on their arrival there they found that no provision whatever had been made for them; that thirty-seven of them were at last put into a room which had only accommodation for twenty-three men; and that as no food was given to them they were dependent upon what they could buy for themselves; and whether any steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of such mismanagement.

The men arrived two hours after the hour laid down as the latest for receiving recruits. Thirty-five were put into a barrack room, a number not in excess of the winter occupation authorised for the room. There was no necessity for them to buy food.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there is any objection to state for the year 1899 or the year 1898 the average price paid to dealers for Irish horses, and also the average price paid to farmers or non-dealers.

It would not be in the public interest to make these prices known.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether contracts for the conveyance of troops are kept secret; whether contracts for or the prices of arms, ammunition, clothing, medical comforts, tents, saddlery, food, and forage are kept secret; whether the prices given for Argentine horses is a secret; and can he say, where prices or contracts are secret, what machinery is used to prevent fraud, corruption, and waste.

The prices paid under the contracts are not disclosed. The prices paid for Argentine horses have likewise, in the interest of the public, not been made known; but full particulars of all purchases, whether by contract or otherwise, are given to all officers concerned for the purpose of audit.

The Financial Secretary has not answered the last part of the question, which is its main point.

I think we can trust our officers to see that there is no fraud, corruption, or waste.

Does the Secretary for War accept the responsibility for all this secrecy, seeing that millions of money are involved in these contracts?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the officers' pay of the 4th Battalion Border Regiment, quartered at Youghal, which was due on 1st November, and which, by Article 276, Pay Warrant 1900, is ordered to be paid monthly in advance, was not issued by the paymaster till 10th December; and will he take steps to prevent the repetition of this breach of the Regulations.

It appears that, owing to a misapprehension on the part of the officer commanding the battalion, the pay in question was issued in arrear instead of in advance. The Regulation on the subject is generally well known, and it does not appear necessary to issue further orders to meet what appears to be an isolated case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the quick-firing field guns, purchased in Germany and issued to the 16th and 17th Brigade Divisions of the Royal Field Artillery stationed at Aldershot, have proved unsatisfactory; whether half of the guns issued have been returned disabled to Woolwich Arsenal; whether defects in the breech mechanism have been discovered; and whether the recoil has proved destructive to the gun carriages.

The guns in question have not proved unsatisfactory; they have been found, on the contrary, to shoot with remarkable accuracy. No defects have been discovered in the breech mechanism, nor has the recoil proved destructive to the carriages. The threads of some of the breech screws have become burred owing to the guns being used for drill purposes without drill carriages—a slight damage which can be repaired locally. Some of the axles of the gun carriages having cracked in travelling, the firm which supplied the batteries is replacing all the axles by axles of an improved pattern at its own expense. Fourteen guns have been returned to Woolwich for this purpose.

Have any of the guns been used in South Africa; and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability, with the view of finishing the war, of sending out a few competent German officers with them?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that some battalions of Volunteer Artillery have only guns of a pattern nearly forty years old, and if he can give any promise to issue to them, at an early date, guns of more modern design.

It is intended, as was explained to the House last year, to re-arm the Volunteer Artillery. The heavy guns required for the batteries of position are now being manufactured. I cannot give the exact date on which new guns can be issued.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state if the rule which exacts an extra year's service from Reservists who have completed twelve years service in the First Class Reserve also applies to those men who have enlisted under Section D Class to complete sixteen years; and whether Reservists at present serving in South Africa are being detained beyond the period of their engagement to serve for sixteen years.

The answer to the first of the hon. Member's questions is in the affirmative. No man by reason of his serving abroad may be retained beyond one additional year.

Is the noble Lord aware that complaints are coming from South Africa of men being detained beyond their agreed period of service?

I am not aware. If they are complaining I think there must be a misunderstanding. They are liable to serve an extra year.

Under what Army Order is that extra year made applicable to a man who has already done sixteen years service?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admi- ralty whether retired non-commissioned officers of the Royal Marines, or retired petty officers, Royal Navy, who are now in Government employment in any of the Naval establishments and who may join the Royal Fleet Reserve, will be granted the necessary leave to attend the annual trainings without loss of or prejudice to their positions in such Government employment.

Yes, Sir. This point is specially provided for in the Royal Fleet Reserve Regulations.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can explain why the Government did not exercise the powers in the subsidy contract with the steamship companies when war was imminent with the late Transvaal Government, and when the ultimatum had been issued and British territory invaded, by taking their fastest steamers for transports which were available, some of which have an average speed of twenty-one to twenty-two knots, and would have done the passage to Cape Town in twelve to fourteen days (the length of passage by ordinary steamers being sixteen days), instead of chartering at that time steamers many of which had an average speed of ten to twelve knots, and took twenty to twenty-eight days for the passage to Cape Town; and whether, Shaving regard to the importance of the arrival of troops eight or twelve days earlier at that critical time, he can state why the following steamers were employed for carrying troops — namely, the "Jelunga," which took thirty-six days from Southampton to Durban; the "Harlech Castle," which took twenty-six days from Southampton to Cape Town; the "Manila," which took twenty-six days from Southampton to Cape Town; and the "Zibengla," which took twenty-eight days from Birkenhead to Cape Town.

It is doubtful whether the Admiralty had power to take up subsidised ships for the purpose of transport, and in any case the Admiralty does not consider it desirable to make a demand upon the steamship companies which would clearly be at variance with the intention of both parties when entering into the contract. The intention of the Admiralty was to obtain the use of these vessels as armed cruisers, and not as transports in a non-maritime war. Many of the steamers on the Admiralty List, especially the Atlantic vessels of very high speed, are not suited for the purpose of Army transport, and would require extensive alterations and refitting to make them available for the purpose. When two of the Atlantic vessels were subsequently engaged (not under the Subsidy Agreements) they took eighteen and nineteen days respectively to reach Cape Town. They are quite unsuited for the conveyance of artillery (for which the first requisition was received) and for cavalry. The "Jelunga" was all ready fitted when requisition for the despatch of troops was received. It was necessary to send her via the Mediterranean and Suez Canal, as the Rifle Brigade, which was one of the regiments selected for South Africa, was stationed at Crete. With regard to the other vessels—looking to the necessity in every case of erecting special fittings, it was obviously necessary to take the most suitable ships actually in British ports, a necessity which, of course, limits choice. The "Harlech Castle" and "Manila" each lost four days on their passage through heavy weather. As there were only three weeks in which to prepare transport for 20,000 men, the ships that could be got at once had to be taken to enable it to be done, as it was.

Were not some of the ships only fit to be broken up for old iron at the time they were hired?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether permission may be given to Royal Marine Artillery serving ashore to purchase their ship's tobacco duty free, as in the case of sailors and Marine Light Infantry.

The power of issuing tobacco free of duty is granted by the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, sections 123 to 125, and applies to ships on service only. The regulations as to men being allowed to purchase tobacco free of duty apply equally to all belonging to H.M. ships (except coastguard when on shore), whether seamen, Royal Marine Artillery or Royal Marine Light Infantry. Neither men of the Royal Marine Artillery or Royal Marine Light Infantry are allowed the privilege when at their divisions in barracks.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Japanese or other foreign war ships are now occupying and have recently occupied docks at Chatham and elsewhere, though at the same time His Majesty's ships are waiting to enter these docks for repairs; and whether, if this is correct, he can state by what authority foreign authorities use His Majesty's dockyards when these docks are urgently needed for the Navy, and whether the practice will be at once put an end to.

No Japanese or other foreign warship is now occupying any of the docks at the present time, but the Japanese cruiser "Iwate" was recently docked at Chatham. This is a courtesy that has been occasionally granted to Japanese and other foreign ships by the Admiralty. It is always arranged so as not to interfere with the docking of any of His Majesty's ships. I may mention that the Japanese recently extended the same courtesy to us by allowing the "Victorious" to be docked in Japan.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to exclude, with one exception, the correspondents of all the newspapers desiring to be represented on the occasion from the ships of war accompanying the Royal Mission to Australia; whether Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace has been deputed to accompany the Duke of Cornwall and York as official reporter; and whether that gentleman will also represent The Times, which will thus, enjoy privileges denied to the London press generally.

At the same time, may I ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that newspaper correspondents have been refused permission to sail in His Majesty's cruisers accompanying H.R.H. the Duke of York to Australia, and that the effect of this will be to prevent special correspondents reaching places at which His Royal Highness will call in time to send home descriptive reports, he will state if Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, a special representative of The Times newspaper, has been selected historian for the trip., and whether he will be prohibited from sending reports of the voyage to The Times, so that it may not have an advantage over other daily newspapers.

Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace will accompany His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall and York on his projected tour. The First Lord of the Admiralty is in communication with representatives of the press for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is possible to arrange for other representatives to accompany His Royal Highness. I may say, however, that the accommodation available is exceedingly limited, and the question is one of some difficulty. If the hon. Member will put down a further question at a future date I shall be happy to give him the information he requires as soons as the First Lord of the Admiralty has come to a decision.

I shall put a question down for Monday.

Arising out or that question, is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the occasion of the funeral of the late Queen Victoria the representative of the Times was admitted to Frogmore Chapel on condition—

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

I was coming to a supplementary question, Sir. My question is whether in the event of The Times correspondent alone being allowed to accompany their Royal Highnesses he would be under an obligation to supply his reports to some central news agency, so that all the newspapers may be placed on an equal footing.

I understand that Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace is not representing The Times.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that an ex-soldier upon joining the Royal Reserves has refunded to him two-thirds of the money with which he has previously purchased his discharge, and that this re-payment is denied to ex-non-commissioned officers and men of the Marines, His Majesty's Government will in future recognise the claim of the latter to similar treatment under similar circumstances.

The conditions of service in the Royal Marines are more analogous to those prevailing in the Royal Navy than to those in the Army, and it has not been found possible to extend the Army rules on this point to the Marines without considering the Royal Navy. The formation of the Royal Fleet Reserve, however, may make some modification in the existing rules for the Royal Navy and Royal Marines desirable, and the question is now under consideration.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the exports from America of iron, steel, and agricultural implements amounted last year to 145,000,000 dollars, or treble the value in 1897; and that the greater proportion of these surplus goods, not required by the American people, were sent to England, Scotland, and Ireland to compete with British productions, taxed by Imperial imposts and local rates; and whether, in the interests of British and Irish workers, he will take steps to secure such fiscal treatment of these and other competing foreign manufactured imports, amounting to £100,000,000, as shall establish the equality of foreign goods with British goods in the British markets, and place upon the foreigner some portion of the pecuniary burden of the Boer War.

The exports from America of iron, steel, and agricultural implements amounted last year, as stated by my hon, Friend, to 145 million dollars, which is not treble, but just over double the value of 1897. But I must demur altogether to his statement as to the proportion taken by the United Kingdom. For the year ended 30th June, 1899, the proportion of these exports taken by the United Kingdom was, according to figures furnished to me by the Board of Trade, under 20 million dollars, out of a total of over 106 million dollars. The figures for 1900 are not yet fully made up, but they are not expected to differ greatly in this respect from those of the year before. If I rightly understand the second paragraph of the question, it suggests a fiscal policy to which I am not disposed.

I shall take an early opportunity of raising this question.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to give effect to the suggestion made in the Majority Report and endorsed in the Minority Report of the Beer Materials Committee, that columns for hops and hop substitutes should be inserted in the brewers' entry books.

Yes. I have given directions that the change is to be made. I find there would be practical difficulties, which my hon. friend will no doubt appreciate, in the way of altering the books in the middle of the brewer's year. So I propose to introduce the change on 1st October next.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state to what colonies up to the present time sums have been advanced by the Treasury under the Colonial Loans Act, 1899, and for what purposes, to what amounts, and at what rates of interest; also the date on which each such loan was granted and the date fixed for its repayment.

The information asked for cannot be satisfactorily given within the limits of an answer to a question. I will lay a Return on the Table.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state when the Cooper's Hill Papers, which were laid upon the Table in dummy upon the 21st February, will be ready for distribution.

The Papers I understand will be delivered to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to an application made, on 17th December last, by Arturo Sacramenti to the Governor of Gibraltar for a licence to publish a newspaper devoted to the interests of the working classes, under the Press Ordinance, Gibraltar, 1869; and can he explain why the application was refused.

The issue of newspaper licences in Gibraltar is entirely at the Governor's discretion. Sir George White reported to me last month that he had decided to refuse Sacramenti's application for a licence, in the interests of the peace and good order of the fortress, for the maintenance of which he is responsible.

Is it proposed to lay on the Table any Papers on this subject?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what have been the total sums voted or to be voted up to the 31st Mareh, 1901, in respect of the British Central African, East African, and Uganda Protectorates (including the purchase of the interests of any Chartered Companies), and what is the total sum advanced, or proposed to be advanced, up to 31st Mareh, 1901, in respect of any railways or other public works in the above Protectorates.

The grants in aid of the revenues of the several Protectorates, including Somaliland, and of the Uganda Railway are as follows:— British Central Africa, £239,700; East Africa Protectorate, £793,675 (including £50,000 paid to the Imperial British East Africa Company for surrender of its charter, etc., and also including the Supplementary Vote before. Parliament for £149,000); Somaliland Protectorate (Supplementary Vote, before Parliament), £60,000; Uganda Protectorate, £1,222,400; Uganda Railway, £3,999,000 — total, £6,314,775.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what has been spent of public money during the last ten years on British East Africa, Uganda, Somaliland, and the minor Protectorates in the neighbourhood of these countries.

The terms of this question are covered by the answer already given to the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham. The figures given include all grants made in respect of the Protectorates and railway. These grants go back to 1894 only, covering therefore a period not of ten but of seven years.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Minister at Peking has received a protest from Sir Robert Hart against the proposed appropriation of the Imperial Customs buildings by the Foreign Legations, and particularly the Italian Legation, which proposes also to take possession of land which is the property of Sir Robert Hart himself.

We understand that in connection with the scheme of defence for the Legation quarter a plan is under consideration which would require an open zone 150 yards wide all round, and that to obtain this it would be necessary to take a great part of the site of the Customs Administration. On the 20th instant Sir Robert Hart addressed a letter to His Majesty's Minister and also to the Doyen of the Diplomatic Body expressing his surprise at this appropriation, but stating that if military necessities required the cession of the sites for the defence of the Legation quarter he would not protest or oppose it. But we are in communication with His Majesty's Minister on the subject.

Can the noble Lord say what compensation is to be paid?

We have not got to that point.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to ensure the maintenance in their office of the Yang-tsze Viceroys who have rendered such services in the interests of Great Britain and of civilisation in their provinces, and to enable them to carry out essential reforms of which they are in favour.

The matter referred to was carefully considered some time ago, but His Majesty's Minister at Peking reported that he was satisfied that there was no danger of the, Viceroys' removal. His Majesty's Government fully appreciate the services which they have rendered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government are at present in negotiation with the French Government in reference to French claims in Newfoundland; and, if not, whether the advisability of commencing negotiations will be taken into consideration at once.

It would not be correct to say that negotiations are proceeding with the French Government in reference to Newfoundland; but His Majesty's Government have repeatedly shown themselves willing to take any favourable opportunity for adjusting this long-standing difficulty, and are now in consultation with delegates from the Government of the colony upon the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information which he can communicate to the House respecting the alleged cession of Walfisch Bay to Germany, and whether Walfisch Bay is a portion of the territory primarily under the control of the Government of Cape Colony.

There is no question of a cession of Walfisch Bay to Germany. Walfisch Bay is administered as part of Cape Colony.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware, of the dissatisfaction that is felt amongst all classes of the Staffordshire Potteries with the suggested new rules; will he state who drew them up and who is responsible for their production; and will he, in view of the condemnation they are receiving at the hands of every practical person engaged in the manufacture of china and earthenware, take an early opportunity of withdrawing them.

I am not aware of any such general dissatisfaction as my hon. friend suggests, though objections have been taken to the new rules. The rules were drawn up by the officials of my Department, and I am responsible for their production. I see no reason for withdrawing the rules. The objections must now, in accordance with the statutory provisions on the subject, be settled by arbitration.

Why was no notice of the new rules given to the operatives in the district?

They are as fully aware of the rules as the manufacturers.

They got no notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give any instances of a public executioner having been required by a coroner's request, summons, or warrant, to give evidence to satisfy the law and the public that an execution was properly carried out within a prison in Great Britain; and whether he can state any instances in which the executioner attended and gave evidence, and any instance in which he refused to attend on the coroner's summons or warrant.

So far as I have been able to investigate the matter, I am not aware of any instances of the nature referred to in the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the accidents frequently resulting from the use of so-called toy pistols, and to the recommendation of the jury at the inquest held on Norman S. Allen, of Lancaster, who was shot on the 19th instant by a playfellow, and died immediately after; and if the Government would be willing to adopt measures to restrict the sale of weapons capable of inflicting such injury. In putting the question, I should like further to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has seen a telegram announcing the death of a lady aged twenty-two, at Ashton-under-Lyne, in consequence of being shot with a toy pistol; and has he received a memorial from the Mayor and Corporation of Lancaster urging that legislation should be initiated.

I have received several memorials of the nature referred to, but I have not heard of the death at Ashton-under-Lyne. I have this morning received the recommendation of the jury referred to. I am fully sensible that the question of pistol accidents is a serious one, but as I said two days ago, I cannot promise legislation on the matter this session.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, seeing that Miss Paterson, who resides in Glasgow, is the only lady inspector in Scotland under the Factory and Workshops Act, and that an increase in the number of lady inspectors was recommended by the Chief Lady Inspector in London, then Miss Abraham, and that this course has been successfully adopted in England and Ireland, he will take into consideration the appointment of additional lady inspectors, or lady inspectors' assistants for Scotland.

The lady inspectors are not assigned to England, Scotland, and Ireland separately, or to particular divisions thereof. The lady inspector who resides in Scotland may be and often is employed in England and Ireland, and, conversely, the inspectors residing in England may be employed in Scotland. The increase in the staff of the Lady Inspectors' Department, to which my hon. friend refers, has therefore benefited all parts of the United Kingdom. I am sorry that I do not see my way at present to propose any further increase.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the letters patent of 15th February, 1901, relating to the Commission of the Peace and announced in the Gazette of the same date, constitute a new commission superseding and determining the existing commission within the meaning of the statute of Anne 1, stat. 1, c. 8; or. if not, what is the effect of such letters patent; and if such letters patent constitute a new commission, must two justices at least from each county take the judicial oath and the oath of allegiance before the Lord Chancellor or one of His Majesty's judges in order to enable a court of quarter sessions to be formed before which the other justices can take the necessary oaths as required by the Promissory Oaths Act, 1871, or will some person be appointed by His Majesty in accordance with Section 2 of that Act.

I have been in communication with the Lord Chancellor, from whose office the letters patent referred to were issued. The answer to the first and second questions is that the letters patent do not constitute a new commission, and that their effect is not to determine but to continue existing commissions. Consequently the third question does not really arise, but seeing that justices may think it desirable (in accordance with the advice which I stated a few days ago had been given to me) to take the oaths afresh, I am considering whether I shall recommend His Majesty, for the sake of general convenience, to make an appointment under the Promissory Oaths Act. 1871.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention, has been called to the case of Brodie against the North British Railway Company, in which the Second Division of the Court of Session in Scotland recently decided that a railway servant who had been injured while engaged in the company's work as a goods guard was not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, because the place at which the accident occurred was upon a private siding connected with the main line of rails; whether he is aware that the existing state of the law as declared by this decision has been the subject of much discussion and dissatisfaction among the railway servants of the United Kingdom; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to bring in any measure to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act so as to include within its scope accidents of the kind before mentioned, to which such a large class of the working men of this country are subject in the regular course of their duties.

I have seen a report of the case referred to, but I have not received any representations on the subject from railway servants. No doubt the point will have to be considered when an amending Bill is taken in hand, but I am not at present in a position to promise legislation on the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that half the railway servants of the United Kingdom are deprived of the beneficent provisions of this Act?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the time has now come when steps should be taken for an extension of the Cheap Trains Act of 1883, in order that greater facilities for cheap locomotion for working men and women may be secured.

No, Sir. I am of opinion that the Act of 1883 is at present adequate. I would refer the hon. Member to the voluminous Return published last year showing the facilities that now exist in the matter of workmen's trains and fares.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if be is aware that eight of the largest iron and steel firms in the United States have combined their forces with a capital of £229.000.000, with the main object of destroying the iron and steel industries of the United Kingdom, the only market throughout the world open to them without a toll; and what steps His Majesty s Government propose to take to safeguard the interests of the principal staple trades in Great Britain and the workers dependent upon it.

I have no official information on the subject, but I believe from statements which have been publicly made that a combination of iron and steel firms in the United States is now in course of formation. I am not prepared to accept my hon. and gallant friend's statement of the main object of the combination, and I do not think that any action on the part of His Majesty's Government could usefully be taken.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the number of desertions of seamen and others from the mercantile marine during the past three years; and if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return giving full particulars similar to the Return presented to Parliament by the Registrar General of Seamen some three years ago.

I am quite willing to give this Return; its preparation will take a little time.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in some instances the registered tonnage of vessels is only about one tenth of the gross tonnage or cargo carried; whether he has had complaints from Irish Harbour Boards upon this subject; and whether he can state if the Board of Trade propose to remedy this inequality between the registered and gross tonnage of vessels.

Yes, Sir; I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, and the Board of Trade have under consideration an instruction to their officers which it is hoped will mitigate the inequality complained of. Meanwhile, as I have already stated to the House, it is open to harbour authorities to endeavour to obtain powers to levy dues based on the gross instead of on the net tonnage of vessels by means of local Acts.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, considering the character of the regulations which the eight water companies of the Metropolis have prepared, the expense that would be thrown upon consumers if any sanction were given to them, and the alarm that has been created amongst the local authorities and inhabitants of London by these proposals, he will undertake that no sanction shall be given to them by his Department without further Parliamentary consideration.

I understand that the proposed regulations have been withdrawn.

Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any means by which local authorities and the inhabitants of London may be saved from the great expense and trouble they have been put to by such regulations being brought forward?

The regulations were brought forward by the companies in consequence of the direct recommendation of the Royal Commission. They were submitted to the Local Government Board in proper form, and if the Commissioners thought it was desirable that the regulations should be put forward, I have no suggestion to make as to the way in which the expense may be avoided.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, following up the Circular dated 11th March, 1899, respecting tuberculosis seizures, he has received any communications from local authorities pointing out their inability to comply with the suggestions of the Board; whether he is aware, as the result of non-compliance, that actions at law have risen and are now arising in which the recommendations contained in the said Circular are ineffectively cited although based upon the Report of the Royal Com- mission; and whether the Local Government Board will again draw the attention of local authorities to the aforesaid Circular.

The answer to the first and second paragraphs of the question is in the negative. I am not aware of any sufficient reason at the present time for complying with the suggestion in the last paragraph of the question.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether lie is prepared to accede to the request of the London County Council that in its scheme of repayment of loans contracted in connection with its housing schemes it may he permitted to take the value of the land wholly or in part out of the Kinking Fund, thus treating the value so excluded as an asset against debt.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is prepared to accede to the request of the London County Council that it may be permitted to spread the repayment of the loans contracted in connection with its housing schemes over a period of 100 years.

Perhaps in replying to this question. I may be allowed also to answer that to my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury, which stands in the name of the hon. Member. Proposals of the kind referred to in these questions were more than once discussed in this House last year in connection with the Bill for the Housing of the Working Classes. It clearly appeared that the sense of the House was adverse to them, and I am not now prepared to propose the legislation which would be necessary for carrying them into effect. In connection, however, with the very pressing question of the provision of housing accommodation for the working classes, I welcome any suggestions which may be made to me and will give them my most careful consideration.

Is it not the fact that the discussion on this question arose in the last and not in the present Parliament?

Yes, but it was only last June.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a Committee to see whether proposals might be made to deal with this pressing question.

If that course seems desirable I shall not hesitate to recommend it to the House. I have issued circulars to the various local authorities in the country asking them to inform me what are the precise difficulties which stand in the way of carrying; out the Acts, and I would rather wait to receive their replies before I decide to appoint a Committee.

Might not the period allowed for the repayment of the loan on the value of the land be extended?

I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member is entitled to press the question. I have to consider whether we ought to treat the land as holding a permanent value when there is one section in the House which would be willing, by legislation, to depreciate its value.

What ground has the right hon. Gentleman for saying that I entertain an opinion which would depreciate the value of the land, or of anything else, for that matter?

I did not intend to cast any imputation on the hon. Member, but I understand the hon. Gentleman is one of those who favour the imposition of a special taxation on land, which certainly would not increase its value.

When you get the replies from the local authorities will you state the effect to the House?

I do not think I can make any promise to offer a statement. I am doing my best to bring about a solution of this very difficult question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in the case of defaulting postmasters, the Post Office Authorities proceed against the sureties before they have failed to realise from the principal in default; and, if so, whether the practice will be altered, so as to leave the sureties free till all the usual steps have been taken to make the property of the principal liable for the debt.

No, Sir. The practice is to proceed against the defaulter in the first instance, before calling on the sureties to make good the deficiency.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the South African mail arrives frequently, as it did this week, on Monday, thus taking nineteen days from Cape Town; whether he is aware that the new mail boats do the voyage in fifteen or sixteen days, thus securing delivery of the letters three and four days earlier; whether, under a recent arrangement, the voyage of the mails was to be done in sixteen days; and whether he will take steps to secure that the mails shall not in future be carried by the old slow boats of the Union Castle Line.

On three occasions during this year the South African correspondence has only been delivered in London on Monday, the packet having reached Southampton on two of those occasions on Sunday morning, and on the third, late on Saturday night. On the two occasions of a Sunday arrival the packet exceeded, in adverse circumstances, the time allowed for the voyage under the contract, namely sixteen days twenty hours. A contract time of sixteen days fifteen hours comes into force on the 1st of October, 1903. It is a fact that the voyage has been completed by some of the packets in sixteen and even in fifteen days; but the Postmaster General cannot prevent the use of any particular packet of the Union Castle Line which is not up to that speed, especially if the ships can in normal circumstances do the contract speed. If a vessel incapable of performing the contract were habitually employed, the Postmaster General would, of course, represent the matter to the Colonial Government. The contract is not with the Postmaster General, but with the Government of the Cape Colony. Penalties are prescribed for cases in which the contract time is exceeded.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this week again the mail arrives on a Sunday. Can he not do something to facilitate the carrying of them?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Mr. J. G. Graves, a leading merchant of Sheffield, carrying on a large business through the Post Office, has petitioned the Post Office authorities to have parcels of a less postal value than 5d. either collected at his place of business or accepted at the nearest branch office; and whether the Postmaster General will accede to this request.

The person referred to by the hon Member already enjoys exceptional facilities in regard to the collection of his parcels, both ordinary and registered, by the Post Office, and be desires the further privilege of having registered letters collected from his premises. No provision exists for this purpose, but the Postmaster General is considering whether a scheme can be devised which under prescribed conditions would apply to the public generally. A decision will, it is hoped, be shortly arrived at.

Has not the gentleman referred to a right to a private collecting box on payment of a fee of a guinea a year?

I have no personal knowledge as to that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that inconvenience has been caused to the Sheffield public having business at the General Post Office by the crowding and work entailed there by the representatives of a postal customer to the extent of about £18,000 a year, owing to the refusal of the authorties to collect the registered packets of his firm, as they did prior to the reduction in the postage rate by the last Postmaster General; and whether the Postmaster General will give directions for the ordinary business practice of all carriers to be at once resumed so that mutual annoyance and loss of time may be avoided.

The Postmaster General is aware that a good deal of inconvenience has been caused by the proceedings of the person referred to, who has been warned that if he persists in obstructing public business at the Sheffield Post Office it will be necessary to take proceedings against him. The Department has not in the past made special provision for collecting registered letters from his business premises. The latter part of the question is not understood.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the statement and table of figures printed on the back of the envelopes made to inclose registered packets, that, subject to the conditions published in the Post Office Guide as to registration, compensation for loss or damage is given in respect of inland registered packets of all kinds according to a table which includes a, fee of 2d. to secure compensation limited to £5; and seeing that this statement may lead the public to believe that by paying the 2d. registration fee they are ensuring repayment in full up to £5, of money which has been registered but which is lost in course of post, instead of the £2 limited by the above-mentioned conditions: whether he will give instructions that on all future issues of such envelopes a clearer statement shall be printed of the amount of specie recoverable through registration in the post.

I am in communication with the Postmaster General on this subject. I should be glad if the hon. Member would postpone his question for a week.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Election Petitions Clerk receives a salary of £450 per year, although the work of his office can be done in about a week per year; whether he has just retired on a pension of £300 per year; and whether he will consider the advisability of adding the office to some other department with a lower rate of payment.

The gentleman to whom I understand the hon. Member to refer is a first-class clerk in the central office of the Supreme Court, receiving a fixed salary of £700 a year, plus a fee of two guineas for each petition lodged and registered. He has: not retired on a pension. He already performs the ordinary duties of a clerk in the Taxing Department, besides the work connected with petitions.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any reorganisation of the tea and dry goods accounts offices in the London Custom House is in contemplation by the substitution of clerks for officers of the outdoor department; and, if so, what steps are proposed to be taken to safeguard the interests of the staff at present employed in those offices.

In any scheme for the re-organisation of the tea office, the legitimate interests of existing officers will not be overlooked. The exact measures which will be adopted cannot be stated in advance.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will institute an inquiry into the outbreak of small-pox in Glasgow in a manner similar to that in which the Local Government Board have granted inquiries on the occasions of recent outbreaks in England; and if he will extend such inquiry into the sanitary conditions of the city and its water supply.

I am informed by the Local Government Board for Scotland that there does not seem to them to be any reason at present for instituting an inquiry into the sanitary condition of Glasgow and its water supply. The reference to the practice of the English Local Government Board is, I am informed by that Board, rather misleading. That Board usually send one of their medical inspectors to a district where small-pox is epidemic, in order that he may assist the local authorities with his advice and experience, but the Board have not on any recent occasion held an inquiry into an outbreak of small-pox.

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner if the attention of the Charity Commissioners has been directed to the new rules of the Home Office with regard to the tolling of the bell of the parish church for fifteen minutes after each execution; and if the Commissioners will restore to the parish of St. Sepulchre, Holborn, the income of the benefaction bequeathed for such purpose, and which has been withheld or diverted from the I parish by the Commissioners for some years past.

With reference to the question in the first paragraph, the Commissioners have no knowledge of the new regulation mentioned in the question beyond what has appeared in the newspapers. The benefaction in question was a gift by Robert Dowe, in the year 1705, to the end that the vicar and churchwardens of St. Sepulchre, London, should for ever, previous to every execution at Newgate, cause a bell to be tolled, and certain words to be delivered to the prisoners ordered for execution. Under the provisions of the City of London Parochial Charities Act, 1883, the sum representing Dowe's gift, which amounts to £1 6s. 8d. a year, was scheduled as an ecclesiastical charity, and freed from all previously existing trusts, and by a scheme established under this Act it became part of the City Church Fund, the balance of which, after providing for various City church purposes, is paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. An amendment to that scheme could only be made on the initiation of the trustees of the London Parochial Charities.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether in the new scheme for St. Cross there is a provision giving to the town council of Winchester the nomination of one of the trustees; whether there is a restriction in the choice of the person nominated that he must be a member of the Church of England; whether in recent years there is any precedent for making the election of a representative trustee appointed by a town council on another public body subject to such restriction; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence on the subject, and any protests made against the new scheme.

There is in the recently established scheme for St. Cross a provision giving to the town council of Winchester the nomination of one of the trustees. But the scheme in question is not a new scheme in the sense that it reorganises the charity. It is in the main a scheme consolidating the provisions of previous orders of the Court of Chancery and of the Charity Commissioners. There is such a restriction in the scheme as that mentioned in the second part of the hon. Member's question. The restriction is in accordance with the provision made by the Court of Chancery in 1857, that the mayor of Winchester should be a trustee if a member of the Church of England. In answer to the third part of the question, there are many recent precedents for requiring in schemes that representative trustees of Church of England trusts shall be members of that Church. I shall be glad to lay the correspondence on the Table if the hon. Member desires it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish national teachers in the service on the 31st March, 1900. and who will be graded according to the new system higher than their present classes, receive the pension of the class or grade to which they will be promoted by paying an increased premium, in the same way that teachers appointed after the 31st March, 1900, and who will be similarly graded, will get pension rights.

At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether teachers in Irish national schools will in future get pensions according to their new grades or according to the classification which has been abolished; and, if the latter, can he state what arrangements have been made for promoting deserving teacher's to a higher class on the list of prospective pensions.

At present teachers pay for the pensions of the classes which they have obtained by examination. Under the new scheme they will rise from grade to grade, as distinguished from classes, by seniority and efficient service. The commissioners have resolved that teachers in the service prior to the 1st April, 1900, are to retain their classifications. How far this decision will affect the pension rules and the pension fund I am not at present prepared to say. The matter is one requiring careful consideration.

Will the teacher who was formerly classed as first class, but who may now be in the second class, get the first or second class pension?

I have communicated with the Board of Education on this matter, and have given the hon. Member their decision, so far as it has been arrived at. I have also explained that the way in which that decision will affect the pension scheme will have to be carefully considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the decreasing population of Ireland, and the sub-division of labour required under the new programme in national schools, he will urge upon the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland the necessity of reducing the average attendance required for the first assistant from sixty to fifty.

The answer to this question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the eviction of a tenant named Allison, in the petty sessions district of Newtown cunning ham, county Donegal, when the sheriffs' officer had to remove the tenant from a sick bed; whether a doctor's certificate that it was dangerous to remove the tenant was produced; is he aware that the tenant, at the hearing of proceedings at the Newtowncunningham Petty Sessions, stated that he had paid in rent to the landlord over £2,000 down to the value of the fee simple of the farm; and whether the forces of the Crown will in future be sent to assist the sheriffs in Ireland in carrying out such evictions.

The eviction of Allison was carried out on the 6th instant in pursuance of a magistrate's warrant for possession. At the hearing of the case a statement was made on behalf of the tenant to the effect mentioned in the third paragraph; the statement, however, was not proved. After eviction, a sum of £50 was offered to Allison by the agent, but was rejected. I am informed that Allison was carried out of the house in his bed. No medical certificate, however, was produced such as is alleged, nor was a doctor present. Upon the information before me, it appears that the man was in his usual health before, during, and after the eviction. In reply to the last paragraph, it is the imperative duty of the Crown to afford protection to sheriffs or their officers in the execution of writs or decrees issued by a competent Court.

Was the evicting landlord in this case one of the Government candidates at the last General Election?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say why it is that the Royal Dublin Society, in awarding premiums for stallions on the register of the Agricultural and Technical Department, give twenty-five prizes of £100 for thoroughbred stallions, while agricultural stallions get only three premiums of £50 each; whether he will request the Royal Dublin Society to give a larger number of premiums in the case of agricultural stallions, considering that Ireland is an agricultural country.

The twenty-five premiums of £100 each offered at the recent Stallion Show at Balls Bridge will be paid out of the fund payable annually to the Royal Dublin Society under the Probate Duties Act of 1888. They absorb one-half of the fund; the other half is alloted to bull premiums. The three premiums of £50 each for Agricultural Stallions are not paid out of public money; they will be paid out of the private funds of the Royal Dublin Society.

But cannot the number be increased, seeing that Ireland is so suitable a country for horse-breeding?

That question raises the policy of the Agricultural Department, which I am not prepared to discuss now. As the hon. Member is aware, horse-breeding is a very important business in Ireland.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, under the new horse-breeding scheme in con- nection with the Department of Agriculture, no sire has been allotted to County Monaghan, while two sires are given to County Cavan; and if he will direct that one sire at least be placed at the disposal of the farmers of County Monaghan.

This question refers, I am informed, not to the horse-breeding scheme of the Department of Agriculture, but to that of the Royal Dublin Society. I understand that only one stallion was entered from the County Monaghan, but that it was withdrawn by the exhibitor. One stallion is allotted to County Cavan, which will be available for Monaghan, as will also a stallion at Oldcastle, in Meath.

Cannot you give us a stallion for County Monaghan? You place two in County Cavan?

That rests with the Royal Dublin Society.