said this Bill was one which was familiar to the last Parliament. It dealt with the great London monopoly, with regard to which very serious complaint was made by those who suffered from it. Not only had London local authorities, but Parliament itself had had to investigate the affairs of this company. A Committee of that House in 1899 made certain recommendations which were to be carried out before any more capital was to be granted, and yet none of those recommendations had been carried out in the Bill now before them, although they had been accepted by the South Metropolitan Company. The Gas Light and Coke Company, although it had the best area in the world for selling gas, charged 3s. 5d. per 1,000 feet of gas, as against 2s. 8d. charged by the South Metropolitan Company, and each extra penny represented a charge of £80.000 a year on the people of London. Thus a single company, by this extra charge, levied a tax of three-quarters of a million sterling on the residents of a portion of the Metropolis-He proposed to move the rejection of the Bill, and although it might be suggested it was necessary to pass it in order to enable the company to get the capital they required to carry on their undertaking, he thought he would be able to prove that there was no immediate necessity for this Bill at all. The Bill sought to find further capital for the company, which only required £200,000 of capital each year to carry on its undertaking. But the last balance-sheet, published three months ago, showed there was a balance of nearly £700,000 to the company's credit. Therefore it clearly had enough capital to enable it to go on for two or three-years. Again, the company had got the permission of that House to issue £280,000 of capital—a permission of which it had not yet availed itself. Moreover, a Bill had recently passed through the House, one of whose objects was to enable this company to sell to the South Metropolitan Company a large area which it had on the south side of the river. This transaction could be completed in a moment, and it would put the Gas Light and Cote Company in possession of £900,000 of capital without incurring any additional charge for interest whatever. Therefore it was plain that the company could get the money it required without pressing through this Bill. The company had circulated among lion. Members a Paper in favour of the Bill which, he was sorry to saw was a very disingenuous document, ft was said, in the first place, that a similar Bill had been read a second time two years ago, but it did not add that it was rejected by a Committee of the House of Lords. Moreover, the Bill of last year was rejected by a Committee of the House of Commons. Net now they were asked to put the authorities of London to the trouble of again opposing a Bill which was precisely the same in essential matters. This Bill was opposed by the Corporation of the City of London, by the London County Council, and by all the local authorities in the area affected. They were unanimous in asking the House not to pass the Bill until the company, in accordance with the recommendations of Parliament, had put its house in order. It was almost incredible that a private trading company should prove itself so recalcitrant, and so utterly disregard the opinions arrived at by the House after most careful deliberation. The Gas Light and Coke Company had given the House more trouble than any other private trading company in the country. As an instance of the hardship occasioned by the high price charged for gas he would like to point to the penny-in-the-slot meters, of which there were now some 200,000 in London, and for which, under the regime of this company, the poor had to pay on the average £2 16s. a year. If gas were supplied by the company at a fair price, as it was on the south side of the river, there would he a saving to these poor people of between His and 18s. a year, which would constitute a very important addition to the fund for feeding and clothing the children. All classes of the community in London were vitally affected by this Bill, and he therefore asked the House to reject it.

seconded the motion for the rejection of the Bill. He was, he said, happy for once to find himself in complete agreement with the hon. Member opposite, and with the action of the County Council. The only attempt in the Bill to meet the recommendations of that House was in the redemption clause, and he was sure the House would agree that that clause-was utterly perfunctory and insufficient. The Committee recommended that before any further power was given to the company to issue fresh capital, the sliding scale should lie reduced. But the company had made no effort whatever to do that, and he therefore hoped that the House, without troubling a Select Committee for the third time, would reject the Bill.

urged that, as a matter of business, there was no reason why this Bill should not be read a second time, in order that it might be properly discussed by a Committee upstairs. It was undoubtedly the fact that the company wanted fresh capital, and it was in the interest of all parties that that capital should be raised in the most inexpensive way. The reason why two years ago a Bill was thrown out by a Committee of the House of Lords was because the time was inopportune, for Sir James Rankin's Committee had not then issued its Report. The second Bill was thrown out because its terms were not in accordance with the recommendations of Sir James Rankin's Committee. Last year power was asked to issue two and a half millions of capital, but in this Bill the capital asked for had been reduced to a million, in order to comply with the recommendations of Sir James Rankin's Committee. It was the intention of the company also to comply with the recommendations of that Committee in regard to the redemption clause, and the Committee upstairs could see that that was done. The question as to slot meters could likewise be more effectively dealt with by a Committee upstairs. What reason was there why this Bill should not have its Second Reading? Full opportunities would be given of discussing all these objections before an impartial tribunal in the Committee upstairs. He thought that on these grounds ordinary business principles ought to be extended to the present case, and he hoped the House would adopt the Second Reading.

thought this measure was one of the most impudent proposals he had heard for many years. This question had already been before Committees of this House and the other House, who had made recommendations upon the subject, and yet this was identically the same Bill, and contained exactly those provisions which both this and the other House had decided against. The hon. Member for Stretford contended that this was a different Bill, but in the circular issued by the company they did not themselves claim that more than one out of five of the recommendations of the Committees had been carried out. It was said that the company were now asking for a capital of £1,000,000 instead of the £2,500,000 previously applied for. But it was quite obvious that under the proposals of the company the money would last them for a much longer period than that which had been stated. Under the Bill passed by this House they were going to sell to the South Metropolitan Gas Company a portion of their area for something like £1,000,000, and with this sum and the amount provided for in the Bill they would then be able to defy the House of Commons for a long time to come. Again, the company had picked out of the five recommendations made by the Committee only those which were of the least importance to the general public, arid after doing this they claimed that they had complied with the Committee's recommendations. The Committee had come to the conclusion not only that this company was badly managed, but that it ought not to have special powers without complying with those recommendations, and until they were inserted in the Bill he hoped the House of Commons would refuse to pass it.

said he desired to join in the opposition to this Bill. Having regard to the nature of the measure, he thought they ought not to allow the local authorities to be involved in the cost of attending before the Committee upstairs. The local authorities had already borne the expense twice, and he suggested that it would be most unbusinesslike to throw that cost upon them again. In those parts where this company had to compete with the South Metropolitan Gas Company they charged a lower rate, but when they had disposed of their South London property they would be free to charge the higher rate to their consumers in those districts. His constituents saw no reason why the ordinary consumers should be made to pay for mismanagement. The Committee which had been alluded to recommended that whenever another Bill was brought forward by this company it should contain a clause fixing the price to be charged for gas. But this Bill did not contain a clause. It was ridiculous for the company to come to the House and ask them to pass a Bill against the wishes of all the local authorities. He hoped the House would decide to protect the consumer, and not show such a tender interest for some of these monopolies. If the ratepayers of Loudon knew the nature of this Bill they would be up in arms against it, and he hoped the House would teach this company a lesson, and throw out the Bill by a large majority.

pointed out that the City Corporation, the County Council, and all the local authorities were unanimous in their chorus of condemnation in regard to this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Stretford said that as a matter of business this Bill should be allowed to pass its Second Reading and be sent upstairs, but they had had so much of the Gas Light and Coke Company's legislative proposals that they were getting tired of them in their attenuated form. He objected to discussing skeleton Bills which had been rejected by Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and until this company brought in their proposals in such a way that they could be accepted on matters of principle be was not disposed to allow the time of the House to he wasted. Already this company had put the local authorities to an expenditure of something between £7,000 and £10,000, which was utterly unjustifiable. What did the South Metropolitan Gas Company do when they asked fur legislation. They came forward with a whole, a full, and a good Bill, and they put all those proposals which the hon. Member for Stretford wished to be discussed upstairs into the Bill itself. In this way the local authorities had a chance of considering them fully, and the company were frank about it. The Gas Light and Coke Company, however, did no such thing. At the present time this company was charging the consumer 3s. 5d. per 1000 feet for gas, which was 9d. per thousand more than the company on the south side whose Bill had been passed this year. He believed that that difference in price was inexcusable and indefensible, and he contended that with efficient management that extra charge of 9d. could be reduced to 4d. or 5d. The manager of the South Metropolitan Gas Company made no secret of it. for he had stated that if this House compelled all the gas companies to amalgamate under his management. 2s. 8d. per thousand feet would be the uniform price all over London. At present the Gas Light and Coke Company charge 3s. 5d., the South Metropolitan Gas Company 2s. 8d., the Crystal Palace Company 2s. 10d., the Wandsworth and Putney Company 2s. 4d., or 11d. less than this wealthy company which was introducing this Bill. He appealed to the House not to put up with these extortions, and lie asked hon. Members to reject this Bill because the local authorities were unanimous against it. He believed that the House of Commons had made up its mind that this company should not be allowed to continue to impose these exorbitant rates upon the consumers of gas.

said that the constituency he represented had been the victim of these extortionate charges for a long time. The question involved was nothing less than the authority of the House of Commons itself. It was subversive of the authority of the House of Commons that a private company should be encouraged to ignore and disregard the representations of a Select Committee. He was not there to advocate all the recommendations of tile Select Committee. It was quite possible that the House of Commons itself might find some of them could not be given effect to. He would remind the House what this company had done. They first introduced a Bill when the inquiry by the Select Committee was going on. Then they introduced a Bill ignoring altogether the recommendations of the Committee, and now, forsooth, they had the face to come before a Committee of the House obeying those recommendations of the Committee which were of least value to the consumers, and disregarding every other one. That system of dealing was not becoming on the part of a private company, and he hoped that the House would, by rejecting the Bill, tell the company that they would not be treated in that way.

said the matter they were considering had been before two Private Bill Committees, in two successive years—one a Committee of the House of Lords, and the other a Committee of the House of Commons. The Committee of the House of Commons had in distinct and emphatic terms objected to the Bill on the ground that the company had not given effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1899. The Bill now before the House was substantially the same as the one of 1899 and 1900. Notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Stretford, he failed to see that the company had complied with the Committee's recommendations, and lie was sorry to say that he was forced very reluctantly to ask the House not to read the Bill a second time.

said that, having regard to the opinions expressed in the House, he was authorised on behalf of the promoters, to ask leave to withdraw the Bill.

said it might facilitate matters if he made a short statement as to what the promoters were prepared to do. They were willing to introduce after Clause 27 the words, "It shall not be compulsory upon any servant of the company to become a member of the society." Those words were similar to words introduced in the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Act of 1897, and in the Great Northern Railway Act of the same year. He trusted that the Amendment would satisfy the House.

said he was glad that the hon. Member for Lewisham had seen his way clear to meet the suggestion he had made, but he certainly could not accept the Amendment now without further consideration, and he therefore moved the adjournment of the Debate.

suggested that when railway directors desired to promote Bills such as the one under discussion, which, in spite of all that was said to the contrary, did interfere with the liberty of the subject, and prevented free and unfettered combination on the part of the employees, they should in future consult the hon. Member for Derby, who had just as much right to speak for railway men as a railway director had to place his name on the back of a railway Bill. The original clause made it obligatory upon the men to join the company's benefit society, but under the new clause the membership was to be optional. He, however, knew what "optional" railway funds meant. In the event of a member too closely examining the details—actuarial position and so on—he would soon find his occupation gone. He instanced the case of a man in the employment of the London and North-Western Railway Company who, having protested against the provident fund, was called upon by a superior official to give an explanation of what it was he objected to. The man lost his employment.

Can the hon. Member give me the name of that employe?

No, I decline to do that, and I have as much right to refuse the name as the War Office has to refuse the names of generals, but I may say I did not mention the Great Eastern Railway. Proceeding, the hon. Member said he objected to railway funds altogether, on the very simple ground that the men did not get the same amount of benefit for their money as they would obtain from an ordinary friendly society, supervised by the Registrar of Friendly Societies and under legislative safeguards and conditions. Railway service was more dangerous than many other spheres of employment, and it stood to reason that with only 8,000 or 9,000 members to meet that greater risk the benefit could not be so large as in the case of a society with perhaps half a million members. There was another objection to it. He did not believe that these railway funds were promoted cither for philanthropic or benevolent purposes. Take the ease of a Great Eastern Railway platelayer getting sixteen shillings per week. That man would have to contribute to an accident fund and also to a burial fund out of his very limited wages. This Bill also proposed an orphan fund to compete with the better fund provided by the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. Out of such limited wages no man should be compelled against his will to contribute to three or four funds, (1) because he did not get value for his money, and (2) because he ought to be free to transfer his labour where he could get the most profitable employment without sustaining the loss of parting with all his past contributions. In these railway funds the men did not get full value for their money; they interfered with freedom of promotion, and also prevented a man getting that continuous investment which was possessed by every member of a friendly society. Take, for example, the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, the Odd-fellows, or the Hearts of Oak. Suppose a platelayer belonged to any of these societies, his investment was continuous; whereas, as a member of this fund, if he worked at Liverpool Street station and was transferred to the North Western Railway he would lose all ho had paid in. What was more, supposing he was a patriotic platelayer, and went out to South Africa, in response to the Government request for men, to join the railway pioneer corps in order to rebuild the lines from Kimberley to Bulawayo which the Boers had destroyed, the moment be went on board ship at the dock he would lose all the benefits of his membership of this society. Why did not the Great Eastern Railway Company employ the staff engaged on these peddling schemes of sick funds, accident funds, burial funds, and orphan funds; in improving the passenger traffic at Liverpool Street, and the general administration of the railway? In 1899 the House of Commons appointed a Committee to inquire into the working of shop clubs and railway funds, and the spirit and letter of the operation of these were adversely criticised by that Committee. It might be said that that criticism had been got rid of by the Great Eastern directors by the concessions which they had made. Nothing of the sort. The most objectionable condition was still retained, and he hoped that the directors would make a further concession. Why ask the men to contribute to no fewer than four funds? The reason was that this was an insidious device to divert the railway workmen's subscriptions from their trades unions, which protected them from long hours and short wages, and gave them better friendly society benefits than the Great Eastern Railway Company possibly could, and to render it impossible for these men to remain in their trade unions. If a workman was paying 10d. a week to these four schemes, and had only 16s. a week wages, it was obvious that he could not go on paying 5d. a week to his trade union. The wife would come along and say, "Tom, I wish you had wages enough for both the trade union and the railway societies, but you have not"; and over the tea-table Tom would reply, "What am I to do?" Jane, the wife, would say, "You had better choose the side on which your bread is buttered. If you do not do so, foreman this or superintendent that may probably carry it to the right or wrong quarter, and if you do not belong to the company's funds you will lie spotted, your promotion will be cheeked, and ultimately you will lose your employment." And so the poor man would give in. The object of this scheme, therefore, was to hit the trade unions, to kill the freedom of the men, and to assist the directors who had not the capacity to get on good terms with their employees on account of some imaginary strike that was to come off. It was not for the House of Commons to play the game of the railway directors, but to uphold the liberty of the workmen.

reminded the House that on the last occasion on which this Bill had been discussed objection was taken to the provident funds clause, and the adjournment of the debate was moved in order to give the directors of the Great Eastern Railway Company, the promoters, an opportunity of amending the clause. Now the hon. Member for Lewisham, on behalf of the company, expressed his willingness to amend the clause as follows: "It shall not be compulsory upon any servant of the company to become a member of the society." Nothing could be more clear or satisfactory than that. He was bound to say he did not think the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea had any reference to the question now before the House. He could not help thinking that that hon. Member had come down to the House primed with a speech on the suspicion that the directors would not give way. But they had given way, and the hon. Member for Battersea was not willing to forego the opportunity of making his prepared speech. The clause in its original form was not objectionable in any respect, but in its amended form it conceded everything that had been asked, and there was no reason why the Second Reading of the Bill should not be taken.

thought that the concession made by the hon. Member for Lewisham was probably useful. He would be the last to deny it, but he thought that it would have been only courteous had the hon. Gentleman come to hon. Members on that side of the House who took an interest in the subject and asked them whether the Amendment met their views or not. Would it not be wise, if it were possible, for the promoters to reconsider their determination, and give the opponents of the Bill an opportunity of considering how the operation of these words would affect their case? It was an extremely important Bill, and the House would remember how questions such as these were fought out day after day when the Compensation Bill was before the House. He thought it was only reasonable that the House should allow the debate to be adjourned for a day or two.

said it was not usual to make any arrangement with any person to discuss a form of words to be introduced into a Bill. The usual procedure was to discuss the form when the Bill got into Committee, which practice had been followed by the hon. Member for Lewisham. The right hon. Member for Fife had asked the hon. Member whether the promoters would be prepared to insert words to make it clear that the clause was not compulsory. Now the hon. Member came to give in the House the undertaking for which he had been asked in the House. If it could be shown to the Committee upstairs that the words did not carry out the undertaking, the hon. Member would be prepared to consider other words.

desired to make an explanation. In the course of his opposition to the Bill he had received resolutions from different centres of the Great Eastern Railway Company's district opposing the Bill, first in regard to the question of compulsion, and secondly because it was an effort of the directorate to deprive the employees of benefit for injuries. That was an injustice, and he could not accept anything while that clause was allowed to remain.

was of opinion that it was not only a question of people being compelled to join the society, there were other questions, such as the control by the men and the right to withdraw, neither of which points had been touched by the Amendment.

was of opinion that nothing would be lost by an adjournment being granted. On the contrary, he thought there would be a great saving of time if the debate were adjourned, that an amicable settlement might be arrived at as to the words to be introduced into the Bill at a later stage. He did not agree with the President of the Board of Trade that these words would have an effect on the foremen throughout the railway system. The foremen would still select men for promotion, and the fact that a man had not joined the society would have an effect as to his selection or non-selection by the foreman. It was a far more important measure than many Members thought, and he hoped, for the sake of the peaceful settlement of the interests concerned, that the hon. Member would see his way to adjourning the debate. It did not seem to him that there would be any loss of dignity on the part of his hon. friend the Member for Lewisham in agreeing to such a course. The Bill had many features of extraordinary public value, independently of of the clause in dispute.

hoped his hon. friend would not accept the suggestion which had just been made. The hon. Members for Battersea and Derby were not content with this Bill when it was obligatory, they were not content with it when it was not obligatory; and he would like to know what concession on the part of any railway company would ever make them contented, unless it exactly coincided with their own political and social views. Not content with general charges, the hon. Member for Battersea made a further charge against the London and North Western Railway Company, a company with which he himself was connected. The hon. Member made a very serious charge against that company, but refused to give the name of the man.

I will give it at once—it is Robert White, wagon examiner, of the London and North Western Railway, who, after twenty-one years service, was dismissed and forfeited all his benefits except 16s. 6d.

I should be very sorry to accept that statement as being correct until I have had an opportunity of checking it. [Opposition cries of "Oh," and "Withdraw."] I have nothing to withdraw.

If the hon. and gallant Member had said that he considered that the hon. Member for Battersea had wilfully made a misstatement, of course he would have to withdraw the expression, and would do so, I am sure; but what he said was, I understand, that he does not accept the statement made as being a true version of the facts.

I do not object; I regard it as a directorial contradiction, and we know how they come.

said it was pefectly clear that the hon. Members for Battersea and Derby objected to the railway companies having any benefit societies. The hon. Members objected to such societies running counter to their own.

said the point on which the debate turned was the principle whether a man should or should not be compelled to join the society. The actual words had to be brought up in Committee on the Bill, as on the principle the House was agreed. The Home Secretary had already pointed out that the form of the Amendment could not be brought up on the Second Reading of the Bill. He might say that many years ago in a similar case similar words were accepted, and those words were discussed and agreed to by everybody interested before the Bill in question reached the Committee stage. This Bill contained a great many things advantageous to the districts through which the Great Eastern Railway passed, and the Bill need not now be detained in its Second Reading stage. If the proposals promised were not found in the Bill when it went into its subsequent stages the Bill would have a very rough time in the House.

, who spoke amid great interruption and cries of "Divide!" said it was all very well for railway directors earning their fees in the House to attempt to prevent free discussion, but so far as he was concerned they would not succeed. It was very unfortunate that the promoters would not accept the suggestions which bad been offered. It was unfortunate an adjournment had not been granted. The speeches delivered showed that there was a greater difference than was supposed by the President of the Board of Trade. The concession was not a real one, hon. Gentleman having whittled away the whole of the concession as it was represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill said he would be willing to introduce a clause which should have the effect of eliminating compulsion, and he would read the words to the House, but nobody without taking the words down and considering them carefully could possibly say they were sufficient for the purpose. They would be asked were they going to reject this Bill, which might involve large considerations, which had been threshed out in Committee, and for which there had been all this expenditure, simply because they could not accept these words in regard to one particular clause. The promoters knew, and the President of the Board of Trade knew also, that this was the only real opportunity they would have of discussing these words. The matter had been discussed in regard to other companies. Two specific points had been put to the promoters. One was, were they willing that the men should control this fund; the other, were they going to permit men to withdraw their savings it they were dismissed from the employment of the company? That constituted the key to the whole situation, and if the promoters did not give to the House some assurance upon those two points, he hoped every opportunity would be taken of opposing the Bill.

said he would appeal to the House not to take upon itself at this stage the functions of a Committee. He humbly submitted that this was not the time to discuss the point; the time to do that was when the Bill was in Committee. If they were, going on in that way, it was obvious that on the Second Reading of measures they would be occupying time on matters which ought to be taken up by the Committee, which was the proper body to go into the drafting of Clause 27. If the House would give the Bill a Second Reading and allow it to go to a Committee, he would take an early opportunity of getting his hon. friend the Member for Lewisham to meet him in his room, and he would invite the hon. Member for Derby, and they would consider together whether those words carried out the intentions in the minds of the two hon. Members who had spoken. He thought that a few moments conversation would achieve all that was desired, but supposing the consultation proved unsuccessful, the Committee would still have an opportunity of drafting such words as they thought suitable, and after that occasion, if the Bill came back to the House in a form not acceptable to the hon. Member for Derby, there would yet be an opportunity on the Report stage for the hon. Member to suggest any other words. He thought that was an offer which his hon. friend the Member for Lewisham would be willing to accept.

I am willing to adopt that course.

said that, as a rule, upon Committees upstairs there was no one to represent the public, because each party represented their personal and pecuniary interests. Under such circumstances, it was very difficult to protect the public interests. The House was asked, in spite of what had been said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, to allow this company to compel their men to contribute to a fund in which it was a condition, no matter how many years a man paid into it, that he should sacrifice the whole when lie left the employment of the company. They ought not to consent to give a clause to a railway company to enforce such a condition as that. Ho heartily welcomed the interposition of the Chairman of Committees.

thought he ought to have an opportunity of putting a point which no one had yet put. There had been considerable friction between the men employed and the company, and that friction had been so great at times that there had been danger of a strike occurring. A strike on the Great Eastern Railway would be the means of the dislocation of a great part of the labour of London, because a large number of workmen were brought up to London by that line. The danger of a strike which this clause might produce would at once be seen, and he hoped the House would be very careful not to permit the-company to have such a power.

said the suggestion made by the Chairman of Committees was certainly a point in advance of what the promoter of the Bill had said. He was prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, provided the conference took place before the notice he had down for an Instruction to the Committee was reached. The conditions laid down in his previous statement were that the clause should be withdrawn for the present session, so that the employees might make arrangements of their own.

I am quite willing to do that.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman meant by his proposal that if the Second Reading was allowed to pass a conference would then take place between the representatives of the railway company and the hon. Members alluded to in order to see if some agreement could be arrived at?

I am quite willing to give such an undertaking.

As the hon. Member for Derby speaks of moving his Instruction afterwards, it is only fair that I should tell him that I do not think I should be justified in allowing the hon. Member to move his Instruction, for it would be asking the House to debate over again the exact question raised by him on the Second Reading.

I am much obliged to you. Mr. Speaker, for the interpretation you have given.

asked if that ruling applied also to the Committee.

Not at all. This point has already been the subject of discussion.

said it was within his knowledge that a considerable number of Members were prepared to vote for the Second Reading if Clause 27 were deleted. The effect of the Speaker's ruling would he that the Second Reading would be got with the clause in the Bill, and no opportunity would be given for taking it out.

Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?

I understand that I can raise the question on the Report stage. On that understanding I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

said the objection he had to the North British Railway Bill was not a very strong one. He had had a short conference with the promoters, and had expressed the objections of the employees to one of the clauses. Under this clause the company sought to employ police on the same lines as the county and borough police. The privileges which railway police had had for some years past had been largely abused as against railway servants, who had been assaulted and wrongfully arrested upon suspicion, and wrongful searches of their houses had often been made. He thought the instances of this kind which had been brought before the public lately were a good reason why they should have some expression of opinion from the representative of the company. The railway servants objected to the police having power to follow and arrest any person who had departed from any railway station. He begged to move his Instruction.

assured the hon. Member for Derby that it was not the intention of the directors of the North British Railway that their employees should be harassed unnecessarily by such proceedings, but he was not quite sure that this clause made very much difference in regard to their position. This clause had been introduced to enable them to follow luggage thieves rather than for matters of that kind, and a similar clause had already been introduced into nine other railway Bills. The clause had been considered by the Home Office, and the form which had been adopted was based on the model clause which was generally enforced. It was the last wish of the directors to harass their men or accuse them unjustly, but if there was anything of that kind in this clause, they might discuss it in Committee upstairs. He thought it would be most injudicious, and contrary to the practice of the House, to adopt Instructions of this kind at the present stage. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Instruction, because it would, if passed, fetter the discretion of the Committee very much in dealing with this question.

I beg leave to withdraw my motion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state who was responsible for sending Mr. Adrian Hofmeyr to Pretoria; what were the actual terms of his engagement there; and what salary did he receive; whether the fact that he had been suspended from the Dutch Church for immorality was known to those who appointed him, and why care was not exercised in making inquiry before accepting Mr. Hofmeyr's services, and if in future the antecedents of those employed by the Government in South Africa will be impartially inquired into; and whether he is aware that statements made publicly by Mr. Hofmeyr when lecturing in England during the General Election as to his treatment at the hands of the Boers were characterised by General Baden-Powell as a fabrication.

I telegraphed the substance of the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question to Sir A. Milner, and have received the following reply:—

"Lord Kitchener asked me to send Mr. Hofmeyr to Pretoria if I thought that he would be of use, and as I did think so I sent him then and there. No employment was specified; I simply told him that I wanted him to place his services entirely at Lord Kitchener's disposal, and that I could not say for how long or short a time he might be wanted, but that while employed he would be paid at the rate of £50 per month plus actual travelling expenses. I take sold responsibility for this arrangement; was not aware, and I am not now aware, he was suspended for immorality. I was aware that there had been some scandal about him two years ago and that he had quitted post of Dutch Reformed minister at Wynberg."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will lay upon the Table the despatches in regard to the Naval Brigade in South Africa which were published in the London Gazette of the 12th instant.

There will be no objection to laying these Papers if the right hon. Gentleman will move for them.

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 their colonies; also the number in the case of each of these colonies now serving in South Africa.

The figures are too numerous to read out to the House, but I will lay them on the Table, as far as it is possible to give them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the particulars of the pensions proposed to be given to the widows and orphans of those who have lost their lives in the South African Campaign.

The actual conditions on which grants will be given are not quite settled; but I may inform the hon. Member that so far as the Government are concerned the rates of pension and compassionate allowance to widows and children of non-commissioned officers and men, killed in action or dying of wounds or disease contracted on active service, will be as follows:—

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government are making plans and estimates for the location of batches of 1,000 Boers at Dehra, Pachmarhi, and other places; and, if so, whether the Boers will be imprisoned in those districts.

Yes, Sir; arrangements are under consideration to locate Boer prisoners in India, in case the present available places of detention become overcrowded.

Are these Dutchmen to be imprisoned in India?

They will be detained under the same condition as the other Boer prisoners.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether places are being prepared for the reception of Boer prisoners in India; whether, if so, the prisoners to be removed there are now at Ceylon, or whether the Government are contemplating sending any more out of South Africa; and whether, if the latter is the case, they will consider the possibility of sending them to our Australasian colonies in preference to India or Ceylon, both for climatic reasons and in order to increase the opportunities of friendly contact between the two races.

All the questions mentioned by the hon. Member will be considered before any step is taken. It is not proposed to move any of the prisoners who have already been deported.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of soldiers sent back from South Africa in custody; how many are now undergoing sentence in Great Britain, and in what prisons; how many soldiers are undergoing sentence in South Africa, and in what prisons; and would he have any objection to give a Return of the number of offenders in each regiment, and the nature of the offences, and the character of the courts-martial.

It would take a very long time and much labour to obtain the detailed information required. It is quite impossible to throw on the staff in South Africa the labour of making a variety of detailed Returns unless for some urgent public purpose.

Will the noble Lord say how many soldiers have been sent back in custody from South Africa, and what prisons they are now confined in? It is a question which affects the liberty of these men, and we are entitled to look into it.

Surely I am entitled to an answer.

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member the information he requires. It would involve an enormous amount of work to collect it, whether in England or in South Africa. The staffs in both places are very much overworked, and I hope that hon. Members will not press for any of these Returns as long as the war is going on.

But is not the liberty of these men in question?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the civil surgeons and nursing sisters employed in tending the sick and wounded in South Africa will be entitled to the same war gratuity as those connected with the Army.

Civil surgeons, civil veterinary surgeons, and nursing sisters are employed under a definite contract as to pay, and are not entitled to any war gratuity.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the South African Cold Storage Company contracted for the supply of fresh meat for the troops in the field at 11d. per pound for each pound of dead meat actually handed over; whether, notwithstanding that the conditions of the contract provided for the supply of cattle and sheep to accompany the troops with drovers and other necessary arrangements for the care of live animals, this part of the contract was not complied with, three-fourths of the supply being frozen or refrigerated meat; whether he is aware that the same firm at the same time was supplying frozen meat for the troops at Cape Town and to the Admiralty for transports at 5¾d. per pound; and whether precautions have been taken to ensure that the terms of the contract shall be carried out.

I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question put on Tuesday, the 12th instant, by the hon. Member for the Flint District.^* I may add that this contract expired in February, 1900.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the assent of the subscribers to the fund for the Welsh Hospital in South Africa to its absorption in another hospital was asked for or obtained, and whether he is aware that a considerable amount of the money originally subscribed still remains unexpended.

The absorption was arranged by the authorities in South Africa in communication with

^*See page 1328 of this volume.

May I ask the noble Lord whether the gentleman to whom he alluded on Tuesday last was authorised to speak only for the executive committee? Has the general secretary expressed satisfaction at, or acquiescence in, the action of the military authorities?

The gentleman I referred to represented the executive committee. I thought, wrongly, it seems, that he represented the views of the whole committee. I do not exactly know what are the objections now being raised, but if the hon. Member will see me privately I shall be most happy to give the matter my attention.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, before accepting the application of anyone to serve in the Imperial Yeomanry or other mounted force enrolled to proceed to South Africa, each applicant is tested in riding and shooting; and whether all are refused who cannot show their efficiency in these requirements.

Yes, Sir.

Where are the men who come up to the offices in Victoria Street tried in these matters?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided to order a training of Yeomanry Cavalry this year; and, if so, on what conditions.

The Yeomanry will certainly train this year. An Army Order on the subject will shortly be published.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to appoint to the garrison battalions any reserve officers who have served during the late emergency, and who are recommended by their commanding officers; and whether the employment by the War Office of officers no longer on the active list may include officers of any arm or only ex-Staff officers.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. In reply to the second paragraph, officers of any arm may he employed, but will be selected according to their suitability for the duty for which they are required. A preference will be given to officers otherwise eligible who may have been disabled in the war.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Memorandum addressed to the Prime Minister by Lord Wolseley, enumerating his duties as Commander-in-Chief; and all correspondence of an official character between him, when Commander-in-Chief, and the late Secretary of State for War, in respect to the military operations that might become necessary in the event of war in South Africa.

The question of J laving before Parliament the letter addressed by Lord Wolseley to the Prime Minister is one for their consideration. I am not aware of any correspondence between the late Commander-in-Chief and the late Secretary of State for War on this subject, and it would be quite contrary to usage to lay the departmental minutes which pass daily between officials on all the current business of a Department before Parliament.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the guns on the fort of Inchkeith are muzzle or breech loaders; if the latter, are they of the newest quick- firing pattern; also whether, for the protection of the Forth, he will consider the advisability of placing batteries no the Bass Rock and May Island.

It has been explained to the House on previous occasions that it is not considered expedient to give information in regard to the details of the various armaments. I may, however, state that the guns on Fort Inchkeith are all breechloaders.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience arising from the present distribution of Welsh counties for purposes of military command, whereby the military headquarters for North Wales are located at Chester, whilst the headquarters for South Wales, together with Montgomeryshire and Monmouthshire, are located at Plymouth; and whether, in view of the advantages in matters of recruiting and training which would accrue, he will consider the advisability of establishing one military command for the Principality.

I am not aware of any inconvenience arising from the present distribution of Welsh counties for purposes of military command. Further, it is not at all likely that the troops quartered in Wales will amount to a whole army corps, and it will therefore be necessary to allot the troops there either to form part of one or more of the six future army corps already notified.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how much compensation has been paid to contractors in connection with the withdrawal of Mark IV. Cartridges; how many Mark IV. bullets have been broken up; and how many Mark IV. bullets still remain in stock.

£6,568 16s. 7d. has been paid to the contractors. About 4½ million bullets were broken up, and about 250,000 are still in hand.

Were these Dumdum bullets?

No, Sir.

Why were they broken up?

If the hon. Member will put the question down, I will endeavour to answer it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the wives and families of soldiers, embodied militia, or reservists, serving with their corps, are only entitled to free medical attendance when residing within reach of an officer of army medical corps or of civil practitioner engaged at military contract rates; and, if so, will he say who is to pay for medical attendance for those who live outside that distance and are too poor to pay for themselves.

It has been explained to the House before that it is not possible to provide medical attendance for those residing at a distance from military headquarters.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the respective annual amounts of soldiers' unclaimed balances for the last six years that are ascertainable, and how have these been disposed of.

The figures for the last six years of which the accounts have been closed are as follows:—1892–3, £1,268; 1893–4, £1,418; 1894–5, £2,979; 1895–6, £3,238; 1896–7, £1,036; 1897–8, £1,813. The balances for the first two years have been transferred to the Patriotic Fund. The remainder are invested pending transfer at the expiration of the statutory period of advertisement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in administering the estates of officers who have died on active service, it has been the practice of the War Office to delay payment of moneys due to their estates, or to demand a guarantee in respect thereof before payment, on account of the cost of carriage home of the deceased officers' baggage; and, if so, whether he will take measures to abolish a regulation which has caused much hardship to those dependent upon the proceeds of the deceased officers' estates.

There has been no delay of payment arising from cost of conveyance of baggage home. Owing to a number of claims against officers for conveyance of excess baggage in South Africa, arrangements were made for retaining a balance of £5 from the estates of officers to meet any such claim. This arrangement ceased last December, and all cases have, so far as I am aware, been settled.

I beg to ask the Financia, Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that clothes of men dying in South Africa from enteric fever are returned to this country often in a dirty state; and whether, in consequence of the danger of infection, now increased by the prevalence of plague in Cape Colony, he will order that the kits of soldiers dying of disease shall be thoroughly disinfected before being returned to this country, or destroyed, and proper compensation made to their relatives.

No clothing of men dying in South Africa is returned to the Clothing Department at home and nothing is known of any having been sent home privately. In accordance with the Regimental Debts Act the personal effects, except special articles left by will, belonging to a soldier dying on active services are sold by auction on the spot. Special cautionary instructions as to the spread of infection have been sent out.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what steps it is proposed to take to insure the London Volunteers having satisfactory facilities, as far as ranges near at hand arc concerned, for rifle practice and for becoming efficient shots.

The ranges at Bisley and Staines provide for a large number of the corps, and I had hoped that with the assistance of the London County Council an excellent range could have been obtained for those corps whose headquarters are in the east of the Metropolis. The representatives of the Volunteers, however, refused to accept the arrangement it the Loudon County Council participated therein. I have no other scheme at present under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the acknowledged excellency in shooting arrived at in Switzerland by practising on short ranges, and the fact that a range near the headquarters of a rifle corps can be much more extensively used and consequently be much more valuable than one at a considerable distance, he will have a fresh inquiry held to see whether the Ilford Range, which has been used so long with perfect safety, cannot, even if doubtful for long ranges, be made a safety range up to some 400 yards.

This question has been very carefully considered and the Secretary of State is not advised to reopen it. The military authorities hold that it is impossible to adapt the Ilford Range to meet the musketry requirements now imposed upon the Volunteers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any, and, if any, how many railway companies besides the Great Eastern have arranged to supply soldiers, reservists, and sailors in uniform with non-alcoholic refreshments at railway station bars at a reduced price; and will he state what steps have been taken to acquaint the men of this concession.

Communications on this subject have been made to all the principal railway companies. As soon as the arrangements which are in progress have been completed they will be made known.

Will the noble Lord inquire as to the indifferent quality and high prices of the provisions before forcing them down the throats of the men?

And will he take steps to inform the men of the concession made in their favour?

It is of no use acquainting them of the fact until the concession has actually been granted by more than one railway company.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Patrick M'Namara, of Sixmile-bridge, county Clare, who was formerly a soldier in the 14th Regiment, and served for one year and two months in the Crimea, and twenty-three years in the English Army; whether he is aware that M'Namara is only in receipt of a pension of 4s. 8d. per week, out of which he has to pay rent and support a family that he is now weak from old age, and. has to depend for medical assistance and nourishment on the ratepayers; and1 that the Limerick Board of Guardians and the police of his district have recommended the War Office to increase his allowance; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances, arrangements will be made to give this old soldier a sufficient amount to keep him from want and suffering.

The amount of this man's pension is as stated, but it is not possible under the regulations applicable to his case to grant him any increase. He was not in possession of any good conduct badges when discharged, and his character while in the Army was bad.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the company of 1st Seaforth Volunteers who, in response to an invitation from the War Office, left Dingwall soon after noon on Friday, 1st February, for the purpose of taking part in the ceremonies at the Queen's funeral, found on their arrival at King's Cross at 5.30 on Saturday morning that there was no one to direct them, and that no provision had been made for their arrival, with the result that it was only by accident, and through the courtesy of the commanding officer of a Metropolitan Volunteer corps, that they obtained food late in the afternoon prior to their return to Dingwall by the 5.30 p.m. train, arriving at the latter place Sunday forenoon; and will he state who is responsible for this neglect, which caused discomfort and dissatisfaction.

An officer was detailed as station staff officer at King's Cross on the 2nd February, and the detachment was duly directed on their arrival in the morning to the King's Cross goods shed, where ample accommodation and food were provided. No neglect is attributable to anyone.

Is the noble Lord aware that as soon as the men entered the goods shed they were ordered out by the railway company? I have it on the best authority that that was the case. Is the noble Lord aware that the men had neither food nor drink provided for them? I beg to give notice that I shall take the earliest possible opportunity of drawing attention to the gross neglect of which these men were the victims.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board have yet come to a decision upon the case of the men employed by Messrs. Lovett, the contractors, on the new naval barracks works at Portsea, who received no allowance for enforced loss of work on the occasion of the funeral of Her late Majesty, when the Government employees engaged upon the same work suffered no loss of pay.

A decision has not yet been arrive at, but will very shortly be given, and I shall then be happy to communicate it to my hon. friend.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the arrangements for lighting at Deptford Victualling Yard, where men have been working overtime during the past eighteen months loading and unloading ships and barges by candle lamps and gaslight, as a result of which several slight accidents have occurred, and one man recently broke his leg; and whether seeing that on either side of the yard, both at the Foreign Cattle Market and Brighton Railway Company Dock, electric light is used, he will take steps for the introduction of that light into the yard.

During the last eighteen months only nine accidents—one of them severe—have occurred in connection with the loading or unloading of vessels at Deptford, and none of them are attributable to defective lighting. They are only the ordinary cases of spraining and slight contusions inseparable from wharf duty. The case referred to, where a man broke his leg, occurred through his slipping from a frozen plank in the frosty weather. The wharves are lighted by Siemens' patent gas lamps, and in order to facilitate the work of loading or unloading, candle lamps are placed on board the craft. Fewer accidents have occurred by night than by day.

Does the hon. Gentleman deny that the gas lighting in this yard is defective?

I think it is adequate for all purposes.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that the "Jackal" is the gunboat more directly charged with the duty of preventing illegal trawling in the close vicinity of Aberdeen, he can state where she is at present, how often during the months of December, January, and February, respectively, this boat has been berthed in Aberdeen Harbour, and on how many of such occasions she has taken tip her moorings inside the dock gates of the harbour; what is the number of officers on board her, and since when has the present officer in charge of her held the appointment.

His Majesty's ship "Jackal" is stationed on the coast of Scotland for the protection of the fisheries generally, and is not directly or exclusively charged with such duties in the vicinity of Aberdeen only. She was at Aberdeen under repair up to the 19th December last (another gunboat doing her duty). She left on the date named for fishery duty, and has not since been in Aberdeen Harbour. From the 1st January she has been employed in the waters of the Hebrides. The commanding officer of the "Jackal" is Lieut.-Commander James C. Tancred, the date of whose appointment is 10th February, 1899.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State, for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement with the Negus has yet been signed with regard to the delimitation of the Abyssinian frontier; and whether any arrangement has been come to for joint action against a common enemy on the frontier.

No agreement has yet been signed with regard to the Abyssinian frontier, but negotiations are now proceeding between King Menelek and His Majesty's agent and Consul General at Adis Abeba on the subject. King Menelek last year invited the co-operation of His Majesty's Government in suppressing a fanatical Mollah who has for some time past been disturbing the peace among the tribes on the borders of the British Protectorate of Somaliland and the Abyssinian dominions. His Majesty's Government have instructed their officers to arrange for such, co-operation in the event of a forward movement against the Mollah becoming necessary. This is, however, only a temporary arrangement for a special purpose.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made any proposals to the United States Government in reference to the action of Russia in Manchuria; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of these proposals.

His Majesty's Government are in constant communication with the Rowers concerned on every phase of the Chinese question, but it would be contrary to the public interest to enter into particulars at the present moment.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any steps are being taken to revive the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.

The Hay-Pauncefote Convention has lapsed, the time for ratification having expired. No steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to revive the Convention, but they would be ready to consider in a friendly way any proposals made for that object by the Government of the United States.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will issue to Members Papers on British East Africa and on the recent operations in Somaliland.

Papers are being prepared and will be laid as soon as it is possible to include in them certain fuller reports on the recent operations in Jubaland which we expect shortly to receive.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the total expenditure on warlike operations from 1895 to 1900, inclusive, in connection with the Colonies or hinterlands of Gambia, Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast, Lagos, and the Niger, respectively; and what has been the total cost of the West African Field Force up to date.

The only expenditure on warlike operations separately recorded, apart from the cost of the various constabulary forces in the years 1895 to 1900, is that of £44,625 for the extra cost thrown upon Sierra Leone in respect of the operations in 1897–8 and that of £195,893 for the Cold Coast, the greater part of which is the cost of the Ashanti expedition of 1895–6. The cost of the recent Ashanti War is not yet ascertained, but will probably come to about £400,000. The total cost of the West African Frontier Force up to date has averaged about £180,000 per annum for the last four years.

Will the hon. Member give the cost for each separate year?

I will endeavour to get the figures.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has observed that various companies have been formed to work gold reefs in parts of Western Africa within the dominions of His Majesty; whether the law which vests in the State all gold discovered in the United Kingdom holds good in these West African dominions; whether such companies pay a tax upon the gold that they extract from the soil; and, if so, what is the amount; arid whether any steps are being taken to ensure that no natives shall be employed in these mines without their assent being obtained, their full comprehension of any contract into which they may enter being brought home to them, and security against their ill-treatment being provided.

I am advised that the law of England as to gold mines does not apply to the Cold Coast. Under the law of the Cold Coast, companies formed to work gold mines will pay a special tax of 5 per cent. per annum on their net profits. The law of the Gold Coast appears to provide sufficiently for the protection of persons employed in mining as at present carried on.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been brought to his notice that certain black men inhabiting East Africa were induced by the Chartered Company of South Africa to enter into a contract to be transported to Rhodesia and to work in the mines there, and that on reaching Lorenco Marques they declined to proceed further; whether he can state what was the nature of the contract; whether the black men understood its stipulations; whether the Chartered Company of South Africa obtained the permission of His Majesty's Government to enter into it, and its provisions; and whether any supervision in regard to its conditions was exercised by British officials; and what has become of these black men.

I will answer this question in the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Rochester. The journey of the agents of the British South Africa Company to engage labourers in North-East Africa was undertaken with the consent of His Majesty's Government. As to this particular case, we are informed that a number of natives belonging to Jibuti in French territory came overland to Zeyla in British Somaliland, having been engaged as labourers for Rhodesia by one of these agents. Application was made by him to the Customs superintendent for permission to embark them, but this was only granted upon a promise by the agent that he would take them to Berbera, so that the Consul General might be satisfied before sanctioning their embarkation. This, however, for some reason as yet unexplained, the agent failed to do. On reaching Beira they became alarmed and refused to go any further, and a struggle took place, in which one native lost his life. The Portuguese authorities ordered an inquiry, the result of which we are awaiting; and a full explanation has been called for from the British South Africa Company. We have every reason to believe that the natives in their alarm were labouring under a misapprehension, but we are not aware of the terms of the contract, which presumably was made under French jurisdiction.

Will a copy of the contract lie laid on the Table?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put any further question down.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce a short Bill making it a misdemeanour punishable on conviction by fine or imprisonment, or both, for any person to publish in the press or in any public manner whatsoever any comment upon any criminal charge or accusation made against any individual whilst the hearing or determination of such charge or accusation is pending either before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction or before a Court of Record.

Comments in the press upon a criminal charge whilst the hearing is pending cannot, in my opinion, be too strongly condemned. I am now considering with the law officers whether the law as it stands is not sufficiently strong to deal with such cases as that referred to in the question.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to a practice adopted by representatives of some of the press of seeking interviews with persons who have been called, or who are about to be called, as witnesses in matters pending before the courts of justice, and of publishing the statements and answers to questions given by such persons; whether he has observed that these statements and answers have afterwards been used in court to discredit the sworn testimony of the persons from whom they were obtained; and whether he is prepared to take measures, by legislation if necessary, to put a stop to the practice referred to, and to any interference whatever with witnesses, as being calculated to impede the course of justice.

My attention has been called to the fact referred to in the question. The practice mentioned in the first paragraph is a most objectionable one, and might, under certain circumstances, bring those concerned within the reach of the criminal law as it stands. The whole subject is under consideration.†

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Admiralty authorities have decided to put up wireless telegraphy stations at Dover, Culver Cliff, Portland Bill, Rame Head, Scilly, and other places; and whether he can now hold out hopes that this system will be adopted without delay for life-saving purposes.

I am informed that certain stations are being erected by the Admiralty along the coast to test the value of wireless telegraphy. I regret that I am not in a position to say more on the subject at present.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have yet been taken to require the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company to provide lascars employed on their vessels with accommodation equivalent to that to which European crews are entitled—namely, 72 cubic feet of space

†Reference may be made to The Parliamentary Debates, First Series, Vol. vi., page 902. In 1806, Mr. Serjeant Rest had obtained leave to bring in a Bill "to prevent the publication of ex parte evidence against persons accused of felonies and other crimes previous to trial." He explains the grounds on which he considered such a measure necessary, and his reasons for deciding, against his personal judgment, not to proceed with the Bill.—[Ed.]

said that the matter to which the hon. Member referred had not been lost sight of. The Peninsular and Oriental Company have taken steps by a petition of right, which has been fiated, to obtain an authoritative legal decision on the points that have arisen with regard to lascar crew space. An answer to this petition has been prepared by counsel, but I am not able to say definitely when the case will come on for hearing.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners are yet in a position to state when they will be prepared to place lights on the five buoys which indicate the channel off Avoch, Ross-shire.

I understand that the lighting of the Avoch Buoys was not included by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses in the Estimates for the coming year, in consequence of the many more important works required on different parts of the coast, but that the matter will not be overlooked.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railway companies continue to refuse to reduce the charges imposed on cyclists for the conveyance of bicycles, in spite of the recommendations of the Board of Trade and the views expressed by its late President to a deputation on the 11th of May last; and whether he will now introduce the legislation to which the late President of the Board then made reference.

I am not aware of any general reduction of charge adopted by the railway companies. I do not think my right hon. friend promised, legislation on this subject, and I am not prepared to introduce such legislation.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the answer of his predecessor?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will extend the information with regard to iron and steel imports in the monthly Trade and Navigation Returns, by showing the imports of bar and angle iron, and unwrought steel, separated into the various countries from which more than 100 tons has been imported, as shown under the other heads of pig and puddled iron; and also give similar extensions under the various heads of iron and steel manufactures and machinery.

The form of the monthly Trade and Navigation Returns cannot be changed during the course of the year without great inconvenience, but the hon. Member's suggestion will be referred to the Committee on the Revision of Trade Accounts which meets next autumn. Meanwhile it is possible for any person interested to obtain the information referred to in the question from the various monthly supplements to the London Bills of Entry issued by the Customs Department.

In view of the great interest felt in this matter up and down the country, cannot the Board of Trade give this information?

It would be very inconvenient now to change the form. Anyone requiring the information can obtain it from the monthly supplement to the London Bills of Entry.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the explosion of a locomotive while running a mineral train near Pontefract, on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway on the night of the 11th instant, by which two men, the driver and fireman, were killed; can he state the number of the same type of locomotive possessed by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, and their steam pressure; and whether he will order an inspection to be made of all that class of locomotives on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.

The Board of Trade have ordered an inquiry into this accident. I am not at present prepared to make any further statement with regard to the matter.