moved that this Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons. He said the point he had to raise was a novel one, but of some general interest with regard to the working of the Private Legislation Procedure Act of Scotland. Under that Act several inquiries had been held in Scotland, and this was the first occasion on which opponents had asked to be heard in this House after having been unsuccessfully heard in Scotland. The question which the House had now to determine for the future was, What were the rights that opponents had to be heard here after they had been heard in Scotland? He contended that, according to the express provisions of the Act, any opponent whose opposition was not simply frivolous had a right to be heard here. It was not a question of asking the House to upset the decision of its Committee, but it was a question of the right of having a second hearing, which was given by the Act of 1899. The Scotch Committee of Members of both Houses was a strong one, and he would hesitate very much to ask the House to pronounce any final opinion upon the merits of a question that had been heard and decided by that Committee. All he wished to point out was that the duty of the House was not to decide on the merits, but to send the matter upstairs to a Joint Committee as provided for by the Act. The Arizona Company was a company of Scotch domicile. He knew nothing about it or its directors. It had had a very chequered career, but it was now getting into smooth waters, and was much more prosperous. It had found that it had outgrown its original memorandum and articles, and, by general consent of the shareholders, it sought to put the matter straight by Parliamentary powers. Being a Scotch company, it had to present a petition to the Secretary for Scotland for a Provisional Order. Then, under the terms of the Act, an inquiry was held in Edinburgh. One provision which was strongly opposed by certain of the shareholders was a general indemnity for the directors for all their acts in the past, so as to make a clean slate for them. There was a certain transaction which took place many years ago, and which was challenged, by which 10,000 shares of £5 each were issued to certain gentlemen as fully paid up, when, in fact, no cash was paid. Petitioning shareholders said this was improperly done, and the case of the directors was that this issue was part of an elaborate compromise, and was in the interests of the company, and therefore a reasonable piece of business on the part of the directors. The Committee supported the view of the directors, and declined to make the alteration which the petitioning shareholders demanded, and which would have left the question of this issue of shares open to challenge in a court of law. Those petitioning shareholders had since this hearing commenced an action in the Court of Session, and he could not see who could go into this question except a court of law. It would be an extremely strong measure on the part of this House to interfere and pass an absolute indemnity without knowing anything about the merits, for that indemnity clause would make subsequent investigation by a court of law impossible. In asking for a second hearing he was merely asking the House to carry out the provisions which it laid down for the conduct of these matters in the Act of 1899. Objection was taken that the local hearing should be final, but in the discussion on the Bill the Lord Advocate had clearly pointed out that upon unopposed orders there was to be no second inquiry in London but that upon opposed orders there should always be the possibility of an opponent coming to this House. Of course the opponent had to run the risk of the costs if he were unsuccessful.

seconded.

said that he desired to meet the motion with a direct negative. The House had substantially devolved its private Bill business to local committees of inquiry, and he read with dismay the statement made by the Lord Advocate the other night that he would heartily support the motion of his hon. friend that an appeal to a tribunal of this House should be allowed in these cases. That statement contained the minimum of comfort with the maximum of in accuracy. He had read the speech of the Lord Advocate on Tuesday with dismay, and he ventured to say that it contained the minimum of comfort to the Scottish people and the maximum of inaccuracy. The Lord Advocate cited certain utterances of Members of the House, and he said that they expressed the views of Members of the House when the Act passed through Parliament. Nothing of the kind. There were no utterances in the House of Commons with regard to the law as it now stood. The law was the result of a compromise in the House of Lords. When the compromise was arrived at in the House of Lords on the 27th July, 1899, Lord Balfour of Burleigh said—

"While I could not myself view with acceptance or favour the doing away with the second inquiry altogether, I am quite willing to consider proposals that may be made for the purpose of preventing such an absolute power being placed in the hands of those who, having had one inquiry, wish to repeat it over again before another tribunal."

He wished to ask why the Government had now taken up such a different line. He should like to say that up to the present the Act had been a conspicuous success in Scotland. The proceedings had worked well, and the public in Scotland were satisfied with it; but if the present proposal were carried all that would be substantially undone, and he felt bound to enter a prompt and emphatic protest against such a suicidal course. The Bill before the House had been affirmed by the two Chairmen of the Houses of Parliament to be a Bill of no great magnitude, of no great public importance, and a Bill which involved no question of public policy. It had been inquired into locally by a joint Committee of the two Houses, and the House knew perfectly well that, if the two Houses had again to select a powerful and influential Committee, that joint Committee would be exactly the Committee to be chosen. Why, therefore, should one little clause of one little Bill be again put to the hazard by the proposal of the hon. Gentleman? There was no need to talk about the merits of the Bill; he wanted to destroy at once what would be a very bad system. He had read certain petitions presented against the Bill, but he positively declined to enter into the merits of the questions raised in them. He did not find that there was any suggestion that the matter was not argued to the full before the Committee of the two Houses in Scotland, and no new fact was now before the House. If the principle of the motion were affirmed, they would be in a worse position than they were before. Under the old system there was an appeal from a Committee of one House to the Committee of the other, but now it was proposed to have an appeal from the Committee of both Houses to another Committee of both Houses. He wanted to be loyal to the Act. Clause 9 of the Act did not give any absolute right of appeal. There was a clause in the original Bill to the effect that a Bill should, if notice were given, be again referred to a joint Committee. They protested against that on the ground that it was a senseless proposal, and on the 20th of June he himself moved its rejection. There was an interesting debate, and, of course, the Scottish Members were swamped by the English Members, nine out of every ten of whom had not heard the debate at all. Thirteen Scottish Members voted in favour of a re-hearing and thirty-one against. On the 4th July he again moved the exclusion of the clause on Report, and the result was that thirty-six Scottish Members voted in favour of the exclusion of the clause, and only nine were found to support it. Then the Bill went to the House of Lords. It was absolutely and unmistakeably clear that Scotland wished the local inquiry to be a final inquiry, and a compromise was arrived at in the House of Lords by which it was provided that good cause should be shown before there should be a rehearing. The meaning of this day's proceedings was that the Government were not loyal to the compromise arrived at in the House of Lords. They were supporting the reaffirmation of a principle which was emphatically rejected by four votes to one of the Scottish Members. That was not fair to Scotland; it was not fair to the House, and was not loyal to the actual provision in the Act. Therefore he protested against it. The Act provided many precautions. The two Chairmen of the Houses of Parliament should decide whether a Bill was a big Bill or only an insignificant measure. That was done, as he maintained, very drastically. Seven important Bills from Scotland had been cut out from the benefits of the Act, by the Chairmen.

Order, order! It appears to me undesirable, and indeed out of order, to criticise the action of the two Chairmen of Committees.

said it was not his intention to criticise their conduct. It was merely an argument as to why a new Committee should be appointed. He found in the list of excluded Bills three great Scottish Railway Bills. The difference between the two classes of Bills was that the large Bills had to go before two Committees, and if there was any principle of that kind the result would be to give a better procedure for the larger Bills, but the little Bills would be worse off. There would have to be two Committees sitting twice, and what would be the proceedings of Committee No. 1 if they had to be revised by Committee No. 2? Neither trouble, expense, nor harassment would be saved. The proposal as to costs was ridiculous. What was required was to protect the little litigant from the large, overbearing litigant, who did not care what cost he was put to if he got his desire; the proposal struck out all the benefits of the measure in those particular cases. He objected to the way in which the Government treated their own offspring. The Bill having once seen the light was going to receive its death blow at the hands of the Lord Advocate. He desired the House to make this new departure on different grounds; he asked them to say that there must be either some new facts exposed by the petitioner or some gross blunder committed by the Commissioners or some error proved, before such a thing was allowed. Unless some common-sense rule was laid down of that kind the Act passed two years ago would be of no use whatever.

said he hoped the matter would be treated without any party prejudice. A right had been created under the Act, of an appeal by an opponent of a Provisional Order to this House, but in this case he submitted insufficient ground had been shown for such an appeal. The only reason for reconstituting a fresh Committee would be, firstly, that the Commissioners had committed a mistake of procedure—no such allegation had been made; secondly, that some new facts had come to light which were worthy of the consideration of this House—and that was not suggested. The hon. Member for Partick had not explained to the House how this small indemnity clause arose. That compromise happened in 1884. The sum under discussion was not £50,000, the £50,000 was only the nominal value of shares which in 1884 represented a cash sum of £6,000. An action for £220,000 had been entered recently with respect to this amount. In 1884 the shares were worth £6,000; at that time the company was in low water, and the shares worth about 12s., but could anybody say that a claim worth £6,000 in 1884 was worth £220,000 now? The claim had been before the courts, and already in 1898 it was in the hands of an agent who was no stranger to the fortunes of the company, and who, in fact, was a director. When the indemnity clause was put into the Provisional Order it was only by the goodwill of the Commissioners that this gentleman was allowed to bring in his claim; he exhausted his case before the Commissioners, and ran dry in the sands of argument; he absolutely failed to substantiate his objection. The House was now asked to grant a rehearing. He appealed to the Lord Advocate under the circumstances to leave the decision to the House and allow them to use their common sense on this matter.

said he could not disguise from himself the fact that this was a matter for the decision of the House alone, and all he sought to do was to impress upon the House, first of all, what it did when it passed this particular section of the Private Legislation Procedure Bill, and, secondly, what would be the consequences of its decision one way or the other. The point they had to deal with was a point of procedure, and the House should not be led away by the fact that this Bill was of a particular class. The reason of the Bill was that the company was domiciled in Scotland, and, like many other companies, it had entered into proceedings which were afterwards found to have been irregular; in the meantime there had been immense transfers of share interests, and the proprietary interests in the company had been largely altered. The company came to the conclusion that it could not surmount its difficulties without Parliamentary powers, and the reason it had to go to Scotland for its private Bill was that the company was registered in Scotland. He was absolutely at one with the promoters that the Bill should be passed, but he disagreed with them as to the merits of this particular clause; it was, however, inquired into by the Commissioners, who decided that the clause should stand, and the last thing that he should attempt to do was to go behind the decision of the Commissioners. But persons who were affected by the decision of a Committee were not always satisfied, and the question for the House to decide was what was the position of a gentleman whose case has been heard by a tribunal and who was not satisfied and who appealed to the House of Commons? He would remind the House that the original scheme of private Bill legislation procedure was by way of Provisional Order, and it was afterwards to be decided by the Chairman of Committees which Bills were to be proceeded with by way of private Bill, and which by Provisional Order; after that the Provisional Orders were to have local inquiries. It was at first intended that those inquiries should be made by extra-Parliamentary tribunals, but that was subsequently altered, and the tribunals were to be composed of Members of Parliament, the number if necessary to be augmented by extra-Parliamentary members. Anyone who was dissatisfied with the action of the Commissioners at a local inquiry was to be allowed to lodge a petition with the Secretary for Scotland and come up to this House. There was to be in every case a confirming Bill, just as there had been under the old system, and as soon as the machinery of a confirming Bill was introduced it became obvious that every step from the first inquiry leading to a possible second inquiry should be taken in this House, and it was necessary that a motion should be made in the House in order that the matter should be taken before another tribunal. It was afterwards suggested that, having an extra-Parliamentary Commission, it would be as well to do away with appeals altogether. There were cross currents of feeling in all these matters, and an Amendment to that effect was defeated, and a provision was embodied in the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act to the effect that a person who appeared before a local tribunal and was not satisfied should have a right to go to another tribunal. The words of the Act were these—

"If, before the expiration of seven days after the Second Reading of a Confirmation Bill, under the immediately preceding section, in the House in which it originates, a petitions be presented against any Order comprised in, the Bill, and if, upon motion made, either House do resolve that it is expedient to inquire into the propriety of assenting to the prayer of the said petition, the Bill shall, subject to the Standing Orders, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

Therefore, they were in the same position as an unopposed Bill in that case. It must not be supposed that he was standing here arguing that the House had not perfect power to refuse this motion. He absolutely conceded that. The point for the House really to determine was on which side the onus should lie. Was the true meaning, looking to the history of the Bill, that a gentleman who wished to appeal to the Joint Committee must come here and must, through the mouth of some hon. Member, perhaps, show to the House that he had got what might be called a proper case upon the merits to be referred, or was it the other way? He could not help thinking that the true intention of the House was to alter the meaning, and he did not think that there was anything more emblematical of that than the course which the hon. Member for the Border Burghs had taken. If he had said that no man had a right to have a second inquiry opened, and if he had gone into the merits of that, that could have been understood. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs said that he pronounced no opinion upon this whatsoever; for aught he knew it might be the most crucial case for an appeal.

Perhaps my right hon. friend will allow me to say that I have read the petition through, and I did not see any new facts which were not fully considered by the Committee. Having done that, I decline to alter what the Committee of both Houses has decided upon.

asked whether there could be any appeal when there were no fresh facts. According to the forms of the House, the only procedure was by motion. As the hon. Member knew very well, no stage could be got here without going through the forms of the House. Therefore he was doing the hon. Member for the Border Burghs no injustice, but was merely quoting his own speech in which he said he conspicuously declined to go into the merits of this question. The first view the right hon. Gentleman sought to impress upon the House was that, inasmuch as the House had come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that there should be an appeal from the tribunal below, that appeal ought to be given as an ordinary right, unless somebody was in the position of being able to say that it was a case which ought to have been debated on appeal. He hoped he had made himself clear upon this point. Then he asked the attention of the House to another matter. What would the practical effect in this House be of taking either the one view or the other? As to the end they all had in view, he thought there was no disagreement. Their view was that the House should not be saddled with discussions upon these matters. The view taken by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs would, he thought, excite far more discussion. They had only got to deal with the man who was dissatisfied, and who had been beaten down below. The man who was dissatisfied would always feel that he had a prima facie case, and it was not too much to suppose that if he thought that, he would be able to find some hon. Member of the House to voice his case for him. The hon. Member says he had read this statement from cover to cover, and he did not see why there should be a second appeal into the merits of the case. In every case there must be a discussion upon the merits. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said practically as regards this question, that if the procedure was to be to go to a tribunal below, and then to a tribunal above, it would have been far better to have had the old system. The right hon. Gentleman could not have said that if he had had the figures regarding our experience this very year. This year there were thirty-one Provisional Orders deposited at the Secretary for Scotland's office. Of these six and a portion of the seventh were by the decision of the Chancellor kept from Parliament. That left twenty-five and a portion of the twenty-sixth to come under the new procedures. Of these twenty-six no less than twenty-three were withdrawn. One had been refused by the Committee, and eleven, including that one, had been inquired into locally. Four of them had been read a third time in both Houses without further inquiry, and one-fifth of them had passed the stage in which an inquiry was impossible. A second inquiry was possible in five other cases, but there was no probability of any further action being taken. Therefore it practically came to this, that, out of the whole twenty-six cases disposed of, there had only been one appeal. That surely contrasted favourably with what would have happened under the old system, where in every case there would have been an appeal to the second House. They had not lost sight of the fact that appealing was a very grave matter, for they particularly put in, with the assent of the House, a clause as to costs, which was very much more stringent than anything which had so far obtained in Parliamentary practice Hon. Members were perfectly well aware that, according to the rules of the House, costs could not be given against an opponent, unless he had been somewhat vexatious. The clause they had put in was one which would be a safeguard against appeals being taken upon frivolous pretexts. That was the whole matter. He agreed entirely that it was a matter for the House and not for the Government, and he hoped the House would pause before it decided in the way it had been asked to decide by the hon. Member for the Border Burghs. He believed that if the decision of the House was in accordance with what the a hon. Member for the Border Burghs asked, the result would be what the House wished to avoid—namely, these discussions would come on at the time of private business in order to see whether a Bill had been sent upstairs or not. After all, a member of the public would only enjoy something analogous to the old right he had, which was the right to appeal to the second House when he was dissatisfied with the decision of the lower tribunal.

said that as one of the Committee there was one point which had not been brought before the notice of the House, and that was that the petitioner who objected to the proceedings here now had no locus standi before the Committee, but the matter was considered fully by the Committee who gave him a locus standi. The case was fully and ably argued by counsel, so that the Committee had the whole circumstances of the case before them in dealing with it. He thought it was right to bring that fact to the notice of the House. He could well understand that if the petitioner had not been heard he would have had a right to come to Parliament and ask, in justice, that his case should be gone into. The hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn had so fully stated the facts that it was not necessary that he (Mr. Wason) should state more than that the Committee were absolutely unanimous, and, as had been well pointed out, no fresh facts had been brought forward which were not before the Committee that had already adjudicated on the matter. He thought also the House ought to be reminded of the sea of litigation in which the Arizona Copper Company had been concerned. The case in dispute went back to 1884. He did not suppose that many of the parties to the dispute were alive at the present time. It would be a case of going against the trustees and executors of deceased people, and the Committee thought it would be unfair and unjust, after this long lapse of time, that the proceedings should be gone into again. There was a special point which had been mentioned by the hon. Member opposite that he would like to emphasise, and that was this—the petitioner told them that he was a shareholder from 1882, and had continued so without any break-down to the present time, and that he had attended all the meetings of the company. He was present at the meeting at which this very agreement was read, of which he now complained, and from that day down to the present time he had never lifted his finger in the matter. The company had got some advantage under the agreement then entered into in respect to the deferred shares, and it would be wrong that any person should have the right to approbate and reprobate the agreement entered into. A memorandum had been sent round the Members of this House which was an extraordinarily misleading document from first to last. There was no better-known principle of law than that it was the interest of the State to put an end to strife and litigation. This litigation had continued too long, and now that the company was in smooth water he hoped the House would not lightly reopen the matter. It had been thoroughly gone into by a special Committee, and unless good cause was shown the House should not grant the petition.

said he thought a great reform was effected in connection with private Bill business when the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act was passed, and he should like to see the same principle applied not only to Ireland but to England. But if the doctrine of the Lord Advocate was accepted he thought a fatal blow would be struck at the working of this system of devolution. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that wherever a party who had appeared before a Committee was dissatisfied he was entitled as a matter of course to come to this House and get an appeal to another tribunal. The facts were simply these. A joint Committee of both; Houses had unanimously decided upon the facts and merits of this case. Sup posing that were done in connection with an ordinary Bill, would the House entertain a proposal on the facts of this case for recommitting the Bill to another tribunal composed of Members of this and the other House? It was not an appeal from an inferior to a superior authority that was asked. It was an appeal to the same authority—to another Joint Committee composed of different men. What they did in 1899 was to maintain the practical supremacy of Parliament, and they provided that in a case where it could be shown that an injustice had been done Parliament should have power to direct recommital. It was not, however, to be a matter of right for a petitioner to have another Joint Committee of both Houses appointed to try the case again because the decision had not been satisfactory to him. He did not consider that was contemplated, but the practical effect of what was proposed would be to upset this most beneficial mode of procedure, which, as the Lord Advocate had shown, had worked most satisfactorily in all the Scotch cases which had come before the Committee. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had stated in unmistakable terms that this was an open question to be decided by the House, and that it was not to have any element of party in it. In the interest of the successful working of this mode of procedure they should adhere to the decision the Committee had already come to.

My right hon. friend the Lord Advocate has quite properly stated that this was a question for the House to determine, and what are the principles upon which the House ought to determine it? We are all agreed, as I understand, that in so far as it is possible there should be devolution of this private Bill legislation to the locality. We are also all agreed that in the last resort this House must keep its grip upon the private Bill legislation, whether it be for Scotland or for Ireland or other parts of the United Kingdom. I believe we are agreed upon a third point, namely, that the system ought to be worked so as to give as little trouble to this House as possible. One of the things we chiefly want to avoid is these debates at the time of private Bill business, which waste a great deal of very valuable time, and do not always show the House of Commons at its best. How is that end to be attained? I confess the question is not easy of solution. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and others who have spoken seem to think that it is perfectly clear that the best way of avoiding debates in this House is to say that there should be a good prima facie case made out in favour of the appellant, and that there can only be an appeal when cause is shown. I am not sure that that is the way to avoid debates in this House. If we take the opposite view, and say that unless there is a very strong case against appeal the appellant should go forward, it would probably avoid debate, or, at all events, there is a good deal to be said for the view that it would avoid debate, because under the Act there is a heavy penalty imposed upon a person who makes a frivolous appeal. I do not believe that the number of those-appeals would be great. I really think that unless there is a very strong prima facie case such an appellant would havevery summary treatment from the Joint Committee, and if the Committee agreed, as they probably would, with the local Commission, the appellant would be mulcted in heavy costs. Although it might throw a little more trouble upon the Joint Committee, it would probably relieve this House of a great many debates on the question whether or not sufficient cause had been shown for an appeal. I do not believe that it is possible, without further experience, to decide really which line of action would work best. I certainly do not think that the case is as clear as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton appears to think. We are all agreed as to what we want. We are all agreed as to the end to be achieved. We are largely agreed as to the machinery by which it should be attained, but the one point on which there is a difference of opinion must be decided by hon. Members, who have quite as much means at their disposal for coming to that decision as the Government can have. Personally, I shall vote with my right hon. friend the Lord Advocate, but I admit that the case is one of great difficulty, which should be left; to the House itself to decide.

said the main moving cause for the passing of the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act was to procure cheapness and finality in dealing with these measures. The demand from Scotland was based on the ground of the expense and protraction of the proceedings under the former system. There was also another object which Parliament tried to meet, and that was devolution. The proposal of the Bill originally was that the trial should take place before an extra-Parliamentary panel, so that members of this House might be relieved from their labours as members of Private Bill Committees. That was embodied in the Bill when it went to the Committee to which it was referred, but the members of this House were disinclined to part with their power of adjudicating through Parliamentary Committees; and although, as the Lord Advocate had said, the Act contained the useful power of filling up the tribunal from an extra-Parliamentary panel, yet the wish of both Houses was that the tribunal should be a Parliamentary one. The result was that instead of relieving Members their burden was increased, for they had to go to Scotland instead of the parties coming to Westminster. The gains were the cheapness of one single trial before a Joint Committee sitting on the spot over two trials by two Committees sitting at Westminster. He had heard suggestions made with reference to appeals from the Committee outside and the Committee below to the Committee above, but he did not understand this language. The Committee in this case was a Committee such as they had had some experience of in late years in reference to peculiarly complicated and difficult Bills, in which the sense of both Houses of Parliament was that they were best disposed of by the formation of a Joint Committee of both Houses. And in such a Committee, so constituted, he thought a higher degree of representation and efficiency was likely to be attained than would be in the ordinary Private Bill Committee. Not a lower but a higher degree of representation was attained, and knowing something of the principle of action and the care which was taken with reference to the formation of Private Bill Committees by the Committee of Selection, he would say that the Committee, anxious always to get the best Committee it could, exercised, and, he believed, rightly, peculiar care in the effort to make the panel up of the best possible material for the trial of those new Bills. He had no doubt the House of Lords did the same thing, and, therefore, they had the best that could be done in the way of the formation of the tribunal. He wanted to know if, instead of this Joint Committee which had been formed under the operation of this Act, it had been formed by the resolution of both Houses of Parliament with reference to some special highly complicated question, they would have heard the suggestions, except for the gravest possible cause, not merely alleged, but established here, to set up a new Joint Committee? He held that the suggestions made from the Benches opposite were not merely opposed to the letter but also to the spirit of the Act of Parliament, and that they would be destructive in effect of what was the intention of the Act of Parliament. They had practically lost already in the course of the passage of the Bill so much of devolution as would have relieved the Members of this House from acting. They gained in recompense for that loss the fact that the Committee was of the same order and quality, chosen with the utmost care, to which they were accustomed to give reverential respect. There was no ground at all for the proposal which had been made. It would be destructive of the larger part of the advantages of this Act that, as a matter of course, there should be a new reference, because one of the parties to the trial simply was dissatisfied. The defeated party was always dissatisfied. Let him, to use the French proverb, have license to curse his judges, but no absolute right to appeal. Parliament decided to deal with this reform with especial regard to the question of economy. Large and important questions in which it might be supposed that the litigants on either side had a full purse, and in which great interests were to be determined, were left to the old and cumbersome machinery of Parliamentary Committees. This Act was a poor man's Act, in which economy was of great consequence; and he said deliberately that in those classes of cases there was great mischief done by appeals. Better occasionally have an erroneous decision than have an appeal in which lawyers get the oyster and litigants the shell. If there was indicated prima facie that so serious an injustice had been done as to justify that that evil of a new trial shall be admitted—for evil it was to have another trial—Parliament had power to interfere. He did not agree with the view of the Member for the Border Burghs that Parliament ought to interfere only in case of new facts. No. Occasion might arise—grave occasion—for interference in case of miscarriage of justice, or mistake of policy, on the facts before the Committee. He left Parliament as the Act left it, full power, but to be exercised only for grave cause shown, He was quite sure that ought to be the general impression, unless the House was seduced by the argument of the Leader of the House and of the Lord Advocate with reference to the saving of its time. It was suggested that they must do this thing in order to avoid debate. That contention was abandoned now. It was acknowledged there might be debate, and the question was upon what the issue was to be. Was it on a simple allegation that A or B was dissatisfied and wanted a new trial? Did they suppose it was only the disappointed litigant they could dissatisfy? They would dissatisfy the successful one by the course proposed. If they told him they were going to allow the case to be tried all over again, he would come here and say the unanimous verdict of the Committee was publicly attacked, and he would ask leave to defend the verdict, and enquire whether they were going, because A or B said he was dissatisfied, to put him to the expense and trouble to come to London and have another trial before both Houses of Parliament. Of course, they would have debate in support and in opposition to the motion. Let not this House inflict by such a suggestion as was now made a great and permanent evil. Let it not destroy to a large extent the efficiency and usefulness of this Private Legislation Act, even if by adopting that course they would save a little time and trouble. They would not in faith save time or trouble. But anyway their first duty was to be just. It was to relieve the people in a distant part of one of these islands from an intolerable injustice that they passed this Bill; and let them not now on a ground that was fallacious destroy that relief and renew and aggravate the injustice.

said there had been no attempt to show fault on the part of the Committee, and therefore it was a great misfortune that the motion had been proposed. He believed the Committee was one of the most competent that could have been appointed to deal with the Bill. He could state from personal knowledge that the decisions of the Committee had given the greatest satisfaction to all parties. He was very glad that the Government had intimated that this was not a Government question, and that the House was left to decide. He felt perfectly sure that the common sense of the House would decide that this appeal should not be granted. He was not a shareholder in the company, and he had no interest in the matter beyond the proper working of the new Act. He felt sure that if the appeal was allowed it would have a most disastrous effect on the working of the Act, and would give rise to most unmitigated complaint throughout Scotland. Something had been said about the waste of time in the House through discussions on private Bills. He believed that, if the House emphatically rejected this appeal, in future appellants would think twice before they did likewise. He thought no better means could be adopted for stopping vexatious appeals than to record the verdict of the House against this appeal.

said he regarded the right of appeal as one of the most important features of the Act. He believed that a greater blow would be struck at the new private Bill procedure for Scotland by the House refusing to admit the appeal than by admitting it. Very likely the rehearing would be adverse to the appellant, and he could not imagine anything more useful to the future progress of private Bill legislation in Scotland than that the first application for a re-hearing should be granted. He must support the pro- posal that the Bill should be referred to another Committee, but he regretted that such an important question as that of devolution should have been raised in connection with the matter now before the House.

said he would ask the House to pause before committing itself to a motion which would have the effect of absolutely destroying the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act which was passed with so much care two years ago. Nothing would be more adverse to the working of the Act than that the decision of the Committee, which was come to after careful inquiry, should be overturned in this House, perhaps on a snatch division. The hon. Member for Partick had given no reason whatever for the faith that was in him, and the Lord Advocate had brought forward the most extraordinary plea he had ever heard in this House, that the proceedings of a Committee of both Houses of Parliament could be overturned at the instance of a cantankerous and wealthy litigant. He believed that the granting of the appeal, instead of lessening confusion, would make "confusion worse confounded." He was bound to say that the Act had worked a great deal better than he expected. They were very careful in this House not to interfere with the proceedings of Committees upstairs, and he believed it was quite as much their duty to respect the action and authority of this Committee in Scotland.

said he had great difficulty in making up his mind how to vote on the very important question before the House. He, as chairman of the Committee which sat on the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill, took a very strong view that where a tribunal consisting of Members of the two Houses of Parliament had sat locally, the House should not, without an extremely strong reason, interfere with the decision which had been arrived at. To act otherwise would not be putting the Joint Committee in a proper position. He was bound to say, from the evidence given to the Select Committee that that Bill was not the class of Bill which that Committee expected would invariably be sent to Scotland at all. Although the company might be domiciled in Scotland, the shareholders might be resident in England or Wales, or even abroad, and even the property of the company was situated in another country. The only possible doubt in his mind was whether an injustice might not be done to, for instance, the shareholders of the company, who owing to the proceedings taking place in Edinburgh might not have received the necessary notices. He was, however, inclined to stop the proceeding on the Bill at that stage.

said that what had occurred to-day had fully justified his action in calling attention to this Bill. The subject before the House was of more importance than many matters which engaged the attention of Parliament. His chief object in rising at all, after such an exhaustive discussion, was to explain the ground why, while agreeing thoroughly with hon. Members for Scotland, he was unable to vote with them. He was of opinion that Bills such as that before the House ought not to be decided locally at all. Bills dealing with the reconstruction of companies and Bills containing an omnibus clause of indemnity for actions which might have been breaches of the Company laws should not be referred to local tribunals. If the practice were to arise of sending such Bills to local tribunals to enable company promoters and directors to evade and defy the Companies Acts, the door would be open to all kinds of abuses. It was on that ground, namely the nature of the Bill, that he could not vote on the present motion. He might say that the discussion fully justified those Members of the Irish party who viewed with considerable doubt the proposal to extend the Scottish system of private Bill legislation to Ireland. When he ventured to call attention to the matter the other day, he was jumped upon by the Lord Advocate, and was accused in one sentence of being in blank ignorance of the provisions of the Act, and in the next of having taken an unduly active part in its discussion. These were inconsistent charges, but neither of them was true. The Irish Members, of necessity, took great interest in the working of the Scotch Private Bill Procedure Act, because they were promised or threatened with a similar system in their own country. The speech of the Lord Advocate, in which he expressed his bitter disappointment at the working of the Act, was a considerable justification for the action of the Irish Members in hesitating before going blindly for the extension of the system to Ireland. Whatever difficulties were experienced in working the system in Scotland, those difficulties would be increased tenfold in Ireland, and the discussion which had taken place had fully justified the attitude of the Irish Members.

said that, while the debate had not altered his own opinion, still, the opinion of the House was so obviously on one side that he would ask his hon. friend to withdraw his motion.

said that in view of the opinion of the House, he asked leave to withdraw his motion. ["No, No."]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether an early opportunity will be given to the House of obtaining full information as to the condition of affairs in South Africa.

I think the question of the right hon. Gentleman is a natural and proper one, but I am not aware that there is any information at our disposal which, in its general outline at all events, the public are not already acquainted with. Of course, all political reconstruction must wait until further progress has been made in military affairs, and as regards military affairs the House knows that the war is no longer a contest between organised military bodies. [Cries of "Oh!"] I do not want to give a controversial tone to my answer, and I will say between large organised bodies. The Boer forces are scattered over the Orange River Colony and the Transvaal Colony and in Cape Colony in small commandos, for the most part of about 100 or 200 men. The largest I have heard of amounts to about 600 men. The majority are of the kind I have indicated. Their total forces are estimated at about 17,000. The operations on which Lord Kitchener is engaged, of course, cannot have any kind of unity such as is given to operations against large organised forces. I do not know that there is any further information with regard to the war which I have to give to the right hon. Gentleman. I ought, perhaps, to add that there is no foundation for the rumours which I see are appearing in the public press as to peace negotiations.

May I ask whether, in view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the total organised Boer force is 17,000, and having regard to the fact that there are a quarter of a million British troops in South Africa, he will ask Lord Kitchener to settle the war?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, on the restoration of the Boer prisoners to the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, he will recognise all the rights of property of each prisoner as the same existed at the period of his capture so far as the same are capable of being ascertained; whether it is proposed to leave it open to each prisoner to choose the locality in which he is to settle, or whether any restriction is to be placed upon the areas open for re-population by the Boers on their return from captivity, and whether it is proposed to exact the oath of allegiance to His Majesty from each prisoner before repatriating him.

The question is premature. I am not prepared at present to make any statement regarding the conditions on which the Boer prisoners will be allowed to return.

Will the right hon. Gentleman submit his proposals in this respect to the House for discussion?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House as to the arrangements that have been made, if any, for the relief of natives in the Transvaal and Orange River districts whose cattle and grain have been seized or destroyed, or who have been otherwise rendered destitute, in connection with the military operations against the Boers in those districts, and whether he will institute such inquiries and give such directions as may serve to materially lessen the privations to which the natives are exposed through disturbances for which they are in no way responsible.

I have not received any information pointing to the necessity of special arrangements at the present time for the relief of natives, but I called the attention of Lord Milner to the possibility of scarcity some months ago, and I will make further inquiry of Lord Kitchener. Meanwhile, I notice that a large proportion of the population in the refugee camps are coloured persons.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the statements in the official gazetteers of India respecting the positions and sanitary conditions of the town and fort of Ahmednagar, now being used as a Boer prison; whether he is aware that Major Gambier, R.E., reported in 1873, after the drainage operations, that all who lived in the fort, both Europeans and natives, suffered from fever; and that, in consequence, all troops were withdrawn from inside the fort and quartered in barracks built outside it; and seeing that the mortality of Ahmednagar town was 79·75 in 1899, 55·04 in 1896, and 61·63 in 1897, and that the mortality of children under one year of age was 524·89 in 1899, against an average in that year of 196·97 for the whole Bombay Province, whether he will consider the advisability of the removal of the Boer prisoners to some other station.

There is no intention of removing the Boer prisoners from Ahmednagar cantonment, which is one of the healthiest and most popular garrison stations in India. Major Gambier's report is twenty-seven years old, and was made before the sanitary improvements were effected which have since made the fort salubrious. The mortality statistics quoted are misleading, and include urban areas outside the town. During the famine of 1899 there was a heavy mortality amongst the distressed people who flocked into the town from the drought-affected districts.

Will the noble Lord be kind enough to say in what way the figures are misleading?

The figures for the year 1898, which are the lowest in the four years in question, are omitted. Then the figures apply to exceptional famine conditions, and, as I have said, include urban areas outside the town.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any official information to the effect that General Rundle, during his recent march through the north-western portion of the Orange Free State, blew up all the mills in the district, destroyed ovens, ploughs, and other implements for the preparation of food stuffs; and if so, whether such proceedings have the sanction of the Government as being in accordance with the customs recognised by The Hague Convention of civilised war.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any report from General Rundle on his expedition in the triangle between Ficksburg, Bethlehem, and Witjies Hoel, and as to the blowing up of the mills in the district, and the destruction of the ovens, ploughs, and other implements for the preparation of foodstuff's; and if not, whether he will inquire of Lord Kitchener concerning these matters.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether a despatch or other communication respecting the operations of the troops under the command of General Rundle, General Campbell, and Colonel Harley during the past few weeks has been received; can he state what number of Boers were killed or wounded, and what is the proportion of wounded to killed; and whether the mills in the district were blown up, and ovens, ploughs, and other implements broken; and, if so, is this destruction of fixed and movable property which is of no military value in accord with the usages of warfare recognised by The Hague Convention.

In reply to this and similar questions put by the hon. Members for Northampton and North Cork, no official Report has been received as to the facts alleged. They would involve no breach of The Hague Convention, which expressly allows the destruction and seizure of an enemy's property if imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.

Does that regulation apply to fixed property, such as mills, and places of that kind?

Anything which is likely to enable the enemy to obtain supplies in order to carry on the war comes under The Hague Convention.

Will the right hon. Gentleman hold that the poisoning of wells comes under the same rule?

What about the natives in the places which have been destroyed?

I cannot say what the procedure is, but Lord Kitchener has done all he can to see that the natives are duly protected and kept from starvation. It is absolutely impossible in a war continuing in the way which this war is to avoid the destruction of supplies that would be useful to the enemy.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the prison camp on the racecourse at Johannesburg the deaths during the three weeks ending 13th May, 1901, were 80 out of a total of 3,125 in the camp, and that 220 are reported sick in the camp, chiefly suffering from measles; can he state what medical provision there is for treatment of sick in this camp, and whether any arrangements are in force for the isolation of those suffering from infectious diseases.

May I, at the same time, ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that for the three weeks ending the 13th May there were 80 deaths out of a total of 3,125 persons in the refugee camp on the racecourse at Johannesburg, equal to a rate of 435 per thousand for a year, and whether instructions will be given to improve the sanitary condition of the camp.

I beg to ask if there has been any epidemic in British camps, and whether there is any precedent in history for the housing and feeding of the women and children of an enemy.

These are not men. These are women and children.

It is impossible, of course, to avoid epidemics of this character in camps where there are refugees, or, in some cases, where there are British soldiers. I had already telegraphed to Lord Kitchener to report as to the accuracy of the figures quoted in the question, and have not yet received any reply. I have no recent information to hand as to the medical provisions for this camp, but the instructions general to all camps would appear to sufficiently secure proper medical treatment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many horses used for military purposes were shipped from South Africa between 1st January and 1st June this year, how many horses were landed in South Africa between the same dates, and what is the estimated cost per horse for conveyance each way between South Africa and England; and whether the Government would consider the possibility of chargers belonging to officers returning home being retained in South Africa for the use of officers proceeding from England to fill their places.

120 horses, which were officers' chargers, were brought back from South Africa during the five months referred to. These included the horses of deceased officers, whose relatives wished to retain them. 33,483 horses were landed in South Africa in the same period. The cost of conveyance from England of remounts by freight or in horse transports averages from £20 to £25. Officers' chargers are generally sent in infantry transports, and no extra cost is incurred for their conveyance. Chargers which are the property of the Remount Department are retained in South Africa. With those which are the private property of officers it is, of course, impossible to interfere.

Is it not possible that the officers' chargers coming back from South Africa, some of which are not worth the cost of carriage, might be bought out there even as "cats' meat," and the cost of carriage saved?

No, Sir. My hon. friend will, I think, understand that 120 horses coming back in the course of five months, at an average of from £20 to £25, including a number of chargers of deceased officers, is not an amount which will make a great difference either way. It is entirely a question for an officer, who has a charger on which he sets store, whether he leaves it in South Africa or brings it home.

Does 120 represent the total number of horses sent back?

Yes; 120 only have been brought back altogether. Officers' chargers belonging to the Government are retained in South Africa.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War will he explain on what grounds Major Commandant C. Wedgwood has issued a martial law notice in the Paarl district declaring contraband in that district the following publications (among others)—namely, the South African News, Truth, Reynolds's Newspaper, the Review of Reviews, the Weekly Freeman, and the book entitled "With the Boer Forces," by Howard Hillegas, and that anyone found in possession of any of them will be punished under martial law.

No report on the subject has reached the War Office. Martial law has been in force in the Paarl district since January, and the action taken is a matter for the discretion of the local military authorities, the exercise of which His Majesty's Government consider highly desirable.

Are they not all papers which object to the policy of the Government in South Africa?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to a statement of Mr. Brunner, Eshowe member of the Natal Legislative Assembly, that steps have been taken, with the cognisance of the highest military authorities in that country, to let loose the natives upon the enemy, and allowing them to loot and plunder; that the natives of Zululand had been instructed by the military officers to arm and invade the Vryheid district; that numbers of cattle had been brought in and handed over to a British military officer, and the Zulus were allowed 10 per cent. of all plunder; and that the Premier of Natal had protested to the military authorities that he believed that the military officer had greatly exceeded his instructions, and whether he has now received any reports on these matters.

Since the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen, and the debate in this House on the 23rd May,^* to which I must refer the hon. Member, I have received information that the civil authorities were now satisfied with the arrangements which had been made, and that the causes of disquiet on the Zulu frontier were removed.

But were not protests made?

I challenge some of the statements made in the question. They were all dealt with in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen.

^* See preceding Volume, pages 952, 1022, and 1032.

Has the correspondence which was promised to for brought home yet been received?

Not yet. Any question as to that should be addressed to the Colonial Secretary.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that two men charged with desertion from the 18th Hussars were marched through the public streets handcuffed together on Tuesday morning, 11th of June, in charge of a corporal and a private, and that these alleged deserters had been handed over by the police authorities at Marlborough Street Police Court for the purpose of being tried by the military authorities at Canterbury; and, seeing that these two alleged deserters, assumed to be innocent in the eyes of the law, were followed through the streets by a mob, whether he will, in the public interest, take steps that in future men charged with desertion should not be so treated by the military authorities.

The facts are as stated in the question, except that nothing is known at the War Office as to the mob. The procedure is contrary to the King's Regulations, and attention has been called to the error.

Could not the War Office set apart a certain sum of money to enable the men to be conveyed in cabs?

I have said that what was done was contrary to the King's Regulations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that, notwithstanding the War Office cable of 21st December last, a number of members of the original Volunteer service companies who have served for over a year in South Africa, and who have been doing duty as mounted infantry for the last six months, are still detained in the country, and seeing that these men are employed on precisely the same duties as members of the Imperial Yeomanry, can he explain why they do not receive the same rate of pay as the yeomen.

Lord Kitchener informs me that members of the Volunteer service companies employed as mounted infantry have been released. All men employed with the Line regiments must be paid as the Line.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of supplying Volunteers with gratuitous ammunition to encourage private shooting practice.

Artillery and engineer corps are supplied with twenty rounds per man and are not required to fire a compulsory course of musketry. Infantry corps are supplied with ninety rounds, out of which a recruit is obliged to fire forty-nine rounds and a trained Volunteer forty-two, leaving the remainder for private practices, etc. An additional ten rounds may be purchased at £4 per 1,000, and any further supply at £5 per 1,000. The question of whether any further supply is necessary is being considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he would consider the advisability of granting to all colonels who have been employed in that rank, and who are compulsorily retired for age, a step of honorary rank.

No, Sir. That system was abandoned some years ago, and it would be inadvisable to give the rank of general to officers who have not been so employed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that it is proposed to convey the drainage from the new barracks at Pembroke Dock into Milford Haven at a point where there are valuable oyster fisheries; and whether he is aware that the Local Government Board prevented the Pembroke Urban authority from conveying their sewage to this point owing to the probable danger of typhoid; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to the drains being diverted to another point.

The hon. Member has been misinformed. The drainage system of the new barracks will be connected with the approved town drainage system now being carried out.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will lay upon the Table of the House, directly he receives it, the report of the court of inquiry which is sitting to investigate the breakdown of the steering-gear of H.M.S. "Cressy," by which her departure to the China station will be delayed for some weeks.

It is not the practice of the Admiralty to publish the proceedings of courts of inquiry, which are considered confidential. No satisfactory explanation of the accident to the steering gear of H.M.S. "Cressy" has yet been obtained. When the cause of the accident has been ascertained, I shall be happy to answer a further question on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information relative to the disturbance between the French troops and native Indian soldiers, at Tients in, on Wednesday, 5th June.

Sir Alfred Gaselee has informed me that the report of the disturbance referred to is without any foundation.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to state what will be the strength and the disposition of the German troops which will remain in China for the purpose of safeguarding German interests.

We are informed that the military representatives of the allied Powers consider it necessary to maintain for the present in North China a total force of 6,000 men, exclusive of the Legation Guards at Peking, but we have no information as to the number of men to be furnished by each Power.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Shanghai is officially described by His Majesty's Government as within the area of the Tientsin Provinces, and if he can state the reasons which have been put forward by the German Government to justify the maintenance of a German military garrison in that city.

We have received no statement from the German Government bearing upon the retention of a German garrison there. Shanghai is in the province of Kiang-su, one of the provinces bordering on the Yang-tsze.

May I ask the noble Lord whether under the Anglo-German Agreement Germany is not acknowledged to possess the same rights and privileges in the Yang-tsze region as were claimed by Great Britain?

I must ask for notice of the question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government have sent, or intend to send, British troops to Kiao Chaow to assist in maintaining order there.

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the answer given by him on the 3rd of August, 1899, he can now state whether, having regard to the importance of His Majesty's Indian Empire, and to the fact that certain bishops of the Church of England in the colonies have recently adopted and assumed the style of Archbishop, His Majesty's Government will take steps by amending the statutes affecting the Church of England in the East Indies, or otherwise legally, to confer on the Bishop of Calcutta as statutory Metropolitan Bishop in India the style and precedence of an Archbishop.

I am well aware of the nature of the position of the Bishop of Calcutta as Metropolitan of India, and the suggestion contained in the hon. Member's question is not new to me. But there are so many important considerations involved that I cannot in advance give any definite pledge.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay Papers upon the Table of the House relating to the formation and future administration and financial arrangements of the new Indian Frontier Province; whether he can arrange for these Papers to include a map showing the exact boundaries of the Province; and whether the Papers can be laid upon the Table before the discussion on the Indian Budget takes place this present session.

I will present further Papers to Parliament, and I will also arrange to include a map showing as far as possible the boundaries. But I cannot fix the date for presentation, since I have not yet received a reply to my despatch dated December 20, 1900, and when I do receive it the details will require careful consideration by myself in Council.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the total cost of the Jubaland Expedition, and how much, if any, of that cost was borne by India.

The accounts have not yet been made up, but a sum of £140,000 was voted in the Supplementary Estimates for the last financial year to meet the expenditure, which will be defrayed entirely from Imperial funds.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his attention has been called to a statement made by Sir Robert Giffen at the Institute of Bankers, in which he placed the value of our excess of imports over exports last year, less freight and other charges, at £90,000,000, as representing the interest which we were entitled to receive upon our capital invested abroad; whether this £90,000,000, derived from investments abroad, paid income tax to the extent of the £4,500,000 which would have been collected if the £90,000,000 had been derived from investments in this country.

The amount of income derived from investments abroad that is charged with income tax cannot be precisely stated. There is, however, good ground for supposing that it is not less than £90,000,000, and that it paid income tax to the extent stated in the question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the claims of French subjects in Constantinople who suffered losses during the disturbances of August, 1896, have been paid in full by the Porte; and can he state the reasons for the delay in satisfying the British merchants who sustained losses on that occasion, and whose demands have been admitted by His Majesty's Ambassador to be fair and reasonable, a certificate to that effect having been given four years ago.

His Majesty's Government have received no confirmation of the statement, which has appeared in the press, that the French claims have been paid in full by the Porte. The Porte has always refused to admit any liability for the claims of any of the sufferers, of whatever nationality, and all arrangements for satisfying them have been of an unofficial nature. His Majesty's Government have reason to believe that British claimants will not receive less favourable treatment than those of other nationalities.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many vessels have been chartered by the Crown Agents for the Colonies during the last twelve months for shipment of Government cargo to Mombasa, with dates of fixtures and rates of freight thereon.

There have been thirteen sailings since the beginning of 1900, and one more is contracted for. The rate of freight has varied from £1 1s. 3d. to £1 17s. 6d. The average has been £1 8s.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a report of the Rev. D. Richards, chaplain of H.M.S. "Flora," on the condition of Welshmen in Patagonia, has been received in his Department; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of it, and if it will be laid before Parliament.

The report has been received through His Majesty's Minister at Buenos Aires, and is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he explain why certain explosives which passed the special test, after July, 1900, for admission to the permitted list have not yet been authorised for use in dangerous coal mines according to Section 6, Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1896; and when he proposes to issue the Order in Council authorising the use of such explosives under the said section; and whether he is aware that loss has been suffered by explosive manufacturers owing to the delay in issuing the Order in Council, such loss being due to the cost of explosive plant, the product of which cannot be put on the market.

I regret very much that the issue of a new Explosives Order has been unavoidably delayed in settling the details of definition of the explosives which were to be added to the Special List. I have now signed a new order, and the explosives to which I understand my hon. and gallant friend to refer are included. I am causing all mine-owners to be informed by circular that these explosives may now be lawfully used in dangerous mines.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any person, and, if so, who has been appointed inspector under Section 15 of the Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, and Section 2, Subsection (2), of the Quarries Act, 1894, for the North Wales district, lately in charge of Dr. Foster; and, in the event of an appointment having been made, whether the gentleman appointed has a knowledge of the Welsh language.

In consequence of Dr. Foster's retirement, I have decided to rearrange the work and the districts of the Mines Inspectors. Dr. Foster's district will be distributed amongst other Inspectors, and I have assigned the general charge of the North Wales portion of it to Mr. Hall, one of the oldest and most experienced inspectors, who has for many years had under his charge the coal mines in North Wales. The ordinary work of inspection will be carried on by Dr. Foster's assistants, Mr. Williams and Mr. Jones, who both speak Welsh as their mother tongue. They will be relieved of work in the south eastern counties which has hitherto lain upon them, and will be able to give more time than formerly to inspection in North Wales.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has in consideration or in contemplation a proposal for the division of the South Wales Coal Mines District (No. 13) into two parts for inspection by two of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines; and, if so, whether he will appoint as the new inspector a gentleman who has a knowledge of the Welsh language, so that he may, if necessary, hold direct communication with Welsh-speaking miners.

Yes, Sir. I propose to divide the South Wales District into two. As I said just now in answer to the hon. Member for East Denbighshire, I am making some re-arrangements of the Mines Inspectors' districts. I found that the work of the South Wales district has recently grown enormously, and is now too heavy a charge for any one chief inspector. One division of it will be retained by the existing inspector for South Wales. The other will be taken by another inspector set free by re-arrangements elsewhere. I do not propose to make any new appointment, but there will continue to be in South Wales, as at present, four Welsh-speaking assistant inspectors.

Are the new appointments to be Welsh inspectors, or are they to be transferred from England?

If the hon. Gentleman implies by that that we ought to appoint a Welsh-speaking chief inspector, I have to inform him that, unfortunately, there are none of the chief inspectors who can speak Welsh; but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the assistant inspectors are men who come in closer contact with the miners than the chief inspectors, and those all speak Welsh. I can only say that Welsh Members may take it from me that, whenever the opportunity arises, I shall be only too glad to take care that Welsh-speaking sub-inspectors are appointed when appointments are made in Welsh-speaking districts.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will take into consideration the possibility of appointing as chief inspector one of the assistant inspectors who does know Welsh?

If there was any vacancy I should be glad to take the matter into consideration, but the hon. Gentleman will understand there is not really any vacancy for a chief inspector at all. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not desire that a district should be taken charge of by an assistant inspector instead of a chief inspector. I shall be glad to take into consideration any recommendation of the hon. Gentleman, and I will take care when new appointments are made in Welsh-speaking districts, if it is at all possible to meet the desire of the hon. Gentleman, to have a Welsh-speaking inspector in Welsh-speaking districts.

asked whether in North Wales, where a vacancy had occurred, the right hon. Gentleman would appoint a Welsh chief inspector to take the place of Dr. Foster, who had resigned.

No; a vacancy has not occurred, simply because, as I informed the hon. Gentleman, we are making re-arrangements in Wales. We are going to divide up Dr. Foster's district, and to allot it to two of the existing; inspectors, and there are none of those inspectors who can speak Welsh. I cannot appoint an unnecessary inspector in order to get an inspector who can speak Welsh.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state how much of the £250,000 voted by Parliament under the Light Railways Act, 1896, for free advances remains still available for that purpose, and also how much of the £750,000 voted for loans under the same Act remains.

The Treasury have conditionally agreed to special advances under Section 5 of the Light Railways Act amounting to £197,250, of which £181,750 is by way of free grant and £15,500 by way of loan. There remains therefore a sum of £52,750 available for special advances under that section. No loans have been granted under Section 4 of the Act, and the whole of the sum of £750,000 referred to by my hon. friend remains unappropriated.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will be prepared in the Committee stage of the Light Railways Bill to introduce clauses making it compulsory upon the promoters of light railway schemes to make provision for the conveyance of bicycles; and whether he will also propose a maximum schedule of charges.

No, Sir, I am not prepared to introduce clauses placing upon the promoters of light railway schemes obligations not imposed upon railway companies generally. Any alteration of the law on this subject should, in my opinion, be of general application. I may say that the Board have, with the consent of the promoters, inserted in some Light Railway Orders a maximum scale of charges for the carriage of bicycles.

But if the Board of Trade thought it right to insert in some of the Light Railway Orders a provision with regard to the carrying of cycles, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that should be imposed on all companies?

Order, order! That is a matter of opinion.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the quantity of iron ore imported last year into South Wales ports; whether he is aware that the steel works of Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire are entirely dependent for their supplies upon ore imported from Spain and Algeria, and that the percentage of iron in the ore imported from Bilbao shows a continuous falling off owing to the best quality ore becoming exhausted; and whether the Government has received any notification from the Spanish Government that it intends placing a duty on exported ore beyond that required to meet shipping and dock expenses, with a view to conserve its mineral wealth, which is being rapidly worked out and cannot be replaced.

The quantity of iron ore imported last year into South Wales ports was 1,036,586 tons. There are no official statistics respecting the countries of origin of the iron ore used in steel works in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, or the percentage of iron in the ore imported from Bilbao. No notification has been received from the Spanish Government of the nature referred to in the last paragraph of the question.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Board of Education have received the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the best means for co-ordinating the technological work of the Board with that at present carried on by other educational organisations, and whether and at what date such Report will be printed and published.

The Report has been received, but it is not proposed to publish it.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the attention of the Board of Education has been drawn to opposition by managers of local voluntary schools and by the Religious Education Union to the extension of the board school in Essendine Road; whether he can state how many children resident in Willesden there are in London board schools in the district bounded by the boundary of Willesden, by Maida Vale, the Grand Junction Canal and Kensal Green Cemetery (which is substantially identical with the School Board sub-divisions Y and Z, Marylebone; and AC 2, Chelsea); whether there is any prospect of the Willesden School Board making increased provision of school places, and whether the Board of Education will withhold its sanction to the proposed extension in Essendine Road.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. To the second paragraph the answer is in the negative. Such information can only be obtained from the London School Board. The answer to the third paragraph is in the affirmative so far as the Willesden School Board is concerned, which is now building. The question as to whether the sanction of the Board of Education will be given or not is now tinder consideration.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to a round table conference, held under the presidency of the Bishop of London, at which a resolution was moved in favour of rate aid to voluntary schools, when his Lordship, in reply, said they had been for some time elaborating their plans in regard to the education question, and were in communication with the Government; and whether such communications have been received by his Department; and, if so, whether he is prepared to lay them upon the Table of this House.

I have not heard of any such communication having been received by the Board of Trade.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state when the Evening School Code for 1901 will be issued.

The regulations for giving grants to evening schools are now under consideration. It is hoped to issue them shortly.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has observed the inconvenience and loss of time and money to which the people of London are subjected by the way in which the numerous authorities in the same area resort to the consecutive taking up of the most frequented streets; can he state how many London authorities have this privilege for gas and electric lighting, telephonic and telegraphic communication, paving, drainage, water supply for domestic use and hydraulic power, and other purposes: and will he consider the possibility of bringing all these bodies and companies under one licensing head, which shall have control of the taking up of the streets.

I am unable to give figures in answer to my hon. and gallant friend, but the number of bodies, both local authorities and trading companies, who have obtained from Parliament powers of breaking up the streets is large, and I agree that very considerable inconvenience often results from the exercise of these powers. Recently, of course, the evil has been aggravated by the operations on behalf of the Post Office in connection with telephones, which are, I hope, drawing to a conclusion. I should be very glad if any remedy could be found; but so far I am afraid that I have not seen any proposal that would be practicable and meet the case.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state when he expects to be in a position to state the results of the recent Census as regards the alien population of London, and more particularly in Whitechapel, Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, Poplar, Stepney, and St. George's-in-the-East.

As I stated in reply to a question by my hon. friend on the 10th May last, particulars as to the number of aliens will be published in the detailed abstract of the Census Returns, required by Section 8 of the Act. The detailed abstract for London will be issued before that for the rest of the country. The preparation of the abstract is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible, but I understand from the Registrar General that a considerable time must necessarily elapse before it will be ready.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state, having regard to the estimated value of work done by the Postal Telegraph Department for the public service in the year ending 31st March, 1900, at £70,746 11s. 6d., as stated in Appendix (1), 46th Report of the Postmaster General, what was the corresponding value of the services rendered for the same year and for the year ending 31st March, 1901, in respect of the work done without charge for the railway companies of the United Kingdom by the Department; and as there is a loss of revenue on the working of this Department, if he will take steps to have the relations of this Department towards these companies brought before the House, with a view to their revision.

The value of the services rendered by the Post Office to railway companies during the years ended 31st March, 1900 and 1901, in respect of the transmission of telegrams on the business of the companies, either free or at reduced rates, is estimated at £59,676 and £52,063 respectively. These services are not, however, on the same footing as the work done by the Post Office for public Departments, seeing that the free message privilege was given to the companies as part of the consideration paid for the acquisition of their telegraph rights. Some time ago the matter was brought under very careful review, and the Postmaster, General does not at present see any sufficient reason for altering the existing arrangements.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the delays caused to those wishing to use the telephone between Northampton and London; whether the official reports show that these delays are due to there being only one wire, and whether the Post Office can and will obviate them by providing an additional wire, or by other means.

There appear to have been a few cases of delay recently in telephonic communication between London and Northampton, but in several of these cases the circuit has been temporarily interrupted by unavoidable faults or occupied by traffic diverted from other interrupted lines. There is at present only one direct circuit, but there are alternative routes for London traffic via Coventry and Leicester. A second direct circuit is about to be completed, and it is hoped that, when this has been brought into use, the delay will be entirely obviated.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received a petition from the women clerks of the postal order branch praying for an increase in the initial salary of their class, which salary was reduced from £65 to £55 per annum in 1897, and whether he can see his way to granting their request.

The Postmaster General has received and duly considered the memorial referred to, and he has answered the memorialists that the circumstances do not admit of his complying with their wishes.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state whether the new underground electric cable from London to Birmingham has realised official expectations; also, how it compares in swift and effective action, distance for distance, with overhead wires, both as regards telephones and telegraphs, and have the Post Office department any information showing the nature of the results of working the cable wires as part of telegraph circuits 300 or 400 miles long, such as those to Dublin and Edinburgh.

The Postmaster General is of opinion that the underground cable between London and Birmingham has realised the expectations of the department. It was not intended to be used as a telephone cable, the idea being that it would benefit the telephone service by setting free overhead telegraph routes, which would then be available for telephonic purposes. For long-distance telephonic communication it is important that aerial wires should be available. For ordinary telegraphic communication there is no diminution in the speed of working through the cable as compared with an overhead line, but for high-speed news circuits the cable at present involves the use of two wires as compared with one overhead wire. Combined with overhead wires the cable is being used for circuits extending to Belfast, Glasgow, and Edinburgh, which are each over 400 miles long. The cable has proved of the greatest utility in giving steadiness to the service, and in enabling the department to maintain that service during interruptions of the overhead lines by storms.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of a strong feeling at South Petherton, Somerset, against the removal of the post office there to another part of the parish, and whether he will take the opinion of the parish council of South Petherton as to this change.

The removal of the South Petherton Post Office to its present site, which is central and convenient, was authorised after full consideration of the circumstances, and the Postmaster General sees no reason for departing from the decision arrived at. Within the last few days a memorial' from a considerable number of the inhabitants has been received in favour of the retention of the office in the new position.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that the present experimental service for the conveyance of the Stornoway mails via Mallaig has been in force since the 1st of April, will he say for how long a period he intends to continue the service as an experiment, and will he give some assurance that, so soon as a definite service is determined on, tenders will be invited for the mail steamer service to and from Stornoway.

The Postmaster General is unable to say for how long a period it may be found desirable to continue the service between Mallaig and Stornoway as an experiment; nor can he give any assurance that tenders will ultimately be invited for the mail steamer service to and from Stornoway, and he sees no reason at present to suppose that such a course would result in a more economical arrangement than the present.

And is the experiment to continue until the mails go down to the bottom of the sea?

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, seeing that the proprietor of Avoch Harbour, Ross-shire, returned home from Ceylon some time since, will he state whether the Fishery Board for Scotland has yet approached him with a view to secure the repair of the present harbour or the construction of a new one, and, if not, will he state what steps it is proposed to take to provide suitable harbour accommodation at Avoch.

As I told the hon. Member on 1st April last, I can give neither determination nor admission as to who is the proprietor of Avoch Harbour. But the initiative in the renewal of negotiations on behalf of those locally interested must rest with them and not with the Fishery Board.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the Congested Districts Board have received a petition from the fishermen of Shader, in the Point District of Lewis, Ross-shire, urging the removal of an overhanging rock which threatens to fall and render the bight or cove at Shader dangerous as a landing place, and will he say whether the Board can see their way to grant assistance in the matter.

The petition was before the Congested Districts Board on the 4th instant, and they have intimated a grant to the county council.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the sentence passed by Sheriff Lee, in the Forfar Sheriff Court, upon James Bean, tailor, Brechin, who was found technically guilty of a breach of Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act for having jeered at some blacklegs, and was sentenced to thirty days imprisonment without the alternative of a fine, and whether, considering the length of this imprisonment for the alleged offence, he will cause the accused to be at once set at liberty.

The Secretary for Scotland has made inquiry into the case in question. The offence for which sentence was passed was not merely technical, and the Secretary for Scotland sees no reason for advising any remission.

But did not the Sheriff himself describe the offence as technical, and does not strong indignation prevail in the district in regard to the sentence?

The Sheriff would hardly have described as technical an offence for which he sent a man to prison.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that the farms of Faddoch and Killilan, in the Parish of Kintail, Ross-shire, formerly in the occupation of crofters, and recently occupied by a farmer, are to be cleared of sheep and cattle and added to the deer forest of Killilan; in view of the fact that 7,000 acres of this forest were scheduled by the Highlands and Islands Commission in 1892 as suitable for crofters' holdings or small farms, will he say whether the Government will consider the expediency of taking such steps as may be necessary to check the extension of deer forests, especially in cases like the present where part of the existing forest has already been reported as suitable for occupation by the people; and is he aware that the farm of Lienassie, in the same parish, and lately in the occupation of a farmer, is also to be cleared, and reserved for deer.

I find, after consultation with the chairman and secretary of the late Deer Forest Commission, that they have no information as to the clearing and afforesting either of Faddoch and Killilan, or of Lienassie. I am informed by them that no part of the forest of Killilan was scheduled yellow as suitable for new holdings by the Deer Forest Commission, but certain parts were scheduled brown as suitable for moderately sized farms above the limit of £30 rent. I may also mention that none of the lands referred to by the hon. Member fall within the area declared congested by the Congested Districts Board.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that a medical officer of health is required to be the holder of a public health diploma, will he explain how it happens that of the 278 medical officers of health for Scotland only sixty-one possess the required diploma.

The great proportion of local medical officers of health in the various districts of the counties in which they are employed do not possess the qualification referred to by the hon. Member because it was unnecessary in the case of appointments made prior to the coming into force of the Public Health Act of 1897, namely, 1st January, 1898. As regards burghs, the qualification has been imperative only in the case of appointments made subsequent to 15th May, 1894.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Irish inventors are unable to consult American patent specifications anywhere in Ireland, but are put to the expense and inconvenience of visiting London if they desire to consult American specifications, and that a free gift of all American patent specifications was offered to the trustees of the National Library in Dublin, but had to be declined on account of want of space and of insufficient staff; and, in view of the hardship and unequal conditions to which Irish inventors are thereby subjected, will suitable space be provided by the completion of the east wing of the National Library or otherwise.

I have already replied to an inquiry on the subject of the first paragraph. The question of providing suitable space in the east wing of the library will not be overlooked.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Kenmare River, county Kerry, which forms an inlet about thirty miles in length, is unprovided with lights, and that the absence of such lights is detrimental to the interests of Sneem, Kenmare, and other places at which steamers and fishing vessels call, and, seeing that the erection of a light on the western point of Sherky Island, which is situated about half way up the bay, is required, would the Congested Districts Board, in view of the increased facilities that would be thereby given to trading vessels, consider the advisability of erecting such a light.

The Congested Districts Board could not undertake the erection of a light such as proposed. This could only be done by the general or local lighthouse authority within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Acts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to establish the industrial schools in Dublin on the same plan as prevails in Glasgow and Liverpool, where they are open to the public.

Legislation would be necessary for this purpose, and I am unable to give any undertaking on the subject this session. But it is one that deserves and shall receive attention in connection with the general question of industrial schools, upon which I spoke somewhat fully in the course of the discussion raised oh the 7th May by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny.†

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

† See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xciii., page 1015.

Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether students attending St. Macarten's Seminary, Monaghan, from districts outside the counties of Fermanagh and Monaghan are allowed to derive any benefit, either in the shape of reduced fees or prizes, from the Fermanagh Royal School Endowment; and whether he has any official information to the effect that a student named Keenan, from county Tyrone, has been admitted at £12 10s., half the usual fee; if so, will he cause an inquiry to be made in this matter.

I am informed that the scheme of May, 1891, contains no restriction as to the selection of students attending a qualified school, within the meaning of the scheme, to whom the Fermanagh Roman Catholic Board may provide prizes out of the endowments in the shape of reduced fees or prizes. I am also informed that the student named in the second paragraph has never received any benefit from the endowment such as suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the prices of butter furnished in the Irish statistics for 1900 have been obtained solely, as in former years, by inquiry at the eight markets named in the Report; whether he is aware that in recent years a large proportion of Irish butter has been made and disposed of through creameries at much higher prices than in the markets; and whether he will undertake in future Reports also to furnish the prices obtained through these creameries.

I am informed that the average prices for butter quoted in the publication referred to are based on creamery butter prices as well as on the prices of butter otherwise produced. The prices of creamery butter have also been separately published in a recent issue of the Journal of the Department of Agriculture.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain the delay in the Land Judge's Court in regard to the sale of the Ogilby estate, in county Tyrone, to the tenants; and, seeing that final notice of sale was served on the tenants prior to 1882, that a similar notice was served in 1891, that an application was made by the tenants in 1899 to have the case listed under Section 40 of the Act of 1896, and that the turbary claims on the part of a section of the tenantry have been withdrawn, whether there are any reasons why the sale should not be carried through at once.

No delay, so far as the Land Judge's Court is concerned, has occurred in reference to the sale of this estate. Prior to the passing of the Act of 1896 the parties having the carriage of the sale appear to have been undecided whether to proceed to a sale or not; on two occasions a final notice to tenants was issued, but no further steps were taken to bring the estate to a sale. The estate first appeared in the Land Judge's list in March, 1899. No sale can take place under the 40th Section till the rental is settled. The estate consists of a large number of holdings, and the rental cannot be settled until all the disputes between the tenants in respect of boundaries, turbary, and other rights are disposed of. It is expected that the last batch of objections will come on for argument next week. After the decision has been given in these cases the estate will probably be in a position to be sold.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Treasury, or some other department of the Government, is now in practical possession of the Killcloony property, which at one time belonged to a philanthropic company, who acquired it with the object of dividing up some grass farms it contained and selling them to the tenants so as to increase their holdings; and if the Government will, when selling this property, strive to fulfil the original object.

There is not, as I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member, any power under the existing law to act in the manner which he suggests.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will recommend the remission of the fine of £10 imposed by Judge Curran at the last Tullamore Quarter Sessions upon the foreman of a jury in a case of alleged larceny, seeing that the county court judge upon the occasion referred to discharged the jury without allowing them to bring in a verdict.

I have already stated that no fine was imposed on any juror on the occasion referred to. Consequently, the question of a remission of a fine does not arise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman produce the official record of the case? I was in court at the time.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state by whose authority Sergeant O'Reilly, of Shannon Harbour, King's County, went to the house of Michael Dolan, Lisclooney, no person being there but his wife and son, a boy under fourteen years of age, and took the boy, against the protests of his mother, into the stable to extract information from him, threatening at the same time to give him the prison unless his answers were satisfactory; although his mother stated that the boy was under age to take an oath.

At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. The boy referred to in the question was a necessary witness in a case of arson, and his statement was taken in the usual way by Sergeant Reilly, on his own authority, in the ordinary discharge of his duty. It is untrue that the sergeant made use of any threats, and equally untrue that the boy's mother protested, as alleged.

The boy came to my house with the summons, and—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Peter Kerans, of Lisclooney, King's County, was arrested on a charge of alleged arson, and was subsequently admitted to bail to appear before a special court held at Moystown on Thursday, 6th instant; whether he can state the reasons for holding this special court when the ordinary petty sessions were coming on in a few days; and whether informations were refused by the bench in this case.

Peter Kerans was arrested on the 30th May on a charge of arson; he was remanded for eight days, and subsequently admitted to bail to appear at Moystown House before a magistrate, in order that depositions might be taken. No special court was or could be held, and the charge being an indictable one, there is nothing to require that depositions should be taken at petty sessions. The next petty sessions will be held on the 25th inst. The informations were refused.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by whose authority did a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary at Camp, county Kerry, on Sunday, 19th May, while members were being enrolled in the local branch of the United Irish League, take the names of those who joined, and is he aware that this constable on being asked to desist refused to do so.

The constable acted without authority. His sergeant ordered him to desist, and he did so.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the constable did with the names?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain why the teacher of Bracklinn national school, county Kerry, who taught Irish as an extra subject during the year ended 31st January, 1901, has not been paid for it; and whether the Commissioners will take into account, in fixing this teacher's salary, his classification, length and efficiency of service, size and importance of school, and previous teacher's income.

I am informed that this teacher has now been paid an equivalent results fee for the teaching of Irish during the period mentioned. In fixing his future income he will get the full benefit of the new rules. If it should be found that it would be inequitable to fix his future income on the average of his receipts from State sources for the past three years, the Commissioners will give the case special consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received complaints from the Dublin Bookbinders Society as to the manner in which Messrs. Blackie and Company evade the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution in the carrying out of their contract for the Government; whether similar complaints have been received from the same society by the Commissioners of Education regarding this firm; and, if so, what steps have been taken by the Government; and will he, should these complaints be substantiated, insist on the Messrs. Blackie carrying out the conditions of the Fair Wages Resolution in their contracts for the binding of the books for the Government.

The question of the application of the Fair Wages Resolution to the dealings of the Commissioners with the firm mentioned is still the subject of correspondence with the Commissioners. I would ask the hon. Member to postpone the question for a fortnight.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that medical officers of Irish workhouses classify as sick not only those under treatment, but also children under two years of age and all assistants engaged in the work of the infirmary; is such method of classification permitted by the Local Government Board, and will inquiry be made as to the extent of the practice and orders given to classify as sick only those under medical treatment.

Children under two years of age are not classed as sick unless they are under medical treatment. But, even if they were, I do not think the arrangement would be open to objection, as infants of this tender age in workhouses generally require much care. The employment of pauper assistants for nursing duties is illegal, and no healthy pauper engaged in menial duties is allowed to be classed otherwise than as healthy under the Board's regulations.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sergeant William Sheridan and Constable Mahony were discharged from the Royal Irish Constabulary on the 9th of February last without any reason being given for their discharge, and that Sergeant Sheridan applied for a statement of the charge against him, and for a sworn public inquiry into his case, and whether both these requests were refused; and will he state what were the grounds on which Sergeant Sheridan and Constable Mahony were discharged, and why was an inquiry refused.

On the 14th March, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for West Clare,^* I stated very fully the reasons which led to the discharge of these men from the constabulary. The discharge was ordered by the Lord Lieutenant in pursuance of the statutory power conferred upon him, and it is not proposed to reopen the case.

The answer of the 14th March does not answer the question I have put.

The answer of the 14th March states that the men were discharged for having supported a charge with unsatisfactory and conflicting evidence, and their detention in the force was not considered further desirable. On that ground the Lord Lieutenant exercised the statutory power vested in him.

The right hon. Gentleman does not answer the question I have put. I have carefully read the answer for the 14th March. I will further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the opinion prevails in the country that these constables were dismissed for placing threatening notices in the pocket of a man under arrest, and whether, in view of the interest which has been aroused, he will grant a sworn inquiry into the matter.

Is it not true that these policemen have been charged with having placed a threatening notice in the pocket of the man they arrested?

As I cannot get an answer, I shall repeat the question next week.

Yes, the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to answer only makes it necessary for us to trouble him again. We mean to ascertain the facts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

^* See Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. xc, page 1578.

Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the estate of the late John C. Jones, in the county of Cavan, has been in the Landed Estates Court for sale during the past twelve years and has not been offered for sale during that time; and can he state what reasons, if any, exist why it has not been offered for purchase to the tenants in occupation under the provisions of the 40th section of the Land Act of 1896.

The case of this estate came before the Land Judge on the 9th ultimo, when the solicitors having carriage of the sale represented that all parties were desirous of withdrawing the estate from sale. The case stands adjourned to enable the necessary formalities in this respect to be completed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will take steps to improve the postal regulations affecting the town of Navan, as under existing arrangements the mails do not arrive there till 10.40 a.m., and are not delivered in some parts of the town till after twelve o'clock, thus causing inconvenience to all classes of the community.

The Postmaster General has directed that inquiry be made on the question of improving the postal service to Navan, and the result will be communicated to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to provide funds to enable the arterial drainage of Ireland being effectively carried out at an early date.

The question of arterial drainage is of importance, and a number of schemes for carrying it out have been brought to my notice. They will receive careful consideration, but I am not in a position to make any announcement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the total number of emigrants who left Irish ports last month was 8,565, as against 8,105 for the corresponding month of the previous year, and that 8,241 of these, or over 96 per cent., were bound for America; and, seeing that for the four months of the year now passed the total emigration from Ireland was 13,802, being an increase of 2,209 over the number for the same period in 1900, whether the Government intend to propose legislation calculated to keep the people in Ireland by making the occupiers the owners of the land, and whether the Government will consider the necessity of reducing taxation in Ireland in ratio with the reduction of population.

The percentage of emigrants from Irish ports to the United States in April was 90·5. The total number of emigrants in April and in the first four months of the present year was less for each period than in the corresponding periods of 1900. The decreases in May and the first five months of the present year are still more striking. I cannot discuss future legislation and taxation in reply to a question.