said he wished briefly to explain why he had placed a new clause on the Paper with reference to this Bill. When the Bill was read a second time, he carried an Instruction by a majority of over seventy making certain provisions regarding workmen's superannuation come under the control of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Although the Instruction had been carried out, the clause inserted by the promoters was not one which he could assent to, but he need not go into details, as the promoters were now quite ready to accept his new clause, which was drawn up as a model clause, and which would be put in various other Bills if necessary. New Clause—

"Any scheme for the establishment of a superannuation or provident fund under this part of this Act shall not come into operation until the council shall in respect of that fund have been registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and the provisions of that Act (except section forty-one) so far as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part of this Act shall apply as if (a) the council were a society to which that Act applies and were the Trustees of such society; (b) as if the scheme were the rules of such society; (c) as if the superannuation or provident funds were the funds of such society; and (d) as if the contributors to the fund were the members of such society."

said he would like to explain the position of the promoters in regard to this new clause. They regarded it as substantially the same as the one they had inserted. He explained to the House, when the matter was before it on the last occasion, that Clause 41 would have limited any lump sum payable to £200, or an annuity to £50, and that would have made any superannuation scheme brought out tinder the Bill inapplicable to the case of the higher officials. However, as the new clause substantially agreed with the views of the promoters, the difference being only one of form, he was glad to say he was enabled to accept it.

, who had on the Paper the following instruction—"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Improvement No. 5 from Part III. of the Bill," said he would not take up the time of the House by moving the Instruction which stood in his name. He understood that the Chairman of Committees was going to move that Standing Orders be suspended, and that the Bill be allowed to go to a Select Committee upstairs. He ought to say with regard to the motion on the Paper that the Bill was not opposed in the House of Lords, and neither had it been opposed in this House hitherto, because the vicar and churchwardens had no knowledge that part of the churchyard was going to be taken by the tramway scheme. Unfortunately, in this matter one gentleman was acting in two interests—for the corporation and for the churchwardens, and owing to a misunderstanding no petition was laid against the Bill. It was found, therefore, that unless he moved an instruction in the House the Bill would have passed through unopposed, and the tramway would have carried away part of the churchyard. As he had before said, he understood the Chairman of Committees was now going to propose that Standing Order No. 83 be put in force, so as to enable the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee upstairs. Under those circumstances he would not move his instruction.

said the hon. Member had quite accurately described the compromise which had been arranged. He intended to report the Bill as an opposed Bill, and at the same time he would put down a motion enabling his hon. friend to present a petition. That petition would be referred to a Committee upstairs, who would hear the case.

said that when he saw the title of this Bill and ascertained the objects with which it was being promoted he had some doubt as to what the effects of the measure would be, having regard to the fact that in several well known towns in England, and notably in Liverpool, where a very large district of working class buildings had been swept away, years had been allowed to elapse before suitable houses were provided for the persons thus displaced. He had provided himself with a copy of the Bill, and he found that even the promoters of the Bill themselves granted a large part of the case he stated against it, inasmuch as they proposed a statute to provide for a certain number of those they dispossessed. Of the 10,000 people whose dwellings they were going to pull down 3,000 would be left without provision being made for them, and would have to go outside the district in which they were employed to find accommodation. It was only fair that the House should ask the promoters of the Bill to take it back and amend the section so as to remove that grievance. He had great sympathy with the Bill, and would like to see the dwellings of the working classes improved, and more comfort provided in all large towns. There was not the slightest objection to the avowed intention of the Bill being carried out, but the Corporation of Leeds should not be allowed to carry out the work until they had provided ample accommodation for the persons whom they proposed to dispossess. It would, no doubt, be urged that the commissioner who held the local inquiry had reported in favour of the scheme, but he suggested that that gentleman, who, it might be taken for granted, was highly respectable and intelligent, of a necessity would only be brought into contact with those who favoured the scheme. Such gentlemen had seldom or never had an opportunity of meeting the people whose interests were affected, and whose homes were to be destroyed. If, for instance, the working classes of the Scotland Division of Liverpool, who had been affected by the clearance now being effected, had known what the result would be, that they were going to be driven out and no provision was to be made for them, and that they would have had to go out of the district altogether to find a home as best they could, it would have taken more than the united force of the Liverpool police to have evicted them. The working classes really did not know the meaning of these Bills or the effect of them until it was too late, and consequently they did not enter their protest at the right time. The Bill before the House was one which should be opposed by all the representatives of labour in the House, and he ventured to raise a humble protest against it, because if the scheme was carried out in its present form it would involve a very serious loss and damage upon a large section of the community. The area was declared to be unsanitary, and for all he knew it might, or it might not, be unsanitary, but against that statement he would urge upon the House the fact that the average school attendance in that district was higher than in any other part of Leeds, and everyone knew very well that in unsanitary districts epidemics broke out and raged with great virulence, causing all the schools to be closed, which must of a necessity reduce the average school attendance. He, however, did not profess to be able to deal with that aspect of the case. He rested his case upon the fact, which was clearly stated in the Bill by the promoters themselves, that they did not intend to provide accommodation for thousands of the people whom it was proposed under the Bill to deprive of their homes. He begged that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.

, in seconding the Amendment, complained that for some time past schemes for the clearance of unsanitary areas had been put forward by local authorities and various corporations in which insufficient provision was made for the rehousing of the persons dispossessed. The result was that people were removed from the dangers of overcrowding in one place only to create veritable plague spots in another. The House of Commons ought to be very chary indeed of giving its sanction to any scheme unless adequate provision was made for the accommodation of the people to be dispossessed before they were dispossessed.

said the objections which had been raised by the mover and seconder of the Amendment were very natural objections in the minds of anybody who had had experience of clearing unsanitary areas, but they referred rather to defects in the various Acts for the housing of the working classes than to any action of the particular corporation concerned in the scheme under consideration. His object in rising, however, was to ask the President of the Local Government Board to consider a hardship which had arisen in this case. Rightly or wrongly, a large number of the property owners concerned, when the Local Government Board inquiry was held, were under the impression that it was the preliminary inquiry, and, indeed, when they applied to the inspector to be heard their application was refused. As a result of this decision there were scheduled for the purposes of this improvement scheme certain properties which it was contended could be proved to be in themselves perfectly sanitary, and the owners felt that it was rather hard that such properties should be taken from them by the Leeds Corporation at an "unsanitary" price, and that they should be penalised because of unsanitary property over which they had no control. He had placed on the Paper an Instruction, the effect of which would be to give these property owners a right to be heard before the Committee as to whether this scheme was a scheme within the meaning of the Act. By giving his favourable consideration to the matter when it came before him, the President of the Local Government Board would be doing an act of justice to these property owners, who, after all, were not responsible for the scheme of the Leeds Corporation. The scheme itself was a good one, and the corporation deserved the highest credit for taking in hand so large an undertaking. That, however, was no reason why injustice should be inflicted upon anyone, and therefore he hoped the property owners would be heard in their own defence before the Committee.

said that five years ago the Leeds Corporation obtained power to set aside the almost universal law in this country against the erection of back to back houses.

ruled that the byelaws of the city of Leeds could not now be debated.

said that in that case he would move an Instruction at a later stage to the Committee that they should amend the Act so as to forbid the building of back to back houses in, the future.

said that the real objection to this Bill was that it proposed to dishouse 9,000 and to rehouse only 6,000 people. He did not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should insist upon an equal number of people being housed on the site being cleared, as that would at once do away with the benefits to be derived from the scheme. He suggested to the President of the Local Government Board that he should insist upon a sufficient number of houses being erected within the boundary of the city of Leeds equal to the number of those who had been displaced. It was a very serious matter to turn 3,000 people adrift without making provision for their requirements, and it simply meant an increase of rent and the transforming of some other district into a slum area.

contended that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee for consideration. One of the main objections was that this was not a scheme within the meaning of the Act, but the property owners would have an opportunity of appearing before the Committee in opposition to the scheme. The Local Government Board were of opinion that all the necessary requirements had been complied with, and they were of opinion that it was a scheme worthy of the consideration of the House of Commons. He thought that the House would no more think of going behind the decision of this Local Government Board inquiry than it would think of going behind the Standing Orders. He hoped the House would consent to a Select Committee, before which any property owner could appear and oppose the scheme on its merits if he thought he could satisfy the Committee that the Bill ought to be rejected. Any private Bill could be opposed before the Committee in the regular form. He sincerely sympathised with the property owners, and he did not agree that their property should be taken for the good of the community without adequate compensation, any more than the property of other classes of the community. This was a great scheme which had been undertaken by the Leeds Corporation, and it was the largest scheme of this sort that had ever come before Parliament. The justification for it was to be found in the very heavy death rate.

The hon. Member for South Louth, who moved the rejection of this Bill, did so on the ground that the Corporation of Leeds, in taking power to clear an insanitary area in that city, did not make sufficient provision for housing the working classes displaced by the scheme. I do not think that that contention will be found to be correct when the statistics are examined. In this case the number of persons of the working classes who will be displaced under the scheme is 9,234. The order now under consideration provides for rehousing on the sites of existing buildings 6,000 persons, leaving a balance to be provided for in other ways of 3,234. There is suitable house room vacant within half a mile of the area to accommodate 1,070, and beyond the half mile but within a mile sufficient for a further 1,500, leaving 664 unaccounted for. Of this total 616 are provided for in model lodging houses, and therefore the actual number which can be said to be unprovided for is only 48. I do not think that the House can possibly regard that as unsatisfactory provision for the working classes. The hon. Gentleman also stated that the Local Government Board inspector during his inquiry came only into contact with the officials of the Corporation and not with the working classes. I doubt whether that could ever be an accurate description of an inquiry held by an inspector of the Local Government Board, but it is most certainly an inaccurate description in this case. A long inquiry was held by the inspector at Leeds, and witnesses of every sort and condition were heard. The inspector himself spent considerable time personally inspecting every portion of the land and every court, alley, and street within the area affected, and the recommendation he makes to me is based not alone upon the evidence received from the medical officer of health and other experts, but also upon his own personal experience after close investigation conducted by himself and after a careful examination of all the property. Therefore, I do not think it can fairly be alleged that the inspector only came into contact with the Corporation officials. My hon. friend the Member for South West Manchester alleges that some property owners in Leeds have not been heard, and that they will suffer an injustice through the operation of the penal clauses of the Act of 1890. When my hon. friend states that some of the property owners were not heard at the inquiry, I do not think he has been correctly informed. The point was raised before the inspector whether or not this was a scheme within the meaning of the Act. The inspector decided that that was a question for the Local Government Board or Parliament to decide, and with that point he declined to deal, but he did not decline to hear the owners in regard to the scheme as it affected their property. I think the point raised was one for the Local Government Board to decide, and Parliament could reverse their decision if hon. Members disagreed with it. I do, however, hope that this House will pause before it consents to check in any way the work of large corporations in their efforts to deal with insanitary areas. There is an additional danger in rejecting such schemes as this, and it is that if Parliament in ail cases insists upon the full number of those displaced being provided for before the areas are allowed to be dealt with, I venture to say that you will make the work of clearing insanitary areas practically impossible. There is, fortunately, accommodation within easy reach of the affected area, and nobody could suggest that it would be a hardship for working men to go half a mile or so further. I admit that the scheme is important as a precedent; as my hon. friend has said, it is the largest scheme which has ever been brought forward under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, but I know of no word or line in that Act which limits the size of a scheme. It has been said that the scheme does not comply with the Act: because it does not definitely lay down what the Corporation propose to do, but the Corporation have made a full and complete plan as to what they propose to do with this insanitary area when it is cleared. I do not hesitate to say that from the point of view of getting rid of many insanitary houses the scheme is a right and sensible one, and I hope the House will see its way to adopt it.

said the Bill had been attacked from different points of view. But he could assure his hon. friend the Member for Northwich that it was not intended to erect, back to back, houses on the area in question. He quite agreed that the clearing of such a large area was a matter of very serious consideration; but it was obvious that the House could not at that stage give a ripe judgment on all the details of the Bill. The scheme was promoted by the city council of Leeds, the members of which were practically unanimous in favour of it, and was supported by the Trades Council. A full local inquiry, lasting eight days, had been made into the scheme, and the Local Government Board had been satisfied on the technical points that the provisions of the various Housing Acts had been fulfilled. The Bill had the support of the Government. There was nothing in the Acts requiring full details of the scheme to be embodied in the Provisional Order, for that would be impossible. In these circumstances, he hoped the House, having regard to the great necessity that existed for this Bill, and to the fact that the mortality in the area was 40 per cent. higher than in the remainder of the city, would read the measure a second time and send it upstairs for the consideration of the Committee.

said that in his own constituency he had had some experience of the corporation pulling down houses of poor people and neglecting to provide accommodation for those dispossessed. The result had been that, instead of reducing the insanitary condition of the poor people in Dublin, they had removed these poor people from comparatively good houses to worse houses in other parts of the city. A colleague of his had received a letter from a working man who lived in Leeds, who said that before any corporation was allowed to pull down an enormous number of low-rented houses they ought to undertake to build other houses, and have them completed before commencing demolishing the old houses. A deputation of working men had laid these views before the Sanitary Committee of the Leeds Corporation, but he had not yet heard whether that Committee had reported on the matter. He did not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but, having an interest in the working classes everywhere, he thought they were entitled to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether the representatives of the working classes had been consulted in this matter as well as the proprietors of property. He understood from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the proposal of the Corporation of Leeds was to erect immense flats, and that the rent to be charged for houses in these flats for working men would be 4s. to 6s. per week. That was a good deal higher rent than they were paying at present—namely, from 1s. 10d. to 3s. He thought the corporation ought to provide accommodation for poor people at the same rate they paid at present. He did not wish to occupy the time of the House much longer, because he knew that these private Bill discussions were always looked upon as a waste of time. He did not take that view, but thousands of poor people were affected by these schemes, and very frequently the time of the House was devoted to much less important subjects. He merely wanted the right hon. the President of the Local Government Board to assure the House that these poor room-holders would be heard before the Committee, those who, when evicted, would have no place to go to. The right hon. Gentleman must know that in Paris and other continental cities, before houses inhabited by working people were pulled down in order to make grand boulevards, houses were erected for the accommodation of the people dispossessed.

said he had had some experience on this subject, and therefore he intervened in the discussion to oppose the Bill. One of the great defects of the scheme was that the houses were to be pulled down without other houses being provided; and he had known the hardships to which poor people were exposed by that process. Two questions ought to be answered before the Bill was read a second time. First, where were they going to put the unfortunate people dispossessed by the demolition of the existing houses; and second, what class of houses were to be provided for them? As a general rule, corporations did away with what they considered houses which were an injury to public health, but they took no consideration of the unfortunate people whom they displaced. They only built

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that two burghers were shot in Pretoria on Tuesday, and can he say what was the offence, and whether any British subjects were shot by the Boers in cold blood since the war began.

Three Boers who were on parole attempted to leave Pretoria during the night of 9th June to join commandoes; two were armed and opened fire on the party sent to capture them, wounding one man. They were condemned to death by court-martial, and the two armed men were shot. All prisoners attempting to escape are liable to be shot. There are undoubted cases of shooting of British subjects by the Boers. I do not think it is desirable to deal with them, as there is no connection between these judicial sentences and excesses which have been, in certain instances, committed by the Boers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman cite a single instance where British prisoner have been shot in this way by the Boers when captured by them?

No, Sir.

Of course not.

But I do not know of any cases in which British prisoners, having escaped, have fired on a patrol sent to capture them and wounded them, though I do know cases in which British subjects, for no valid offence, have been shot in cold blood by the Boers. [Cries of "Name" from Nationalist Members.] I might mention the cases of Boyd and another who were shot at Wolmaranstad about four months ago, and also the case of Esau, who was shot in cold blood.

Is it not the fact that a large number of British prisoners imprisoned on the racecourse at Pretoria, while the capital was in the hands of the Transvaal Government, escaped; were any of them captured and shot, and was any attempt made to shoot the hon. Member for Oldham when he ran away?

Order, order! These incidents cannot be discussed.

Then, is it not the fact that the circumstances surrounding the cases mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman have been greatly in dispute, and particularly that the case of Esau was strenuously denied?

Order, order! This matter cannot be investigated now. The right hon. Gentleman was asked to name cases, and he did so, but these cannot be discussed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the course of operations for clearing the country in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, the natives are deprived of their cattle, sheep, grain, and agricultural implements; if so, whether any compensation is made to the owners for the loss, and what measures are taken to prevent a famine among the native population in the denuded districts.

Every effort is made to secure natives from any avoidable loss. Payments to natives for their cattle have been reported in various instances. Lord Kitchener is fully alive to the difficulty of the situation in regard to supplies.

Are the natives taken into refugee camps?

I cannot say what is done in each case; but they are safeguarded as far as possible from the rigours of the war.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many troops General Dixon had under his command in the recent engagement at Vlakfontein, and whether the Boer forces opposed to him exceeded 600; and, if so, what was his estimate of the strength of the Boers engaged in the action.

The figures have been already published. General Dixon had about 1,450 men, and the Boers had about 1,200 men.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform the First Lord of the Treasury of that fact?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the fact that the Report of the Transvaal Concessions Commission shows that mining concessions have not yet been inquired into, will he state when the Commissioners propose to make inquiry in regard to these concessions.

The Commissioners have concluded their inquiry, and I am not aware that there are any further concessions demanding inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain the conditions under which London Scottish Volunteers were enrolled for active service shortly after the outbreak of war in South Africa; and is he aware that the members of this force who have now returned to this country have recently been informed that the thirty days pay; which was paid to them as a gratuity, will now be deducted from war gratuities payable by the paymaster; and will he state why the deduction is to be made.

The conditions of enlistment are clearly laid down in Army Order 29 of February, 1900. Under these they were entitled to a gratuity of £5 on discharge, in addition to the war gratuity. In some cases, by a mistake as to the regulations, a furlough of thirty days was granted to these service companies on discharge, involving a further payment. Considering the long and excellent service given by these men, and that their engagement was at Army rates, I have arranged that in all cases a furlough of thirty days with pay shall be given in addition to the gratuities earned.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the discussion on the question of the events in connection therewith, whether there is any objection to correct plans of Spion Kop and the neighbourhood of Spion Kop being issued and laid before Parliament; and whether maps were made by a thoroughly equipped party, including Royal Engineers, under Lieutenant Skip-with; if so, are these or copies of them in the War Office.

Surveys are being made of the neighbourhood, and I think we must wait for them before issuing detailed plans of any particular district.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the registered accommodation of the "Mongolian" for troops, and how many men she brought home from South Africa on her last voyage, whether there were seven deaths on board, and what was the number of cases of enteric fever and other diseases which occurred during the passage to Southampton.

The registered, accommodation of the "Mongolian" is 1,000 for troops. On her last voyage she brought home 778 Imperial Yeomanry. There were thirty-one cases of enteric, forty-two cases of miscellaneous diseases and other trivial cases during the voyage; seven deaths occurred, all from enteric.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the s.s. "Mongolian" is still in the transport service; and, if so, on what date she will sail.

The "Mongolian" was discharged from the transport service on the 11th instant.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of men of the York and Lancaster Regiment in Fermoy Barracks were poisoned on Saturday last by eating tinned meat; can he state whether any deaths have occurred; from what source the meat was obtained, and whether a full inquiry will be made into the circumstances.

Some men of the York and Lancaster Regiment were poisoned by partaking of a tin of beef. This tin was purchased by the men from the canteen, and was not part of, the Government ration. The men are all practically well now. The commanding officer has full discretion in regard to canteen supplies, and no inquiry is necessary.

Will an inquiry be made as to where the canteen authorities purchased this meat?

If the general officer commanding thinks it necessary to make further inquiry, it lies in his power to do so.

Will a prosecution be ordered against those who have thus endeavoured to poison His Majesty's troops?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any application has been made for the military, in anticipation of disturbance at the Penrhyn quarries; whether, in the event of application being made, will he notify by circular or otherwise to magistrates and tradesmen in the locality that neither the War Office or the County Council of Carnarvonshire is bound by any agreement for catering the troops that may be entered into by the local magistrates; and whether the War Office proposes to make any further payment to the Aberdare tradesmen who catered for the troops in that town in 1898 upon the order of the late stipendiary magistrate for Merthyr, at rates agreed upon between him and them, and before the decision of the High Court was given that the cost of catering was an Imperial and not a local charge.

I understand that application for military aid has been made, but this matter entirely rests with the general officer commanding the district. I do not propose to issue any circular of the nature suggested. In regard to the third paragraph, all the payments that are considered due from Army funds have been made, and it is not proposed to make any further payments.

Is the noble, Lord aware that the payment was not in accordance with the terms agreed upon?

I am not.

Where did the application for military aid come from?

I cannot answer that question. I do not know.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the individuals who are alleged to be drilled at Portobello Barracks, Dublin, with regular soldiers are volunteers; and, if so, to what volunteer regiments do they belong; whether, if they do not prove themselves efficient, they are subject to any penalty, and, seeing that they are receiving instruction from a non-commissioned officer on the strength of the Rifle Brigade, will he state what remuneration this officer receives for his services; whether these individuals have applied for and received licences to carry arms from the Chief Commissioner of Police; for what purpose are they being drilled and instructed in the handling of firearms; and whether part of the instruction comprises a week at camp at Rhyl; and, if so, can he state who pays the expense of such a journey.

The individuals named are volunteers from the Volunteer Battalions of the Royal Welsh. Fusiliers and the Royal Highlanders. Their drills are for the purpose of improving their military knowledge, but do not count towards efficiency. If they are returned non-efficient they do not receive the efficiency grant, and they are liable for certain penalties according to the rules of their corps. The non-commissioned officer who drills them receives no extra remuneration from Army funds. I have no information as to any application for licences. If the battalion to which they belong goes into camp they would be permitted to go into camp with it, but the cost of the journey would not fall upon Army funds.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the general regulations for the formation of rifle clubs in Ireland with respect to the right of such clubs to be supplied with Government rifles and ammunition, and will any such club duly affiliated to the National Rifle Association be supplied with same at cost price.

The conditions under which rifle clubs in Ireland are supplied with Government rifles and ammunition are precisely the same as those which obtain in England and Scotland. In cases where such clubs have been affiliated to the National Rifle Association, rifles and ammunition have been supplied at vocabulary rates.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many recruits for the Regular and Militia forces, respectively, have enlisted in Ireland during the first four months of the present year, and how many during the same four months of the years 1899 and 1900.

The figures are as follows:—

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can name an early day for the introduction of the Naval Works Bill.

In the present state of public business it is impossible for me to fix a date for the introduction of the Naval Works Bill, but I am specially anxious to meet the convenience of the House upon it, because I understand that on this Bill the hon. Gentleman desires to make some observations on the subject of Gibraltar. I think that would be a proper occasion, and I quite recognise that there are special reasons connected with the events of this year which make it important, if possible, to take an early opportunity for discussing this matter.

There will at any rate be a Bill?

Yes.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will make his promised statement on the subject of Gibraltar?

I said "very shortly," which I suppose may be interpreted, without any violent exegesis, to mean next week or the week after.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state what was the amount spent on new construction during the financial year ending 31st March, 1901.

The amount spent on new construction during the financial year ending 31st March, 1901, was £8,911,849.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to continue to refuse the Royal Assent to the Queensland Asiatic Bill in case that or a similar measure should be presented for assent by the Parliament of the Australian Commonwealth.

The question is purely hypothetical, and the hon. Member is aware that I cannot answer such questions.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the occupation of Shanghai by German troops is in accordance with the terms of the Anglo-German Agreement, and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government will invite the German Government to withdraw at an early day all German troops from the British sphere of influence in China.

The Anglo-German Agreement is directed to securing freedom of trade for all nations in the rivers and littoral of China, and to maintaining the territorial integrity of China, and has no relation to the subject of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Is it not the fact that the operation of the Anglo-German Agreement is having the effect of elbowing England out of China?

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Customs have recently issued an order imposing a duty of 7s. per cwt upon apricot pulp which contains no added sugar, that this article contains over 80 per cent. of water, and that fresh apricots when dried yield one-fifth of their weight, and consequently that the pulp will now pay relatively five times as much duty as dried apricots, and this notwithstanding that neither of these articles contain any added sugar whatever; under what authority has this order been issued, and whether all fruit pulp free from added sugar imported or produced in this country will be subject to similar conditions.

This is a question of the Fruit Duty, not of the Sugar Duty. Dried and otherwise preserved apricots and apricot pulp are chargeable with duty at 7s. a cwt. under the Customs Tariff Act, 1876, because apricots are a kind of plum. Duty has long been levied on dried apricots, but apricot pulp has hitherto escaped duty under the idea that it contained sugar, plums preserved in sugar being exempt from duty under the above-mentioned Act. This exemption clearly could not continue after the reimposition of the sugar duty, and it was therefore repealed by the resolution agreed to by the House and embodied in the Finance Bill. From recent analyses in the Customs laboratory, apricot pulp appears to contain no added sugar and very little (at most 10 or 11 per cent.), if any, added water No doubt a pound of pulp contains much less fruit than a pound of dried apricots, but the fact that a particular method of preservation retains the natural juices in the fruit does not afford any legal ground of exemption from duty. I am, however, considering whether a lower rate of duty might not properly be charged on preserved than on dried apricots.

Are we to regard this as a strictly new duty which has never been before the House at all?

No, I have said it is embodied in the Finance Bill.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can explain the differentiation of the sugar duty on canned peaches and other fruits preserved in syrup, which are assessed on the basis of 1s. per cwt. of the nett weight of the contents of the tins, while canned apricots, also preserved in syrup containing a like amount of sugar, are now being charged a duty of 7s. per cwt.

Canned apricots, as I have already explained, are subject to the Fruit Duty. Canned peaches and the other fruit assessed at 1s. the cwt. by General Order 45 of 1901 are not subject to it; therefore the Sugar Duty only is charged on the sugar in each can.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the difference between an apricot and a peach, that one is subject to one treatment and the other to another treatment?

According to the very best authorities I have consulted, it was decided many years ago that an apricot was a plum and a peach was not.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that a rebate on the duty on tea, sugar, whiskey, and tobacco is allowed in the Isle of Man, and in view of the Financial Relations Commission's Report, a similar rebate could be allowed in Ireland to reduce the over-taxation of that country.

The Isle of Man has its own customs tariff, originating with the Tynwald. The duties on tea and tobacco are the same in the Isle of Man as in Great Britain and Ireland, and no rebate on them is allowed. The duty on whiskey is lower in the Isle of Man than in Great Britain and Ireland, and a rebate is consequently allowed on whiskey which has paid duty in Great Britain and is subsequently shipped to Man. As regards sugar, no duty has yet been imposed in the Isle of Man, and sugar removed to that island would receive a rebate under similar circumstances. So long as the customs tariff in Ireland is the same as in Great Britain no question of rebate can arise.

How long will that be?

I hope as long as I live.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state why the relatives of certain apprentices who lost their lives in the "Primrose Hill" disaster were not allowed to be represented at the inquiry held upon the subject, and whether the next-of-kin of men who lose their lives in cases of this kind are entitled to be represented at such inquiries.

I am informed that the relatives were allowed to be represented at the inquiry to the extent of their solicitor being permitted to cross-examine witnesses. But the judge declined to allow them to be made formal parties to the proceedings, and therefore refused to permit their solicitor to address the court at the conclusion of the evidence. By the rules made under the Merchant Shipping Act governing these inquiries, any person who can show that he has an interest in the investigation has a right to appear and be made a party to the proceedings, but the question whether any person succeeds in showing that interest is for the discretion of the judge.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make some new arrangement whereby in similar cases the relatives of all persons who are drowned in ships that are wrecked may have the fullest opportunity in every way of appearing before the court of inquiry? In this case the relatives of twelve unfortunate boys were refused it.

I have already stated what the requirements of the law are, and I have no power to vary the law. The judge, acting on his own discretion, refused to hear the representatives, and I am not prepared to say whether, in my opinion, it was aright or wrong discretion.

I will call attention to this case at an early date.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. Hall, the inspector for North Wales under the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, and Dr. Foster, the late inspector for North Wales under the Metalliferous Mines Acts, were appointed prior to the passing of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, and the Quarries Act, 1894, respectively; and, seeing that Dr. Foster having now resigned, the appointment of Mr. Hall as his successor (he, prior to this appointment, not having been inspector for North Wales under the Metalliferous Mines Acts, but only under the Coal Mines Regulation Acts) now comes under the provisions of the Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, Section 15, as amended by the Quarries Act, 1894, Section 2, Sub-section 2, and in view of the fact that Mr. Hall is not able to speak the Welsh language, and that there are thousands of monoglot miners in North Wales, whether he will, in accordance with the statutory requirements, appoint an inspector in successsion to Dr. Foster acquainted with the Welsh language.

The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second paragraph, it is true that Mr. Hall has not hitherto been inspector for North Wales under the Metalliferous Mines Acts, but he has been the inspector under the Coal Mines Acts, and in accordance with the express provisions of Section 15 of the Metalliferous Mines Act of 1872, I am directing him to act as Metalliferous Mines Inspector in North Wales, and in pursuance of Section 2, Subsection (2), of the Quarries Act of 1894, he will also he inspector of quarries in that district. I am not, therefore, making a new appointment, to which contingency alone, in my opinion, the section of the Quarries Act to which the hon. Member refers applies. Even if it were otherwise, that section requires merely that "among candidates equally qualified, persons having a knowledge of the Welsh language shall be preferred." In this case there was no candidate whose qualifications, could compare with those of Mr. Hall, upon whose ability and good service I need hardly enlarge. With reference to the consideration due to the Welsh-speaking miners, I would repeat that, in accordance with a general scheme of rearrangement in the mines inspection districts, of which this particular question is only part, Mr. Williams and Mr. Jones, the two Welsh-speaking assistant inspectors in North Wales, who have hitherto acted not only for that district but also for four English counties and the Isle of Man, will now devote themselves entirely to inspection in Wales. The new arrangement will, therefore, secure a considerable increase of inspection there by Welsh-speaking inspectors.

was understood to inquire if candidates were advertised, seeing that this was a new appointment.

Order, order!

The question is whether the appointment of an inspector to duties different from those he had hitherto performed, and in a different district, did not constitute a new appointment.

That is a matter of argument.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state what variation there has been in the exports of coal from Cardiff and Newport respectively in May, 1901, as compared with the quantity exported in the corresponding month of last year, and if he will give the percentage increase or decrease.

The quantity of coal exported from Cardiff in May, 1900, was 1,168,722 tons, and in May, 1901, 1,352,279 tons, an increase of 15·71 per cent. The exports of coal from Newport in the same months were 209,077 tons and 210,289 tons, an increase of 58 per cent.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he intends to adopt the standard for milk recommended by the Departmental Committee (Majority Report); and, if so, when such standard will come into force.

To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has had under consideration the Reports, both of the majority and minority, of the Departmental Committee as regards the percentage of solid matter and fat in milk; and if he has come to any decision on the recommendations contained in those Reports.

To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has fixed the standard for milk under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act; if so, can he state what are the standards fixed.

After carefully considering the evidence submitted to the Departmental Committee and their Reports, I propose to fix a standard under which, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, a presumption will be raised that milk is not genuine unless it contains 3 per cent. of milk fat and 8.5 per cent. of non-fatty milk solids. Regulations to this effect are being prepared, and I propose that they shall come into force on 1st August.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, seeing how easily under present conditions, horses are infected with dangerous diseases, he will consider the advisability of issuing a regulation to the effect that every public drinking place for animals must be provided with a standpipe and tap, which will enable carmen to fill their own buckets and water their horses without fear of infection.

I have no power to issue such a regulation as the hon. Member suggests.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will consider the advisability of granting a higher compensation to the owners of diseased animals slaughtered by order of the Board's inspectors; and whether he is aware that £2 as compensation in cases of glanders is insufficient to prevent the owner endeavouring to temporarily cure his horse, and send it for sale to a public place in which it is almost certain to affect surrounding animals.

The diseased animals are slaughtered by the local authority at their own discretion, and without any special order of the Board or their inspectors. The sum of £2 mentioned in the question is the minimum amount of compensation sanctioned by the Board, and one-fourth of the value of the animal immediately before it became diseased is the maximum. Between these two points the decision rests with the local authority, out of whose funds the compensation is paid. A very large proportion of cases of glanders occur in the area of the London County Council, who, I understand, now have the whole subject under their consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state why certain officials from Somerset House and other public offices have for the past six to eight months been employed at from 6d. to 8d. per hour in assisting in the primary sorting at different postal centres in London for as long as three or four hours in the evening, although in receipt of salaries some as high as £160 per annum; and whether he will consider the advisability of having this work performed by members of the permanent postal staff instead of having to resort to dual employment.

The reason is that the assistance is required at a period of the day when all the permanent postal staff whose attendances can possibly be arranged to cover the period in question are already on duty.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether those clerks in the employ of the late Submarine Telegraph Company, who were in 1890 taken over by the Post Office, are allowed to count the whole of their service, including that not rendered to the Crown, towards superannuation.

It is provided by Clause 3 of the Post Office and Telegraph Act of 1897 that officers, of the late Submarine Telegraph Company, who, on the 1st of April, 1889, entered the permanent Civil Service of the State in an established capacity shall, for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts, be entitled to count their past years of continuous service with the company since the 28th of January, 1870, as years passed in the Civil Service of the State.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he will state how many tramcar accidents occurred in Glasgow and Edinburgh respectively during the first four months of the present year, and also the number of electric car accidents in each city during the same period; and, in view of the increase in the number of accidents of this description, will he state the maximum speed at which electric cars are allowed to travel in these cities, and will he say how many cases of excessive speed have been reported by the police.

The Secretary for Scotland has no information on the matters referred to, which do not fall within his departmental jurisdiction.

Then to whom must I apply for the information?

I should say to the Glasgow City Council.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether the Congested Districts Board have yet considered the expediency of providing a grant towards the erection of a small pier or boatslip at Annat, in the parish of Applecross, Ross-shire.

The Congested Districts Board received an application from the county council on the 6th instant, and are making inquiry into the case.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if in the case of sparsely populated districts, especially in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, the Government will provide that medical men may be appointed officers of health without holding diplomas in sanitary science, public health, and State medicine.

The matter is entirely regulated by statute, and the Government have no power in the matter.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state what arrangements, are being made to ensure the satisfactory execution of the designs of Mr. Young and Mr. Brydon for the new Government Offices.

To my great regret both Mr. Young and Mr. Brydon, the architects originally selected to carry out the building of the new War Office and the Government Offices in Parliament Streets have recently died. My hon. friend will remember that Sir John Taylor was specially appointed to act with them as consulting architect. In the case of the War Office, Mr. Clyde Young, the son and partner of the original architect, is now carrying out the work in conjunction with Sir John Taylor. No definite decision has been come to with regard, to the Government Offices in Parliament. Street, the question being now under the consideration of the Treasury and of my Department. The completed plans and drawings are in the hands of the Office of Works, and can easily be carried, out, either by that Department or by an architect specially selected for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of head constables, sergeants, acting sergeants, and constables of good character compulsorily retired from the Royal Irish Constabulary on pension during the past twelvemonths; and the number ordered to apply to be retired, and the counties in which they were stationed in each case.

I can not conveniently give this information within the limits of a reply to a question, and I have communicated a Return on the subject to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain upon what grounds the application of John Desmond for a labourer's cottage in the Ahinah division of the Macroom Rural District Council was rejected by the Local Government Board after it had been passed at the recent Local Government Board inquiry held in Macroom; and whether he is aware that the site for the said cottage was selected so as to fulfil all the requirements of the Labourers Acts, being adjoining the public road and in close proximity to a sufficient supply of water.

The Local Government Board has not rejected this application. The inspector's report on the inquiry has not yet been received by the Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will consider the necessity of taking measures to form a forestry department in Ireland, with the object of utilising suitable waste lands for tree planting, and of preventing the country from being entirely denuded of timber.

The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction is fully alive to the importance of the matter, which it hopes to take up in due time in conjunction with the county councils. It does not appear to be necessary at present to form a special forestry department in Ireland.

Are there any funds at the disposal of the Department to take up a question of this magnitude, or will the Government have to vote more money?

There are funds at the disposal of the Government.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inquiry into the claims and alleged grievances of the Royal Irish Constabulary has yet been brought to a conclusion; if not, can he state when it will be concluded, and will the evidence be made public and available to Members of this House before any decision is arrived at.

The taking of evidence has been completed by the Committee, who will submit their Report to the Lord Lieutenant in due course. The Report and evidence, as I have already stated, will be presented to Parliament.

Of course, if the Irish Government, as a result of the Report, decide to make application to the Treasury for additional money, an opportunity will be afforded of discussing the matter?

That will depend on circumstances.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Council of Agriculture and Technical Instruction at its meeting in Dublin on the 31st ultimo passed a resolution calling on the Government to amend the Local Government Act so as to enable county councils in Ireland to execute arterial drainage and other works of a reproductive character, such as reafforesting, and to simplify the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land and other property necessary for the carrying out of these and other public works; and will he state what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to give effect to this resolution.

I have already replied to questions on the various points referred to in this resolution in answer to questions put to-day and yesterday by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with a view of preventing public roads in several parts of Ireland from falling into a bad condition in the coming winter owing to the uncertainty of contract labour and the direct labour system in prospective, the Government can see their way to have the new order of things, outlined in the improvement of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, come into operation by the 1st day of October next, a proceeding that would give employment to the labourers when it cannot otherwise be had.

I presume the hon. Member refers to the Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. There is a provision in the Order fixing the date on which it is to come into operation as the 1st of April next. This date was fixed having regard to the administrative arrangements of county and district councils, and I do not think it could be altered with advantage.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when the completed census returns for Ireland will be ready, and whether any statistics compiled by the census authorities in addition to the figures already published will be issued before the completed returns are made out.

Complete statistics for each county will be published from time to time, and the first of these county books will, it is expected, be issued in September next. The county books, when completed, will be followed by the general report, but no date can be fixed, even approximately, for the publication of the latter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will propose to make permanent such temporary law, as the Ballot Act, 1872, and other Acts which are renewed annually, but have become part of the settled legal enactments of the realm.

I quite agree that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is rather an anomalous measure, and contains Acts which are practically now part of the permanent statutory system of the realm; but I am very unwilling to touch that Bill without giving a great deal of time to its thorough revision, because, of course, if the Bill be amended at all, it naturally is open to the discussion of the whole House, and it would be a very long affair. For that reason the Government have been very careful that the renewal of the Rating Act should not be carried out by means of that kind, as of course it might have been, but that it should be a separate measure.

May I ask what the business will be next week, and especially what Supply will be taken on Friday?

It is not usual until the beginning of the week to state what Supply will be proceeded with on the Friday, but I shall be happy to make a statement not later than next week. I have received information this morning which makes me think that it may be necessary, or at any rate desirable, to pass the Third Reading of the Civil List Bill at an early date. I will probably put it down as the first Order on Tuesday.

Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate taking any other Bills next week than the Factory Bill, the Civil List Bill, and the Finance Bill?

No.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the character of a handbill which was circulated in Belfast prior to Sunday, the 9th instant, and which openly incited to attacks on a Roman Catholic procession; whether the police had possession of this circular before the riots in Belfast on Sunday last; was any effort made by the police prior to or since the riots to discover the authors and circulators; and, if so, whether any prosecution has been instituted or is intended by the authorities against the authors or circulators of this handbill.

Yes, Sir; this discreditable handbill was brought to my notice, together with written reports for which I had called, to supplement telegraphic reports on these riots. The police seized and destroyed the handbill wherever they found it. The question of instituting proceedings against the person or persons responsible for its publication and the question of what further steps may be necessary to prevent a renewal of disorder are now under consideration. No effort will be spared to protect individuals and property and to bring to justice any persons who can be made amenable for having exposed either to risk.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement which appeared in last evening's Evening Standard of the proceedings in Belfast on Wednesday is correct—

"A shocking onslaught by Queen's Island men—"

It will not be in order to read a paragraph from a newspaper and ask if it is correct. If the hon. Member can vouch for the fact he can then put the question.

I cannot vouch for the facts. I am asking for information. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that on Wednesday last 100 Catholic navvies engaged in making the Musgrave Dock were attacked by Queen's Island men, and were obliged to take refuge in boats in the harbour; that a large number of them were seriously injured by showers of iron nuts thrown by these men; that one of these men had to take refuge in the water and was nearly killed; whether a similar occurrence took place when the Alexandra Dock was being made; whether on that occasion one young man was not actually drowned; whether the recent disturbance which commenced on Sunday and apparently extended up to Wednesday has been effectually put down; and what steps will be taken to make the ringleaders and inciters of these proceedings amenable to the law.

The very regrettable and discreditable incident to which the hon. Member refers took place on Tuesday.

I was asking as to the proceedings on Wednesday.