, in moving the Instruction standing in his name, said he wished first to protest most strongly against the allegation which was constantly being made, that he and those who were supporting the action of his noble friend and himself had a desire to destroy the sale of the property by the authorities of the hospital and thus prevent them from recouping themselves for the purchase of their new premises at Horsham. But a certain distinguished person before he ascended the Throne, speaking on behalf of St. Bartholomew's Hospital in relation to the action of the governors of Christ's Hospital—

It is not in order for an hon. Member to bring the opinions of the Sovereign into debate.

said the observations were made before His Majesty ascended the Throne, but he would not further allude to them except to remark that what was contended for by St. Bartholomew's Hospital had already been embodied in the Bill which had passed through its various stages in another place and would shortly come before the House of Commons, and that fact effectually disposed to that extent of the contention of the authorities of Christ's Hospital that they were not to be allowed to sell the site except en bloc. He now wished to show how unjustifiable were the suggestions of the authorities of Christ's Hospital. Those who were anxious to preserve open spaces came before the House with full authority for what they were doing. The House had recognised long ago that consecrated ground could not be built upon except by the special authority of Parliament. The House had gone further, and had passed within the last ten years two Acts providing that all ground set apart for burial could not be built upon except with the authority of Parliament. But what was the present position of affairs? The governors of Christ's Hospital were asking for special authority to sell their property, although in the same breath they said there was no necessity to obtain the authority of Parliament because they could get an order from the Charity Commission. He did not deny that the authorities of Christ's Hospital could sell their property under an order of the Charity Commission without coming to Parliament, but he maintained they could not by any such order obtain the right to build on burial ground, whether consecrated or not. He held that this was an attempt to get behind the principle of two Acts of Parliament passed within the last ten years. They were constantly being told that the authorities of Christ's Hospital had been offered £700,000 or more for the site provided they could get it freed from the legal disabilities which existed with regard to the two or three graveyards situated upon it. He ventured to think it would be a public scandal if the permission to build upon those burial grounds were granted. If the Bill passed without this Instruction the authorities of Christ's Hospital would be able to build, if they thought fit, on a portion of the ground which now formed about one-third of the Postmen's Park and which was closed as a burial ground by Order in Council in 1863.

It is on a different side of the road.

said he went over the site the previous day; he met the churchwardens of the parish there, and they protested most strongly against this attempt on the part of the governors of Christ's Hospital to secure a piece of land which they believed belonged to the parish churchyard, and which they had laid out and preserved as part of the Postmen's Park. It was supposed to be one of the first principles of Churchman-ship to preserve consecrated ground, but if such ground was to be sold to the highest bidder it was a pity that Oliver Cromwell was unable to carry out the sale of St. Paul's Cathedral to another body for £200,000. It was of no use protesting against disestablishment if they were going to throw over the first principles and sell consecrated land to the highest bidder. According to the high authority of the late Sir Walter Besant, among the names of those whose bones probably lay in this piece of land now proposed to be sold were the following:—Margaret, wife of Edward I.; Isabella, Queen of Edward II.; Joan, Queen of David Bruce; Roger Mortimer, Earl of March; John Hastings, Earl of Pembroke; Sir Nicolas Bramber, one of the great Lord Mayors of London; the Duke of Bourbon, who was taken prisoner at Agincourt; and Sir Thomas Mallory, who wrote the history of the Holy Grail. As he had before stated, Parliament had enforced the law preventing the erection of buildings on disused burial grounds; but the law courts had gone even further than Parliament, for the present Master of the Rolls had decided that land which had been purchased for a cemetery could not be resold, because it was a portion of land set apart for burial purposes. It was asserted that if his Instruction were carried it would spoil the sale of the site altogether. Who was it that made that assertion? The same authority as protested against the sale to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. It was the Charity Commission, represented by his hon. friend the Member for Tonbridge, whom he was surprised to find in favour of desecrating burial grounds. There was an ancient saying that an old poacher made the best game-keeper, and remembering his hon. friend's earliest efforts in that House to defeat proposals of the Charity Commission, he could only say when he saw him now prepared to support one of the grossest acts of desecration that he seemed to have followed the example set by game preservers. It would be a disgrace that land which had been preserved for three hundred years should now be put up for sale for the mere purpose of making the site more valuable. This land could be economically and satisfactorily built upon and the open spaces at the same time preserved. All honour, he said, to the London County Council, who were carrying on the work of preserving the historic sites in the City and the County of London. He could only say that he should decline to have anything more to do with fighting County Council elections on a political basis. He would rather see honest Radicals on the Council who had a respect for history than dishonest Conservatives who were prepared to sell anything for what it would fetch He hoped the House would not decide to reverse the position taken in regard to every burying ground throughout England simply to oblige the authorities of Christ's Hospital and an amiable and misguided Sheriff who had misled the City of London, and he appealed to friends of open spaces in London to present this disgraceful scandal.

seconded the motion, because this matter affected a large number of his constituents from every point of view. The object of the Bill was to get an absolutely clear title to some five acres of land in the, heart of the City of London in order to sell the land at its highest commercial value, and to the minds of ordinary men of the City this might overrule all other considerations. He could quite understand that gentlemen who had spent their lives in the City accumulating wealth, would consider historical buildings of small value as compared with pounds, shillings, and pence. This the promoters desired, to carry out the Act of 1890 in reference to the transfer of their school to the new site at Horsham. No part of London had suffered more severely than his constituency from the pressure of business outwards from the centre, the erection of huge warehouses, and the consequent serious congestion and the rise in rents of the last ten years. A portion of this site included the burying ground of the Grey Friars Monastery, where there were arches remaining of the thirteenth century buildings, and cloisters designed by Wren enclosed the ground. In the cloisters he had observed a monument on which was inscribed a request that the bones of a benefactor might not be removed. Surely that was the least the governors could do for one of their benefactors! But the gist of the question was in finance. It was said that a sum of £500,000 was required for the purchase of land and erection of buildings at Horsham. But £254,000 had been paid, and it would be quite possible to raise £300,000 on the £550,000 worth of property reinvested at Horsham. The expenses of the school were something like £50,000, and the gross receipts £72,000, of which £62,000 was available for school purposes, leaving a net profit of £12,000. The accounts of the foundation by no means showed that the proposal in the Bill was necessary, and, seeing that the total value of the site was over £730,000, the governors could well afford to leave as open spaces the two disused burial grounds in proximity to the cloisters and much of the work having historical and antiquarian interest. The Postmen's Park had been alluded to. Might he point out that within a few hundred yards of this very piece of ground 10,900 persons were daily employed in the Post Office, and that the park was the only open space available for them. He would be the last to urge any proposal which would cripple the educational schemes of the governors, but he did not believe that that would be the effect of the Instruction. That part of the scheme of 1890 which provided for the establish- ment of day schools the governors had not carried out, although they had a surplus of about £11,000 annually. His contention was that it was only right that the Instruction should be carried, so that the subject might be dealt with, not in the interests of education alone, but in the three-fold interest of open spaces, of the preservation of historical remains, and of the carrying out of the wishes of the donors of the charity for enlarging the educational facilities for Londoners as a whole.

said, not being a lawyer, he could not argue from a legal point of view the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury. As a layman he had heard that when a lawyer had a bad case he always abused the opposite side. He was sorry that the hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury should have made use of the words "audacious," "audacity," "desecrating burial grounds," etc., when he was speaking of the governors and almoners of Christ's Hospital, a body of gentlemen who, with rectitude and honour, were endeavouring to carry into effect a scheme which this House passed ten years ago. The resolution proposed by the hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury raised three distinct issues in regard to the Bill now under discussion. First, it was suggested that it was proposed to abrogate two recent Acts of Parliament which now protected ancient burial grounds. Second, that it was desirable that some portion of the site should be retained as an open space. And third, that it was most important to preserve the interesting and historic buildings of the hospital. As to the first contention, it was true that a small portion upon which the great hall was situated was, up to the end of the seventeenth century, used as a place of burial, but under the Act of 1795 this land was made over to the governors, exempted from all further burial claims, and allowed to be built over in consideration of the then governors substituting another ground for burials. That condition was complied with by the governors obtaining the burial ground, in King Edward Street which was outside the site covered by the scope of the Bill now before Parliament. The hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury had asserted over and over again that these were ancient monastic burial grounds and that they had been consecrated. He could only say that the Corporation of the City of London, which had probably greater access than any other body or individual to the most ancient and authentic records appertaining to Christ's Hospital, had been unable to discover the slightest trace of evidence that they had ever been consecrated grounds, and, with the exception of the one portion to which he had referred, it could not be said that they had ever been set aside for burial purposes. It was undoubtedly the case that at one time it was the custom to bury the children of the hospital within its precincts, and there were two vaults, into one of which the remains were transferred during the rebuilding of the school between 1820 and 1831. The last interment took place in 1864. There was not the slightest evidence, so far as could be discovered, that this ground was set apart as a burial ground in the ordinary acceptation of the term, nor was there any authentic record that it had been consecrated. It was only fair to state on behalf of the almoners and governors of Christ's Hospital that, when the Post Office Sites Act of 1885 was before a Select Committee of the House, it was seriously suggested that the Government should acquire the whole site of Christ's Hospital, and the idea was only negatived on account of the unavoidable delay that would be incurred and the extreme value of the property. The Post Office therefore obtained property in the immediate neighbourhood of less value; but had the Government become possessed of the site of Christ's Hospital there was little doubt that the whole of it would have been covered with huge buildings, and nothing would have been heard of these technical and straw-splitting objections which were now raised. The second point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury was that this valuable property in the heart of the City, and the centre of the commercial world, should be retained as an open space. He could not imagine that the House of Commons would seriously entertain it. As a citizen of London, born in the City of London, and having spent most of his time there, and knowing every inch of it quite as well as the hon. and learned Member, he did not hesitate to say that if there was one spot in the City of London where an open space was not wanted, it was Newgate Street. Within a stone's throw of it was the Postman's Park, and that was by no means overcrowded. They were told that the night population of the City was decreasing, and he could assure the hon. and learned Member that the great bulk of those who travelled east daily did not go with the idea of taking a siesta in open spaces. They went for business—to do their work as quickly as possible, and then go home. If those philanthropic bodies—the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings—could induce their subscribers, or if the London County Council could induce the ratepayers, to believe that it was absolutely essential that there should be an open space in Newgate Street, of the value of at least £140,000 per acre, then the governors and almoners of Christ's Hospital were quite prepared to receive offers from either, provided the amount exceeded the sum they were at present negotiating for, namely, £720,000, and they could then do with the site whatever they liked. The third point raised was that interesting and historic buildings should be preserved. In that he had not the slightest doubt but every Member of the House would entirely coincide. Every citizen of London deplored the removal of Christ's Hospital, one of the greatest of City institutions and possessed of a great historic past. They recognised that it had hallowed traditions, but they were not unconscious of the fact that, although the governors of Christ's Hospital opposed the removal of these hospital buildings for twenty years, Parliament in its wisdom ten years ago passed a scheme, and when that scheme became law the governors and almoners endeavoured to carry it out. As to the antiquity of the buildings, the fact was that there were very few ancient structures at all on the site of the hospital, the original fabric having been lost in the great fire of London in 1666. The Great Hall dated only back to 1825. A portion of the court room was built in 1680 and enlarged in 1788. The only really ancient piece of architecture upon the site consisted of a few arches of the thirteenth century. He could inform the House, however, that every care and attention was to be given to the preservation of these and any other matters of antiquarian interest. So also was it the earnest wish of all to pay proper reverence and respect to any human remains that might be found. He might mention that the fact that burying had taken place in a particular spot did not constitute it a burial ground. When his firm excavated the foundations for their bank they came across human remains, but that did not constitute the site a burial ground. The hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury had not brought one tittle of evidence in support of his very weak case. Before he passed from the burial ground question, he would remind the House that the London County Council, who were taking up such a philanthropic attitude that day, were carting away loads and loads of human remains in making their new road from Holborn to the Strand. He understood from the hon. and learned Member for East Finsbury that there was no intention to wreck this Bill, but he ventured to say that if this Instruction was passed it would practically ruin the Bill. The governors and almoners had a firm offer of £720,000, but that was contingent that there was to be an unassailable title. Technicalities might exist, and might be valuable to lawyers hereafter. What they asked, in bringing forward this Bill, was to enable the governors to say to this would-be purchaser, "Parliament has overlooked these technicalities, and we can give you an unassailable title." Upon that, and that alone, depended this large sum, and the successful carrying out of the scheme which had been settled by Parliament. The whole matter shaped itself into a very small compass. After twenty years of controversy the Charity Commissioners passed in this House a scheme for the removal of Christ's Hospital from London to the country. The scheme imposed great responsibility on the governors. It made it compulsory for them to erect a new school in the country for 700 boys, and a school for 300 girls; a preparatory school for 120 boy boarders; a science school for 600 scholars, and a day school for 400 girls. It was obvious to any unbiassed mind that that scheme would never have passed Parliament if it had not been thoroughly and morally understood that this very valuable site was to be turned into money with which to erect and maintain these new schools, with their far-reaching educational effects. The hon. Gentleman opposite had asserted that the governors had a surplus income of £20,000, although upon consideration he had brought it down to £11,000 or £12,000.

said the hon. Gentleman misrepresented him. He had pointed out that the statement published by certain petitioners was an error, and had quoted, in order to correct that error, the report of the governors for last year, showing a surplus of £11,000.

said that whether it was £11,000 or £20,000 it was absolutely erroneous. Owing to the prudent policy of the governors and almoners of this great charity they had been cutting down the numbers of their scholars as low as possible, pending their removal to the country. It was quite true that last year showed a paper surplus of £11,000, but if the scheme was carried out and the children brought up to the standard of the scheme the income necessary would be £70,500, or £10,500 more than the present income. To meet this a capital sum was now required of £350,000. The estimated amount of capital required to complete and equip the new schools at Horsham and the girls' boarding school was £290,000, in addition to the £360,000 already appropriated for the purpose by sales and realisations, and but for which appropriation the present available income would, of course, have been proportionately more. If the day and science schools for 1,000 children, as directed by the scheme, were to be provided for, it was estimated that, without reckoning for any free places or exhibitions, a capital sum was needed of £300,000. That made a total fresh capital expenditure required of £940,000. The actual value of the stocks now remaining in the hands of the governors was £223,000, of which £177,000 was alone applicable to educational purposes, the remainder having been hypothecated and earmarked for exhibitions and such like objects. It therefore followed that, even if the site realised £720,000, and if Parliament sanctioned this Bill, they would only have £177,000 more, making the aggregate sum of £897,000, to meet an estimated outlay of £940,000. It was consequently imperative that Parliament should give assistance to those who were carrying out this great educational scheme. The Bill began and ended with enabling the governors to turn a long leasehold held by the corporation into a freehold, and to say to a would-be purchaser, "Parliament has spoken, and has carried through this scheme, and has enabled us to give you an unassailable title." He would conclude by quoting the words of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dartford. Speaking in 1890 as Vice-President of the Education Department the right hon. Baronet said, "The House has only to decide on the educational advantages of the scheme as it stands, and I feel sure that the House will endorse this excellent scheme."

said that he might be old-fashioned in his ideas of Parliamentary practice, but he must confess that he resented the system of moving Instructions to Committees upstairs, as if the House had no confidence in the justice with which these Committees would act. Instructions only hampered the discretion of the Committees as to what they ought or ought not to do. His hon. friend who had just addressed the House had said that he deplored the transference of Christ's Hospital School from the City to the country. He would not have ventured to interfere in this debate at all had he not once had the honour of occupying the position of medical officer to a public school, and could claim therefore to have some knowledge of the conditions in which a public school ought to be carried on. He thought that anyone acquainted with Christ's Hospital School knew the inferior sanitary conditions under which scholastic work was carried on—the poor bedroom accommodation, and the miserable conditions in which the boys were compelled to take their play in narrow, sanded courts, instead of in grass fields in the free air of the country. He was bound to say that he thought a very wise step had been taken when the governors of Christ's Hospital, like those of Charter House, determined to pull up their roots in the crowded City and go into the free air of the country. Anyone who had visited Charter House since its removal to the country would realise what a magnificent success the transference had been. No longer were the boys poor, dwarfed, and stunted, but bright, strong, and healthy. The whole case in favour of the aesthetic character of the building had been absolutely shattered. Something had been said about Charles Lamb; but anyone who had ever read the life and writings of Lamb would remember the misery, semi-starvation, and wretched sanitary conditions of these hospitals in former days. He entirely agreed with those who wanted to change the site of the school to the country, and he opposed the motion because he held that it would seriously interfere with the work of the school. Something had also been said about ancient burial grounds. He had a certain respect for the dead but more respect for the living. He thought that if the comfort and convenience of the living required that a burial ground should be used for that purpose, then the comfort and convenience of the dead should give way to that of the living. He went further; he thought it was very inconvenient that dead bodies should be buried at all. He should prefer that they should be cremated. He was entirely opposed to this Instruction, because he objected to Instructions to Committees; and in the second place, because it would seriously cripple the governors of Christ's Hospital in carrying out their scheme.

said that as the Minister who was responsible in 1890 for carrying this scheme through Parliament he would be compelled to oppose the motion. What was the present position of the scheme? Such schemes went through a very harsh process. First of all they were framed under the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and other Acts; next they went through a certain process at the Education Department; then they were subjected to the machinery of an appeal to the Privy Council, and after that they had to lie on the Table of the House for a certain time in order that the criticisms of hon. Members might be applied to them. He was at the Education Department when the scheme before the House was considered, and he knew that it had been very closely dealt with by the Charity Commissioners, who spent four or five days over it. He himself thought it a great pity that a matter of the kind should be hung up, and he was moved by one argument—namely, fresh air and green fields. The scheme passed the House unanimously. It was twice discussed, and on neither occasion was it pressed to a division. It passed through a searching inquiry at the Education Department, and there was an appeal to the Privy Council in which judgment was unanimously given against the appellants and in favour of the scheme. When it came before the House his right hon. friend the present Chairman of Committees, who then represented the Charity Commissioners, stated that the scheme was assented to by all parties. He wished to make an appeal to the House. It would, he thought, be a grievous shame, eleven years after a decision had been arrived at, for Parliament, by a side wind, to wreck such a scheme as that. There might be difficulties connected with the settlement, but the Committee upstairs was completely competent to deal with them, without the House fettering their discretion by an Instruction. He would appeal to hon. Mem- bers, therefore, while admitting that everything was to be said for open spaces, not to drive the hospital too hard.

said he fully accepted the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman had just appealed to the House; but while accepting the appeal he felt that there were grounds which should induce the House, although quite friendly to the measure, to adopt the Instruction which had been moved. The Bill appeared to have been drawn on somewhat singular lines. Power was given to the governors to dispose of two classes of property, with regard to which at present they had no powers of sale. One was leasehold property, and the other was very vaguely described as property in which interments had taken place. The governors could not deal with that property at present; it did not belong to them in any effective sense, because it could not be converted to the purposes of the charity, and the Bill provided that the governors should be now allowed to dispose of the whole site. He could understand the argument that would be used upstairs, that the Committee could not take into consideration any public interest attaching to the site in special relation to the usor to which it was at present subject. All that the Instruction provided was that the Committee should have power to consider not merely the educational necessities of the charity, but the public requirements of the City of London, having regard to the mode in which the site was at present used. There were two modes of usor to which attention had been drawn—one was consecrated ground, and the other was open spaces and the portions of the site formerly used for burial purposes, which were now used as open spaces. They were dealing with three open spaces which at present afforded a recreation ground for the people living in that portion of London, and which were very advantageous for the public health. The Instruction suggested that the Committee should not be influenced solely by the financial needs of the charity, but should take into consideration, first of all, the reasonable requirements of the charity, and next should have regard to the interests of London in relation to open spaces and the importance of preserving some, at least, of the more interesting buildings. Surely an indication of opinion from the House that the Committee should have regard to these open spaces, and the provision the governors were prepared to make with reference to them, should commend itself to every friend of the measure.

The House is not now dealing with some case which might possibly arise of a greedy corporation desirous of selling a site for money, and so adding to their resources. It is not a case of that kind at all. What are the circumstances which have brought Christ's Hospital to this House? They did not want to leave the City; they had no desire whatever to convert this valuable piece of ground into money so as to add to their financial resources. They were sorry to leave the City, and the City was very sorry to part with Christ's Hospital, which for years has been one of the most prized institutions within its limits. They were forced to go by the scheme of the Charity Commissioners, very much against their will, and very much against the will of the City. We must, in matters of education, consider what is most beneficial for the young people receiving education, and there can be no doubt that so far as they are concerned—so far as light and air and education are concerned—they will unquestionably benefit by the change. But, whatever the merits or the demerits of that matter may be, I would beg the House to remember, in dealing with this question, that they are dealing with a body that has been forced to part with this property much against their will and to erect buildings in the country. Now, in order that they should do that, they find it necessary to ask for certain powers with regard to the site, and the House is now asked to place a limitation upon them in respect of the sale of the site. The hon. and learned Member said they had a right to act as is suggested, as the governors of Christ's Hospital came to Parliament to ask for two or three privileges of great value which they did not now possess. One of the privileges was that a certain piece of land was going to be converted from a leasehold into a freehold. That is perfectly true, but what is the extent of the leasehold? It extends for 790 years, and I am told that the ground rent does not exceed £10 a year. To get rid of this is, of course, a technical advantage, but, after all, it is not very much that Christ's Hospital is asking Parliament for, that they should get their assent to an arrangement which the ground landlords are perfectly willing to enter into—namely, the conversion of a leasehold of 700 or 800 years at a ground rent of £10 a year into a freehold. That is not very much of a ground on which to ask Christ's Hospital to part with a valuable consideration. Then it is said that power is being asked to build over three open spaces. The ground on the other side of the street has been referred to, but I am told that power is not being asked to build over that at all. It was given in exchange many years ago, and will remain exactly in the position in which it now is, even if the House does not pass the Instruction. Then, as to the burial ground, it is spoken of as if it were almost unprecedented that Parliament should be asked for powers to build over a burial ground. Parliament has given that power again and again under certain restrictions and limitations, and the same restrictions and limitations will apply under the Bill. The hon. and learned Member spoke of the requirements of the City in regard to open spaces. Anyone who knows the City would laugh at the idea of an open space in Newgate Street. There is no resident population, it is one of the business parts of the City, and the land is worth I do not know how many thousand pounds an acre, and to say that it is required as a recreation ground is really almost trifling with the House. The City has not too many open spaces, but there are open spaces, and hardly a man who knows the City would say that this is the place where anything of the kind is required. So that whether with regard to open spaces or with regard to the burial ground, I do not think there is any case made out for the Instruction, which undoubtedly would have an effect, and it might possibly be a very serious effect, on the finances of the hospital. If the Instruction were passed, and if there were incorporated with the Bill that which the hon. and learned Member who moved it desires, the value of the site would be enormously reduced, without, in my opinion, any adequate return to anyone. I would like to say also that it is not at all certain that if the Instruction were carried the objects which the hon. and learned Member desires would follow. As I understand it, what might follow would be that the Bill would be abandoned and that the Governors of Christ's Hospital would dispose of the site at a lower figure or would themselves build on it, so that, in any event, I do not believe that that desired by the mover of the Instruction would follow. I have another point which I should like to impress upon the House. I understand that the London County Council are proceeding to present a petition against the Bill, and that they have raised in the petition every one of the points referred to by the hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Instruction, so that without an Instruction of this kind the Committee will have these matters before them if they consider it advisable to take them into account. That is a very different thing from the House passing an Instruction, because by passing an Instruction of this kind the House will lend important support to the propositions contained in the Instruction, while otherwise they will be considered in the ordinary way by the Committee on a petition presented by the London County Council. But whether that be so or not, I think no argument of any valid character has been used in support of the Instruction, and I very much hope that the House will not give countenance to what I consider a most unfair method of procedure by passing an Instruction which, while it would in my opinion greatly damage the value of the site, would not really secure that which the supporters of the Instruction desire should be carried out. I hope, therefore, the House will not pass the Instruction.

said that the right hon. Gentleman did an injustice to many who supported the Instruction when he said that there was anything unfair in their methods of procedure. The governors of Christ's Hospital had undoubtedly a right to sell their property, but it was not good enough for them without a special Act of Parliament. They asked Parliament to improve and enlarge their title, and the Act of Parliament would be worth from £200,000 to £250,000 to them. Parliament being about to grant that benefit, had not the public some emphatic right to a quid pro quo, especially as Christ's Hospital, which had since its foundation been an essentially metropolitan charity, was now about to be removed from the sphere of the metropolis. He was extremely sorry for it himself, and he applauded the action of the governors in fighting against it for twenty years. It was a pity, too, that when the governors had all England to choose from for their new site, they should have dumped their schools at the side of the railway and on a soil that was five feet thick with clay, and that they should have erected buildings which, even in the opinion of the Local Government Board, were notoriously ugly barrack schools. As to the antiquarian interest of the question, there were buildings by Wren which were extremely fine, and the hall, to which the Corporation attached very little importance, was one of the finest halls in London. Just at this point was Newgate Gaol, also a very fine building, which had only been condemned by the City.

I must correct the noble Lord; that is not so. There has been no delay on the part of the Corporation. The Corporation has been desirous of rebuilding the Old Bailey for twenty-five years past, but the plans have from time to time been questioned or condemned by His Majesty's judges.

said he would not pursue that matter, but with regard to the burial ground he would just say one word. The hon. Baronet had said that it was not certain that this was a burial ground. Then why was the Bill brought in? The cloisters, not merely on the existing southern site, were full of graves The hon. Baronet said that the City authorities had no record of its ever having been a burial ground. It was not in the City that these things were to be found, but in the British Museum, and the fact that this was a consecrated burial ground was unanswerable. These human remains were to be removed and placed elsewhere in spite of what was perhaps the most humble piece of eloquence ever written or spoken; the inscription upon a tablet in the southern cloisters was, "Here lies the benefactor; let no one move his bones." Yet, in spite of that, and in spite of the fact that this has been a burial ground, these human remains were, in the words of the Bill, to be placed in "well pitched shells" and removed elsewhere. There was no doubt whatever that this charity was not such a poverty-stricken corporation as the promoters of the Bill expected the House to believe. The accounts of this charity had to be published annually for general information, but he had found it very difficult to get hold of them. It was evident from them that the almoners had at their disposal for educational purposes very considerable sums which they did not possess ten years ago, and as the almoners appeared to have approached this question from a purely commercial point of view, why should they not consent to raise a considerable sum upon the mortgage of their new freehold—[Sir JOSEPH DIMSDALE: Who would give it?]—as they easily could unless they had been very much deceived in the property on which they had spent £550,000. It had been said that no proposal would be made to build upon that open space known as the Postmen's Park. In the opinion of the governors of Christ's Hospital and of the Home Secretary there was no further need for open spaces in the City. If that was to be the permanent opinion of the right hon. Gentleman he would undertake to come to close quarters with him on many occasions during his term of office. With regard to building over open spaces he apprehended the right hon. Gentleman had again been guilty of rather an error; he said they were not open spaces in the sense that the public had access to them. That was true. As a member of the public he had no access to Grosvenor Square, but as a member of the public he would consider himself legitimately aggrieved if the owner of that property built over it, and the same argument applied to open spaces in the City—especially to such as had been consecrated. He wanted Christ's Hospital to sell their ground, and he also desired that they should be able to use these buildings for the purposes for which they required buildings for schools and offices. They had to have a school within three miles of the Mansion House or the Royal Exchange, and what an ideal spot this would be for the London University, now housed, he believed, in the back parlours of the Imperial Institute. All he asked was that when Parliament was giving a magnificent gift to the governors and almoners of Christ's Hospital, without which the price offered to them would be £200,000 less, the House should pass an Instruction asking a Committee upstairs to inquire whether, subject to the interests of the educational establishment, as set forth in the Instruction, something could be done by which this great, valuable, and historic site might be used for the benefit of the public and of education.

said it was his duty, as representing the Charity Commission in this House, to say he was a supporter of the Bill and an opponent of the Instruction. In the view of the Charity Commissioners the Bill was the best and the only proper means of carrying out the scheme passed for Christ's Hospital ten years ago, and in obedience to which Christ's Hospital was removed into the country. He opposed the Instruction because it would practically destroy the Bill, and would prevent Christ's Hospital from realising their site to the best advantage. It seemed to be thought by a large number of the Members of this House that if the Instruction was carried an open space and ancient monuments would thereby be preserved. If the Instruction was carried and the Bill was withdrawn the result would be, not that the governors would not be allowed to sell, but that, subject only to the consent of the Charity Commissioners, which would be given, Christ's Hospital would deal with the site and lay itself open to the possibility of a lawsuit. The whole site could be cut up and buildings could be erected. No open space would be preserved except that a small courtyard in the middle might be preserved if the courts decided that this was a burying ground, and so far from attaining the object which his hon. friend had in view it would do nothing of the kind; the only result would be that the educational establishment of this great charity would get £200,000 less than they would if this Bill was passed. The hon. Gentleman said that this was a gift of £200,000 to Christ's Hospital, but as a matter of fact all they were doing was to enable this great educational charity to deal with its property to the best advantage, as was done by all other public schools. Why should not Christ's Hospital be allowed to deal with its property to the best advantage? Why should not this site be devoted to educational purposes rather than to an open space? The hon. Gentleman below the gangway said that if this Bill were allowed to pass the Charity Commissioners would be poachers, but if this Instruction were carried the hon. Gentleman would be the greatest poacher of all, because he would take away the

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the fort within which the Boer prisoners are kept at Ahmednagar is surrounded by a high-walled embankment which shuts out every breeze; whether the huts are roofed with corrugated iron, and the temperature noted at midnight inside the huts was several times over 100, and at times as much as 108 during the month of May; and whether steps can and will be taken to remove the Boer prisoners to a more healthy position.

I have already stated that there is no intention of removing the Boer prisoners. I have no information as to the details referred to in the hon Member's question; but, as I stated yesterday in answer to the question of the hon. Member for East Clare, the station is considered to be one of the healthiest and most agreeable in India.

Will the noble Lord make inquiries as to the accuracy of the statements I have laid before him?

No, I will not make any inquiries. The Governor of Bombay has visited the place, and he found the prisoners perfectly well satisfied. The attacks made in this country on the salubrity of Ahmednagar are received with universal ridicule throughout India.

I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the subject on the first opportunity.

May I ask the noble Lord whether it is not absolutely the fact that the Army Medical Department has declared this place, last year or the year before, to be the most unhealthy station in India?

Order, order! The question has been answered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of children in the camps of concentration in South Africa, and how many of such children are now under instruction; whether he is aware that the Bloemfontein camp contains about 2,000 children, while school accommodation is only provided for 200; and whether the necessary steps will be taken as soon as practicable to provide all the children with school accommodation.

The total number of children in these camps was 34,112 at the end of May. No figures of the actual numbers attending school have been reported, but every effort is being made to provide ample school accommodation at all the camps. Schools have been started in most of the camps, being held either in a large room set apart in one of the iron and wood structures or marquee tents.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been taken as to relaxing the rule under which all persons in the concentration camps in South Africa have been compulsorily detained in them, and how soon he expects to be able to publish the new regulations on this subject; and whether he will give orders that very young children who cannot be properly fed in the camps where they are now confined shall, with their mothers, be removed to camps in Cape Colony where nosimilar difficulty would exist.

I have nothing to add to what I have already said on these subjects.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he told me about six weeks ago that in every one of these camps persons were free to come and go as they liked?

did not reply.

The right hon. Gentleman made the statement to me across the floor of the House—that everyone was free to come and go as they liked.

I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was that in respect to the particular camp in Cape Colony, so far as my information went, those who were there were free to come and go, but I warned hon. Gentlemen that if these questions were pressed on me when I had not full information I could only give such information as I was aware of.

This is a very serious matter, but I suppose I shall only be in order in giving notice that at the earliest possible moment I will call attention to the fact that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman now is not correct, and that he did inform me some weeks ago that every person was free to come and go.†

I must say that the question was pressed on me, among several others, as a supplementary question, and I gave such information as I could on the spur of the moment.

Mr. Speaker—

Order, order! Of any further questions notice must be given. The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the question, said that he could add nothing to the information he had already given.

The question I wish to ask—

Order, order! I have said that no further questions can be put without notice.

Then I beg to give notice that I shall ask the right hon. gentleman at what date these unfortunate women and children will be released.

On a point of order, Sir, I wish to ask what authority the right hon. Gentleman has—

Order, order!

† Refer to Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xciii., p. 930; also Vol. lxxxix., p. 1021.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a report from the medical officer on the state of the health of the children in the Bloemfontein camp; if so, what is the nature of the report; and will the recommendations it contains be acted upon.

The report in question has not reached me.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when and by whom communications were made to the Boer leaders asking them to undertake the responsibility of feeding the women and children in the denuded districts; whether they were accompanied by an assurance that the food supplies provided by the Boers for that purpose would not be taken away or destroyed by the British troops; and whether he will lay on the Table of the House the correspondence, if any, which passed on the subject.

Information on some of these points will be found in the correspondence relating to farm-burning which I propose shortly to lay upon the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Corporation of Glasgow, in consequence of the adoption of electric traction on their tramways, are disposing of their stud of horses, numbering between 4,000 and 5,000, which horses are being sold in batches, the last batch averaging £26 per horse; and whether, seeing that the average price of an artillery horse in this country is £42, and that up to the present time no attempt has been made by the remount department to secure any of these horses, nor any of the same class sold some time ago under similar circumstances by the Liverpool tramways companies, he will consider the advisability of now securing some of the most suitable of these hard-conditioned horses.

I am aware of the sales in question. The horses, however, are not considered suitable for artillery services.

Are none of them suitable for remount purposes or any other military purpose?

I can add nothing to my answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that during the voyage of the transport ship "Cervona" from New Orleans to the Cape the remount officer, contrary to the advice of the veterinary surgeon, threw 270 horses overboard in the belief that they were suffering from glanders, whereas when bad weather put a stop to this operation it was proved that the horses had only common colds; and whether, seeing that this action represents a waste of £6,750, exclusive of the cost of freight, he will consider the advisability of appointing none but officers of the Army Veterinary Department to the Remount Department.

My attention has been drawn to this matter, which is now under the consideration of the military authorities.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state approximately the total amount payable or paid to contractors in South Africa in connection with the war up to date.

As I have explained to the House on a previous occasion, this information can only be obtained by a very laborious process. A letter, however, was despatched to South Africa to inquire what informa- tion could be readily obtained and forwarded to the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that when the Lewis section of the Seaforth Militia, numbering about 600 men, reached Kyle of Lochalsh last Tuesday night from Egypt, it was found that the steamer "Lovedale," which had been appointed to convey them to Stornoway, could carry only 370 of the men, in consequence of which the remaining 230 were left at Kyle, where there are but few houses and only limited accommodation, at the station to await the sailing of the "Clydesdale" on the following afternoon; and, seeing that the "Lovedale" affords little protection from the weather for so large a number of men, and was unsuited for the conveyance of troops just returning from a hot climate on such a night as the 11th June, which was cold, wet, and stormy, will he state who is responsible for having neglected to provide sufficient steamer accommodation to admit of the whole of these men proceeding to Stornoway on the night of their arrival at Kyle.

Under ordinary circumstances the men would have found their own way home after disembodiment at Dingwall, but in deference to the desire of the local authorities for a public reception at Stornoway, arrangements were made with the agent of the Highland Railway Company to secure their transit by the "Clansman," a vessel capable of conveying the whole 600 men. At the last moment, however, this vessel proved not available, and the "Lovedale" was substituted by the owner of the steamboats. Every effort was made by the local military authorities to secure further accommodation at once, but without success. No blame can be attached to the military authorities.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Messrs. Kynoch, Limited, are offering to supply to Volunteer corps reliable ammunition for the service rifle at a lower price than that charged to Volunteer corps by the Government; will he state whether the Order recently issued by the War Office, forbidding Volunteer corps to purchase ammunition from any other source than the Government, was made on the grounds that Messrs. Kynoch's ammunition is of inferior quality to that supplied by the Government; and, if not, for what reason Volunteer corps have been forbidden to avail themselves of this cheaper source of supply.

I understand that Messrs. Kynoch have offered to sell a Volunteer corps small-arm ammunition that has not passed the Government tests. No new Order has been issued on the subject, but attention has been called to paragraph 2,035 of the King's Regulations, which lays down that, as serious damage may be done to rifles by the use of unsuitable ammunition, commanding officers are to forbid the troops under their orders to use any ammunition, whether ball, blank, or dummy, except that provided by the Government.

But is that the fact that Messrs. Kynoch offered to sell their ammunition at £1 per 1,000 rounds less than it is supplied by the Government?

I have informed the hon. Gentleman that it is understood the ammunition which they offered to sell was ammunition which had not passed the Government test.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether it is now intended to disembody any of the Militia battalions serving at home; if so, can he name them and give the dates of the intended disembodiment.

No decision has yet been arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that certain Army pensioners engaged in the band at Whale Island only receive second class lodging allowance instead of the first class which was granted to them on joining, and is still enjoyed by the remainder of the band who are not pensioners; and whether the Admiralty will consider the possibility of granting to these pensioners the maximum allowance.

The allowance referred to is not a lodging allowance, but compensation in lieu of provisions, fuel, and lights. On their first appointment in August, 1895, the rate of compensation paid to certain Army pensioners serving in the Whale Island band was 1s. 6d. a day, the amount granted to active service ratings. In the same year, however, it was decided that the allowance to these men should be made uniform with that granted to the whole of the other pensioners in reserve and stationary ships—namely, 1s. 1d. a day. This arrangement took effect on 1st September, 1895, and is now in force.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that owing to the insufficient number of stokers rating at Chatham, Portsmouth, and Devonport, many warships during the last six months while in the reserves have had to be content with barely more than one-third of their proper allowance of men for care and maintenance of machinery and double bottoms, and what steps he proposes to take for increasing the allowance.

It is undoubtedly the fact that, owing to the large number of ships at present in commission, the number of stokers available is inadequate. In order to meet the deficiency 500 additional stokers are being entered during the present year.

Is there any intention of increasing the pay of the men in order to induce a sufficient number to join?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the Embassy from the Dalai Lama of Thibet to His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, with the alleged object of soliciting the protection of Russia against British encroachments; and whether His Majesty's Government has made, or proposes to make, any communication to the Russian Government upon this subject.

It has been recently reported in the Russian press that a special mission from Thibet, consisting of seven persons, headed by the Lama Daroshiyeff, was on its way to St. Petersburg, but His Majesty's Government have received no confirmation of this statement.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the wine from the Royal cellars, advertised to be sold on Monday next as duty paid, has paid duty; and, if not, whether duty will be now charged to the purchaser.

It has been arranged some time since that the duty on the wine in question will be paid out of the proceeds of sale, and not by the purchaser.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the catalogues which have been extensively circulated state that the duty is paid. Is not that a false description?

Not if it is to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale.

But it is not paid.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state when and under what circumstances the tax already paid upon coal shipped for export under contracts made before 19th April, 1901, which have since been duly filed and returned by the Customs authorities, will be refunded.

The duty already paid upon coal shipped for export under any pre-Budget contracts which may be accepted and registered by the Board of Customs will be refunded by them upon verification of the shipments under the contracts.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the person responsible for placing the coal f.o.b. is, upon the Tyne, usually not the person who enters the coal for shipment, he can state who, under these circumstances, is responsible for' paying the export duty.

The person who enters the coal for shipment is the person to whom the Board of Customs look for payment of the export duty.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Return of the number, ages, and ratings of seamen, in continuation of Command Paper 8579 of 1897, which was to be postponed for the Census, can now be given.

The Return asked for is in course of preparation, but it will not be ready for presentation for some time. The figures are taken from the inward lists of vessels, many of which were absent from the United Kingdom on Census day and some of which will not return for some months.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether foreign merchant officers' certificates are accepted as the same as British certificates for officers in British ships.

No, Sir; certificates required under the Merchant Shipping Act to be held by officers of British ships must, in all cases, be British certificates.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any information as to the number of certificated officers ordinarily carried on ships of various tonnages?

Every British foreign-going merchant ship and every passenger ship of 100 tons and over is bound to carry at least one certificated officer besides the master.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether large vessels—ships of over 2,000 tons—are not required to carry more than one mate with the captain?

There is no legal requirement of that kind. The legal requirements are set forth in Section 92 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole question of sea fish culture; and, if so, what form the Committee will take, what the terms of reference to the Committee will be, and if the Committee will hold local sittings to collect information in the principal centres of the fishing industry.

I propose to appoint a Departmental Committee "to inquire and report as to the best means by which the State or local authorities can assist scientific research as applied to problems affecting the fisheries of Great Britain and Ireland, and in particular whether the object in view could best be attained by the creation of one central body or department, acting for England, Scotland, and Ireland, or by means of separate departments or agencies in each of the three countries." It will be for the Committee to determine the manner in which their inquiries will be conducted.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that some time since a Commercial Intelligence Committee was appointed in connection with the Foreign Office representing Government departments and commercial interests, whether he can give the names and composition of that Committee, and state what duties it performs, how often it meets, and when the last meeting was held; and whether any Report or recommendations have been issued relative to the commercial interests of the country.

The Committee consists at present of two representatives of the Board of Trade, one representative of the Foreign, Colonial, and India Offices respectively, two representatives of the Imperial Institute, and seven representatives of the commercial community appointed on the recommendation of the Associated Chambers of Commerce. Some representatives of colonial commerce are about to be added. I shall be happy to show a list of names of the present members to the hon. Member if he so desires. The duties of the Committee are to supervise generally the collection and diffusion of commercial information through the Commercial Intelligence Branch of the Board of Trade, and to advise the Board on any matters that may be referred to it. The Committee has met four times during the past year, the last meeting having been on April 30th. The Committee being an advisory one, it is not the practice to publish its Reports and recommendations but I may mention that among the subjects which have recently been under it consideration have been the probable effect on British trade of the forthcoming revision of the German tariff and the improvement in the methods of obtaining commercial information with regard to the colonies.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what numbers of police were employed at the meeting held in favour of the Boer cause at the Queen's Hall on Wednesday last, in the hall itself and in the approaches to it; and will he state what numbers are usually employed at other political meetings in the same hall, and what extra expense has been entailed on the ratepayers or taxpayers of the country.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of extra police employed to maintain order in connection with the recent meeting on 19th June at the Queen's Hall; whether the constables thus employed were withdrawn from their ordinary duties or leisure for the occasion; whether any parts of London were thereby deprived of their normal police protection; whether the cost of such extra protection will now and in the future be paid by the promoters of meetings; and whether he will consider the advisability of prohibiting similar meetings as calculated to cause a breach of the peace.

Before the question is answered I wish to call attention to the expression in the question, "the meeting held in favour of the Boer cause," and to ask whether this is not controversial matter, and whether therefore such an expression is in order.

It is desirable to exclude controversial matter from questions, but I presume that this is an account given by the hon. Member, who vouches for the description himself.

I was chairman at the meeting, and I entirely deny the accuracy of the statement. The meeting was held against the Government, sitting on that bench.

It is very difficult to draw the line exactly as to whether a phrase in a question is controversial or merely descriptive. If my attention had been called to it, I think I should have suggested a less controversial form.

I should like to say that I had no wish to put this question in a controversial form, and the form in which it was put arose simply from my having read the resolutions passed by the meeting.

In answer to these two questions, I have to say that, in accordance with the invariable practice in the case of meetings of a political nature, there were no police employed inside the Queen's Hall. The total number of police employed in the course of the evening in the vicinity of the hall in consequence of the meeting was 357. So far as I am aware, there have been no political meetings there before with which a comparison can be made. Promoters of meetings are never asked to pay anything in connection with the employment of extra police for the purpose of keeping order in the streets, but on this occasion no extra expense was incurred. Whenever an abnormal number of people are likely to assemble, extra police must necessarily be present, and necessarily also these extra police are withdrawn from their ordinary duties and leisure for the occasion. It is not in my power to prohibit meetings in private buildings.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the presence of the extra police was in any way due to the incitements which appeared in various London newspapers for several days in connection with this meeting, also by way of handbills circulated on the Stock Exchange and anonymous placards published in the press?

No, Sir. I am not aware that the presence of the police was due to any such cause. It was known that in all probability a great amount of feeling would be displayed, and that a large crowd would collect, and it is the duty of the police in these circumstances to keep order in the streets.

May I ask whether it is not the fact that the policy of allowing extravagant opinions to be expressed in perfect freedom is the best means of bringing those opinions into contempt?

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

Arising out of the answer of the Home Secretary, may I ask him whether on the next occasion that extra police are required—

Order, order!

Whether he will draw them from County Mayo, where they are not required?

If the hon. Member asks an irregular question and I call him to order, it is not usual to disregard my ruling. It is highly disrespectful, and contrary to the rules of the House.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent, as representing the Charity Commissioners, if he can state whether the sum of £60 per annum allotted by the Charity Commissioners for the payment of an assistant curate in the parish of St. George, Botolph Lane, has been paid during the past seven years, or during what period since services have been discontinued in the said church of St. George, Botolph Lane, and St. Botolph, Billingsgate; and if, as set forth in the scheme now lying upon the Table of this House for the union of benefices of the said parishes of St. George, Botolph Lane, and St. Mary-at-Hill, the said sum continues payable; and whether he can give the names of the rector and the assistant curate by whom the allotted stipend has been received.

The annual sum of £60 was assigned to Canon MacColl during his tenure of office as rector of St. George, Botolph Lane, for the payment of a curate under a clause (48) of the central scheme for the City parochial charities, which deals with ecclesiastical vested interests and payments. This payment has been made for the last seven years, during which period the services have been discontinued in the church of St. George. In the event of the union of the benefices of St. George, Botolph Lane, and St. Mary-at-Hill, and the appointment as incumbent of the united parishes of some other person than the present rector of St. George, the payment in question would fall into the residue of the City Church Fund, and become applicable by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Commissioners are without information as to the name of the assistant curate by whom the payment has been received.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any agreement has yet been arrived at with the North British Railway Company in regard to the conveyance of mails over the new railway between Fort William and Mallaig; and, if not, will he explain the cause of the delay and state the terms of the proposed contract.

An agreement has not yet been arrived at with the North British Railway Company in regard to the conveyance of mails over the new railway between Fort William and Mallaig, the company being unwilling to accept the terms offered. Negotiations are proceeding. The failure to come to an agreement has not, however, prevented the Postmaster General from making use of the line so far as it has been found advantageous to do so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state whether, with a view to the encouragement of thrift in rural districts, he will consider the advisability of arranging for the transaction of savings bank business at all rural sub-post offices serving a population of 200 and upwards on at least one day a week, preferably Saturday; and, having regard to the fact that postal orders cannot be cashed at a large proportion of the sub-post offices in the rural districts, will instructions be given for these orders to be cashed on the day selected for savings hank business.

The restriction of savings bank or postal order business at small post offices to one day a week would not reduce the cost of administration or the difficulty of finding suitable persons to do the work, which are the grounds on which the present limitation in the number of offices doing such business is based. The Postmaster General is, however, usually ready to extend savings bank and postal order business to any post office under a guarantee for the necessary expenses.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state whether the house to house delivery of letters, authorised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget for 1897, is now effected throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland; and will he state, approximately, the number of letters per annum estimated to have been thus brought into the official delivery; and which, under the arrangements existing prior to 1897, would have been left at post offices or places of call.

The house to house delivery of letters is now effected throughout England, and practically throughout Scoltand and Ireland as well. There are a few places in the two latter countries at which it has not yet been possible to afford a delivery, but steps are being taken to provide a service in all cases where it is practicable to do so. From May, 1897, up to the end of September, 1900, it is estimated that about 57 millions of letters a year had been brought into the official delivery, and since that time it has not been considered necessary to keep special records.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state why certain sections of the Post Office employees received a holiday on 24th May, 1901, while others did not have one; whether overtime was worked subsequently in order to perform the work that would otherwise have been done on 24th May; and whether steps can be taken to provide that in future when a holiday to civil servants is granted it shall be given to the more poorly paid members of the staff as well as the major establishment of the Post Office.

Only those employees who could be spared from their duties without inconvenience to the public service received a holiday on the 24th May last, and on the corresponding day in previous years. It is probable that in some cases overtime was worked subsequently in order to perform work that would otherwise have been done on that day. It has never been possible to grant a holiday on the occasion in question to those of the operative staff whose attendance is required on that day, and it is not practicable to make any change in that respect.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that telegraph clerks in London employed on evening duties from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and 4 p.m. to midnight do not receive a meal relief, being employed upon telegraph duties without intermission, and whether, seeing that seven months have elapsed since the Postmaster General promised to consider the advisability of altering the arrangement, an answer can now be given.

The Postmaster General has sanctioned meal reliefs on the duties to which the hon. Member refers, and arrangements will be commenced as soon as practicable for this purpose. Some little time must, however, elapse before full effect can be given to the decision.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Consultative Committee have framed Regulations for the registration of teachers; and, if so, at what date an Order in Council dealing with the question will be laid upon the Table of the House.

Yes; the matter is now under the consideration of the Board of Education.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, in view of his suggestion^* that the school boards should arrange with the local municipal authorities for the continuance of their evening school work, rate expenditures upon which have now been declared illegal, whether his attention has been called to the fact that, of the two funds at the disposal of these local authorities, the first, the whisky money, is practically all absorbed for purposes of technical instruction, and the second, the penny rate leviable under the Technical Instruction Acts, is also wholly or partially absorbed in a number of cases for the same purpose; and, seeing that under the Technical Instruction Acts the municipal councils are debarred from aiding the instruction of pupils, adult and otherwise, in the obligatory and standard subjects of the Whitehall Code out of the rate fund at their disposal, whether he can suggest any other course for relieving school boards of their present disability.

The question and answer referred to by the hon. Member related to the City of Leeds, which, like the County Council of London, has as yet expended no part of the rate under the Technical Instruction Acts. The question and answer referred to related to instruction for commercial and industrial pursuits, and not to reading, writing,

^* See page 909.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is of opinion that money raised under the Technical Instruction Acts can be used in the maintenance of the instruction in the obligatory and standard subjects of the Whitehall Code?

No; it is no part of my duty or that of the Board of Education to interpret Acts of Parliament.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 in the Education Bill, introduced by the Government this session, would enable an urban district council in Wales or Monmouthshire under any conditions to claim from the education authority any share in the management or control of a county school (situated within such urban district) established under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889.

I should think that no such claim could be substantiated under Clause 6 (2) against the will of the education authority, but the point shall be considered when the Bill is in Committee.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the sentence of thirty days imprisonment without the alternative of a fine imposed upon James Bean at Brechin on the 31st May for the offence of intimidation; whether he is aware that nothing was proved against the prisoner beyond the use of opprobrious epithets directed to certain men who had refused to join in a local strike and whether, under the circumstances, the Secretary for Scotland can see his way to recommend a remission of the remaining portion of the man's sentence.

I have already stated in reply to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that the Secretary for Scotland sees no reason for advising any remission in this case. This decision was reached after a careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, and the Secretary for Scotland cannot depart from it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Cork County Council, on the 13th instant, in connection with the subject of tree planting; and whether, in view of the want of timber in many parts of Ireland, the Government will introduce a short Bill giving county councils power to compulsorily acquire waste lands for the purpose of re-afforesting, or in the alternative give facilities to private Member's Bills in this direction.

The Department of Agriculture is advised that county councils are empowered under Section 19, Sub-section 5, of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act, 1899, to borrow money for the purchase of land for tree planting, the consent of the Local Government Board being first obtained. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what percentage of pupils who successfully pass through the junior grade of intermediate education in Ireland succeed in subsequently passing the senior grade; and what opportunity members of this House will be afforded for discussing the new rules brought forward by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education.

For the last three years 7 per cent., approximately, of students who passed in the junior grade succeeded in passing in the senior grade. It may be stated that but a small percentage of successful junior grade students proceed to the senior grade.

And when are we to have an opportunity of discussing the new rule?

That depends on the arrangement of the business of the House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the position of principal of the male department in the Marlborough Street Training College is now vacant; is he aware that the Commissioners of National Education, on the inception of the scheme of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in 1890, made a rule that from that date appointments would be made to the college with due regard to the various denominations attending it; and seeing that this rule was sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant, will he state whether it is to be acted upon in making the new appointment to the principalship; and if no regard is to be had to religious denomination, will the senior professor of the college be appointed principal.

The principal of the Department referred to resigns from the 31st August next. In April, 1891, the Commissioners made an order providing that in respect to all future appointments to this college the appointments shall be made, as far as practicable, with due regard to the relative number of students in training of the several religious denominations, so as to provide that each denomination shall be represented in due proportion on the staff of the training college. This order does not appear to have been submitted to the Lord Lieutenant for sanction. The Commissioners have not yet considered the question of appointing a successor to the principal.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in October, 1899, the Urban Council of Templemore, by a majority, decided to bring in a water supply scheme in consequence of the present source having been pronounced unfit for human use by Sir C. Cameron; that engineers were appointed, and plans, etc., drawn; that the military authorities have complained of the insufficient and impure water; and that the Local Government Board have been for years urging the necessity for a better and more satisfactory supply; and seeing that the urban council instructed their solicitor nearly two years ago to take the necessary steps for obtaining a Provisional Order for this purpose, will he explain why an inquiry was not held and the wishes of the local public representatives acceded to.

The facts are generally stated in this question. The Local Government Board is not aware why the solicitor to the council has not lodged a petition for a Provisional Order with the Board. No steps can be taken by the Board in the absence of such a petition, or of a formal complaint made under the 15th section of the Public Health Act, 1896.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a case of assault heard recently at Dundrum Petty Sessions, in which Sergeant sharkey. Royal Irish Constabulary, was charged with having assaulted and kicked a blind boy named Martin; whether he is aware that the chairman announced that an assault had been committed, but that in view of the long service of the defendant they would not inflict any punishment, but would dismiss the case with a caution; and will he state whether long service in the police force secures immunity from punishment for such an assault, and whether the police authorities intend to take any action in the matter.

The facts are correctly stated in the first and second paragraphs. I cannot criticise the action of magistrates in the exercise of their judicial functions. The conduct of the sergeant, from a disciplinary point of view, is now under the consideration of the Inspector General.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any official information to the effect that the Mr. P. T. Walsh, recently elected chairman of county Waterford, is the same person who was recently a defendant in a United Irish League conspiracy case, and whether it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to sanction his appointment as a justice of the peace.

Is it a fact that Mr. Walsh was not convicted, although forty-three jurors were ordered to stand aside, and is it not also the fact that the majority of those on the bench which returned him for trial were against so doing?

I must ask for notice as to that. As to the question on the Paper, the reply to the first query is in the affirmative. Proceedings are pending against Mr. Walsh at the approaching summer assizes, and this being so, the question of his retention on the Commission of the Peace cannot be determined by the Lord Chancellor until after the trial.

But is it not the fact that the jury disagreed, although forty-three were ordered to stand aside?

They did disagree.

Is not Mr. Walsh one of the most highly respected gentlemen in—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state who is the resident magistrate in charge of Swanlinbar petty sessions district, and how often he has attended the petty sessions in Swanlinbar during the past two years.

The petty sessions at Swanlinbar are held on the same date as those at Belleek. Mr. Bull, the resident magistrate of the district, has attended all the sessions at Belleek during the past two years. No inconvenience appears to have been caused to the public by his absence from the Swanlinbar Petty Sessions, but the question of a revision of the existing arrangements is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the interference of Police-sergeant Williams, of Cork, in the strike now existing in that city; whether he is aware that this action of Sergeant Williams is resented by the Cork United Trades' Association and the Gasworkers' Society, and whether, in the event of Sergeant Williams having exceeded his duty, he will be warned not to interfere again in this dispute between employers and employed.

The hon. Member has communicated to me a copy of a statement containing a report of an alleged conversation between a man named Cronin, lately employed in the gasworks, and Sergeant Williams, to the effect suggested in the question. The sergeant emphatically denies that he used the language attributed to him by Cronin—who, I may observe, was convicted of intimidation arising out of the strike, on the 15th instant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the owners of the building in Belfast on which the street preacher Trew delivered the speeches inciting to riot requested the Government to prevent these speeches being delivered.

I presume the hon. Member refers to the steps of the Custom House in Belfast, from which many of these speeches have been delivered. The control of this building is vested in the Board of Works, and the steps have also been used for many years as a platform by persons representing various sects and religious denominations. The expediency of enclosing the steps so as to exclude the public is doubtful.

Have these steps ever been used by Roman Catholic preachers?

was putting a question about the Dublin Custom House steps when he was stopped by the Speaker.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Local Government Board for Ireland have refused to give the Wexford County Council a copy of the report of their representative who conducted the recent inquiry at Wexford into the question of the salaries of the county and district surveyors, and if he will lay that report upon the Table of the House; if he is also aware that the Local Government Board have refused to give any reasons for their increase of the salaries of the officials in question; and if, in view of the fact that these officials admitted at the inquiry that they had no increase of duties under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, he can explain how the salary of the county surveyor has been raised from £650 to £846, and the salaries of the three deputy surveyors from £240 to £428; and if he will give the difference, respectively, between the salaries now fixed by the Local Government Board and those previously fixed by the Local Government Board and declared by the Court of Appeal to be illegal.

The reports made by the inspectors of the Local Government Board in such matters are confidential documents and it would be contrary to invariable practice to lay them upon the Table. The decision of the Board was based on the evidence given at the inquiry and on Section 115 (18) of the Local Government Act of 1898. The officials did not admit they had no increase of duties; on the contrary, the surveyor stated, on oath, that his duties had increased over 70 per cent. The other officers also gave particulars of their increased duties, and no rebutting evidence was offered on behalf of the county council. The difference between the salaries now fixed and those originally fixed is £26.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the assault, by three young men on the evening of Sunday, the 2nd June, upon the Rev. Nevin Bradshaw as he was returning from Kill o' Grange Church, whether he is aware that Mr. Bradshaw, after being insulted, was knocked down by a blow, for which assault the accused were sentenced to fines with the alternative of terms of imprisonment, and whether he will take steps to protect Mr. Bradshaw from such treatment in future.

The facts are, generally, as stated. The assault was committed by three men under the influence of liquor, and the evidence showed that their misconduct was attributable to that cause. There is no reason to apprehend that the reverend gentleman will be further molested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will recommend the Local Government Board for Ireland to empower the Limerick County Council and district councils to hold their proposal meetings, in connection with the Local Government Act of 1898, half-yearly instead of quarterly, which would save them expense and otherwise facilitate matters for them, and which would be in accordance with the wishes of the county and district councils as well as of the Finance Committee, as expressed by resolutions of those bodies; or whether he will recommend the purport of such resolutions to be embodied in the amended Local Government Act, as, according to Order in Council, at present under consideration.

Under the Application of Enactments Order, 1898, the county and district council are bound to hold four quarterly meetings every year for the transaction of general business. This provision of the Enactments Order could not be amended by the Procedure Order now before Parliament. The Local Government Board has not received any representations which would lead them to believe that the course indicated in the question would meet with the approval of county and district councils generally.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state, as the result of his communications with the Irish Government and the Fishguard and Rosslare Company, when the works for the construction of the Fermoy and Cork Direct Railway will be commenced.

The Treasury is in communication with the company and the Irish Government on this subject, but I regret that it is not yet possible to make any statement upon the subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the sittings of the Royal Commission on University Education will be held in Ireland; whether the Secretary to the Commission has been appointed by the Commissioners or by the Government, and whether he can give his name.

The Royal Commission will, of course, determine for itself the places at which it will hold its inquiry. I have, for reasons well known, taken pains to make the majority of the Commission residents on this side of St. George's Channel, being persons engaged in the work of higher education. Under these circumstances it is inevitable that, many of these gentlemen being busy men, especially at certain times of the year, regard will have to be paid to that fact in relation to the meetings of the Com mission. In regard to the last part of the question, no name has been fixed upon at present.