I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that British owners of farms in Natal are still being prohibited from re-stocking and re-letting their farms, on the ground of the proximity of the enemy; and whether he will consider the possibility of removing these restrictions.

I have no information on this matter, which is one for the consideration of the Natal Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say up to what date financial provision for the public service in Cape Colony has been made by the Cape Parliament, up to what date that Parliament has been prorogued, and how it is intended to authorise such expenditure for the public service as may be necessary during the prorogation of the Parliament.

(1) Provision has been made up to 30th June, 1901; (2) Parliament is prorogued to 27th August. (3) This is a question for the responsible Government of the Cape Colony.

May I ask whether in the case of the Cape Parliament it is not the duty of the Governor to summon it if necessary, and is he not responsible to the right hon. Gentleman and consequently to this House?

The right hon. Gentleman had better put that question down on the Paper. It seems to involve constitutional matters of great importance.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the House any information as to the number of Boers (both invaders and rebels) now in Cape Colony.

From the latest information there would appear to be between 1,000 and 2,000 men in arms against us in Cape Colony.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can communicate to the House any particulars of the action fought at Water Kloof, in Cape Colony, on Thursday last, and as to the casualties sustained by our troops; and whether he can give any information to the House as to the circumstances under which 500 horses were captured by the Boers near Colesberg at the latter end of May.

No information on the matters alluded to in the question has reached the War Office.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state for how long a period he has the financial means to carry on the war in South Africa at the present pressure without appealing to Parliament for sanction of further expenditure.

I am not in a position to make any statement of the kind the hon. Member asks for. It is a question, not of financial means, but of the Army Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is now the approximate weekly cost of the war in South Africa, including the maintenance of the concentration camps in South Africa and the Boer prisoners in St. Helena, Ceylon, and elsewhere.

The approximate weekly cost to Army Votes is one and a quarter millions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of cases of typhoid fever and the number of deaths among the troops in South Africa for the month of April.

For the four weeks ending 26th April, the approximate figures are: admissions, 1,484; and deaths, 187.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a soldier was flogged on board a transport ship carrying mules from Naples to Port Elizabeth, and whether he will inquire by what authority this punishment was given.

I have made inquiry and find that in November, 1899, a driver of the Army Service Corps was given ten lashes for maliciously wounding a mule by stabbing it with his knife in the head. The officer in question, despite the bad conduct of the driver, acted wrongly in awarding this punishment, and he was severely censured, being informed of the grave displeasure of the Commander-in-Chief at his conduct.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the Government to allocate to Ireland a certain number of the proposed new Yeomanry regiments.

This question has not yet been decided. If any proposal should be made to make the Irish Yeomanry who served so well in South Africa the nucleus of a permanent corps, it would be carefully considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of men in units now in India awaiting relief.

The total number of men due for discharge or transfer to the Reserve up to the 30th September, calculation of this sort being always made in regard to the trooping season, is about 13,500.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state how many expanding bullets were manufactured for the War Office in 1899 and 1900 respectively by the Government and by private contractors; how many were issued to home and foreign stations respectively; how many were withdrawn, at what date were they withdrawn, and for what reason.

The hon. Member doubtless refers to the Mark IV. bullets, on which he has already asked numerous similar questions, and to the replies to which I have nothing to add.

Is the noble Lord aware that I have never put a question on these lines?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of placing the writers in the Army Clothing Department upon the same footing with respect to overtime as the storehouse men and ledger keepers.

The storehouse men receive overtime pay at the rate of 1¼ hour pay for each of the first two hours overtime, and 1½ hour pay for any further overtime, but have to work 48 hours before receiving overtime pay. The writers receive ordinary pay for overtime, but have only to work 42 hours a week before receiving overtime pay. In all probability, therefore, the writers would lose by being put on the same footing as the storehouse men.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the persons who designed and superintended the building of the new-royal yacht design and superintend the building of vessels for His Majesty's Navy, and whether he will consider the advisability of providing additional supervision.

The Director of Naval Construction designed the new royal yacht and superintended the building of the vessel. He has designed, and is superintending the building of, other vessels for His Majesty's Navy. The question of adding to the personnel of the Constructors' Department is under consideration.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what proposals the Government have decided to submit to the House in Committee with reference to the exemption of contracts entered into before the Budget statement from the operation of the export duty on coal.

The only proposal I intend to submit to the House is the insertion of the date of the 1st January, 1902, in the clause relating to this subject. But I may state that, under the power granted by that clause, I propose to grant exemption from duty to post-Budget exports of coal under pre-Budget contracts, f.o.b. and c.i.f. alike, up to 31st December, 1901, provided that the contracts are shown to the satisfaction of the Customs to have been operative and binding subsequently to 18th April, 1901, that they specify the amount and price of the coal to be supplied, that they are bona fide covered by buying contracts for coal or by the ownership of coal, and that the quantities of coal exported are such as, in the opinion of the Customs, are properly exported between 19th April and 31st December, 1901, both inclusive, under the terms of the contracts. If the contracts specify only the price, not the quantity, of the coal to be supplied, exemption may be granted to them also under the foregoing conditions, in either case not beyond the period to which the cover extends, nor beyond 31st December, 1901, in any case. I may add, in explanation, that I have endeavoured to allow a liberal period of exemption for all contracts which are fair business transactions. When contracts are made for a long period they necessarily assume a more speculative character, and therefore have much less claim to exemption, and this is particularly true of uncovered contracts to supply an unlimited quantity at a named price, which seem to me purely gambling transactions.

What will be the effect on the Budget?

If the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper for Thursday, I shall be happy to answer it. It will, I have no doubt, have a considerable effect on the yield of the tax.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state what rate of progress in construction has been reached with H.M.S. "Cumberland," building under contract on the Clyde, and how much of the 5,895 tons estimated to be built into the hull on completion has now been built in, and how far the Belleville boilers have been advanced, and whether the framework of this vessel is yet erected; whether the Admiralty at first decided to revoke the order for Belleville boilers, and afterwards rescinded such decision in favour of retaining Belleville boilers in the projected construction of the vessel; whether he can state if the "Cumberland" is expected to be finished earlier than 1904, and whether the Admiralty have in the case of this projected ship conformed to the recommendation of their Boiler Committee, that, as regards ships recently ordered, for which the work done on the boilers is not too far advanced, Belleville boilers be not fitted; and whether he will state the number of ships recently ordered in which the above-named recommendation of the Boiler Committee has been acted upon by changing from Belleville to other types of boilers, and what definition as to rate of progress the Admiralty acts upon in determining in which case the work is too far advanced.

The "Cumberland" is partly in frame amidships. The exact weight of material worked into the hull cannot be given at present. Over 2,500 tons weight of material has been delivered upon the contractors' premises. At the time a change in the type of boilers was contemplated a large quantity of material had been delivered, and a considerable further amount was due for delivery. The value of this material, and of the labour expended upon it, represented three-tenths of the total cost of the installation. The Admiralty decided to revoke the order for Belleville boilers in the ships in question provided that the change could be made in accordance with the terms of the recommendation of the Boiler Committee. It has been found, however, that the change cannot be made without departing from the terms of the recommendation. It is expected that the "Cumberland" will be finished in 1903. The decision to retain the Belleville boilers in the "Cumberland" is in conformity with the recommendation of the Boiler Committee, as I am informed that it would not be possible to change to another type of boiler without delaying the completion of the ship. The following are the ships from which it was originally hoped that the Belleville boilers might be removed, but in which they are now to be retained, namely, "Prince of Wales," "Cumberland," "Donegal." The question of the boilers of the "Cornwall" is still under consideration. The reason why the change has been made in respect to these ships is that the cost of introducing the Babcock and Wilcox boilers would involve a very large addition to the original Estimates; that the contractors would not guarantee the designed horse power if the Babcock and Wilcox boilers were substituted for the Belleville; and that the change would involve a serious delay in the completion of the ships. In reply to the last paragraph of the question, I have to say that the recommendation of the Boiler Committee in favour of changing from the Belleville boiler to another type of water-tube boiler will be acted on in the case of four ships, namely, "Queen," "Suffolk," "Berwick," and "Encounter." The Belleville boilers of the "Hermes" are also being removed, and will be replaced by Babcock and Wilcox. The determining consideration which has guided the Admiralty in applying the recommendation of the Boiler Committee has been, whether or not delay would be involved by making the alteration? I may add that the President of the Boiler Committee has informed us with regard to the three ships in question that, in making the change, we are acting in conformity with his view as to the interpretation which should be placed on the recommendation of his Committee. The hon. Member may be interested to know that we have ascertained that, in order to obtain the designed horse power with the cylindrical boiler, structural alterations in the ships would be necessary, owing to the serious alteration of weights involved.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how much money has been spent and what delay has arisen in consequence of this change in connection with the "Cumberland"?

The particulars as to the delay are very indefinite; in fact, in the most important case, that of the "Prince of Wales," we can get no definite date at all. We cannot give the exact extent of the delay in the case of the "Cumberland," but it will be serious.

Are we to understand that the alternative to the Belleville boiler is the Babcock and Wilcox boiler?

Order, order!

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now prepared to make any statement in regard to the proposed investigation into the coal question and the effect of the new coal duty on trade and shipping, and further as to the remission of duty he intends making on contracts entered into prior to the 19th April last, and the remission he proposes on small coal and patent fuel, if any.

I have already made a statement with regard to the remission on existing contracts, and I think any statement as to small coal and patent fuel should be reserved until the Amendment on the subject is moved. As to an investigation, I could not advise any such limited investigation as is suggested in the question. But I rather gathered, in the course of the debate last night, that hon. Members representing the districts specially concerned in the export coal trade, and especially those representing the miners, thought that the interests of their constituents were being unfairly dealt with on account of insufficient inquiry, and desired that the whole question of our coal supply and its probable sufficiency for the needs of our own country, should be considered by an impartial tribunal, as well as the effect of the duty on the trade primarily interested in the matter. The last thing that I should wish would be that any action of mine should afford ground for a feeling of unjust treatment on the part of a large and hardworking section of my fellow-countrymen, and if on further inquiry I find that a complete investigation of the whole subject, such as I have referred to, is really desired, I should certainly be disposed to recommend to my colleagues that such an inquiry should be initiated without delay. I must, however, say that in no case would it be possible for such a tribunal to make a report which would affect the next Budget. I agree with what the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street said last night, that it would probably take two years, and certainly one, before any opinion as to the effect of the coal duty could be formed.

I placed no limit on the investigation. I want a full one.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French authorities are now acquiring at Shanghai control of a tract of land beyond the limits fixed by Lord Salisbury in his agreement with the French Government upon the question of the French settlement in that city; and, if so, under what conditions they are acquiring it, and whether any claim upon their part to exclusive jurisdiction and control over such territory will be recognised by His Majesty's Government.

We were informed some time ago that the French were building quarters for their troops at Shanghai, but we have no definite information as to the site. We have no further information, but inquiries are being made.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the concession to China of an effective 5 per cent. tariff has been made without obtaining some guarantee from her for the effective fulfilment of her various treaty obligations.

A proposal has been made to exact certain compensating advantages to trade in China in return for the concession of an effective 5 per cent. tariff. His Majesty's Minister at Peking has provisionally given his support to this proposal, and the matter is still under discussion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he intends to lay upon the Table Papers relating to the language question in Malta.

As I stated in answer to a previous question on the 20th May, I am afraid that until the correspondence reaches a more complete form it will not be possible for me to fix any definite date for laying the Papers.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the complaint of the crew of the British barque "South Esk" that for over six months they were on a short allowance of provisions, and had to go without tea, sugar, flour, and pork, and that the beef supplied was unfit for human consumption; and whether, in view of the complaints by seamen regarding the provisions on board British ships, he will advise His Majesty's Government to appoint a Select Committee of this House or a Royal Commission to inquire into the provision scale contained in ships' articles of agreement and the quality of the food supplied.

Yes, Sir, my attention has been called by the Seamen's Union to the case to which the hon. Member refers. I have been in communication with the owners of the "South Esk," and have received a statement made by the cook. It appears that the vessel left Glasgow in January, 1900, fully provisioned with inspected provisions for a twelve months voyage. This voyage was unexpectedly prolonged, and the master had to take in a fresh supply abroad and from two ships he met in the course of the homeward voyage from Chili, which occupied 146 days. Without accepting as entirely accurate the statement in the first paragraph of the question, it is admitted that in some respects the food was seriously deficient, and that some of it was bad, but according to the statement of the master it was the best he could get. In answer to the second paragraph, I am not prepared to advise the appointment of a Committee or Commission for the purpose of making an inquiry of the limited scope suggested by the hon. Member, but as I stated yesterday in reply to the hon. Member for the College Division of Dublin, I am considering the advisability of instituting an inquiry of a wider character into questions affecting the general interests of the mercantile marine.

Will the Committee be a departmental one?

I am not prepared to make any statement as to that.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when he will be prepared?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to introduce regulations regarding the registered tonnage of coasting and cross-channel steamers, so that they should be rated upon the displacement system in force in His Majesty's Navy or in accordance with the Moorsam plan adopted in the Suez Canal; and whether he is aware that, owing to the prevailing method of rating, port and dock boards cannot supply the necessary trading facilities from the paucity of tonnage dues.

The Moorsam system for measuring the tonnage of merchant ships is the one in force in this country. There is no power, without legislation, to adopt the modifications in the system applicable to the Suez Canal, but as I have already stated in reply to the hon. Member's previous questions, I am doing what is possible by regulation to minimise the grievance of which he complains, and it is open to port and dock boards to seek authority to charge their dues upon a proportion of the gross instead of upon the net tonnage.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say when the Return relating to the production, consumption, and export of coal to the principal countries of the world in recent years, and ordered to be printed on the 17th instant, will be issued to Members.

The Return in question is now under revision, out I am unable to say when it will be ready for issue.

I beg to ask he President of the Board of Trade if he can explain the discrepancy in the figures relating to the foreign export of coal from Cardiff for May, 1900, and 1901, as supplied by the Customs to the proprietors of Brown's Export List and to the Board of Trade respectively.

The matter is being inquired into by the Customs, but I am informed that the investigation will occupy a day or two.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to minimising the inconvenience to which persons of limited means are now subjected through being obliged to find house-room at a distance from their employment, owing to the congested state of central London, and seeing that the railway companies serving the suburban districts are unable without inconvenience to their general traffic to run a sufficient number of workmen's trains, he will suggest to them as an alternative arrangement the advisability of issuing third class season tickets at the correspondingly low rate at which they now issue first and second class season tickets.

As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, railway companies are not under any statutory obligation to issue season tickets, but I shall be happy to call the attention of the Railway Companies Association to his suggestion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of raising the salaries of the staff generally throughout Scotland Yard, seeing that some departments have already been dealt with.

It is the practice for the salaries of various sections of the staff at Scotland Yard to be considered as occasion arises in each case. I think this is the proper course, as it may well be that there may be a claim for consideration in the case of one or two-departments when a general increase for all would be out of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether His Majesty's Government propose to make any compensation to the man Lillywhite, who was arrested in New Zealand on a charge of murder and brought here for trial, and in whose case the Crown Prosecutor has now entered a nolle prosequi.

I am not yet sufficiently in possession of the facts to be able to express any opinion as to what, should be done.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can explain upon what ground and by what authority the chief constable of Birmingham issued a notice recently prohibiting the holding of a meeting of the National Democratic League in the Bull Ring in that city.

I am informed that the chief constable objected to the use of certain language which he considered illegal and amounting to an offence, but that an interview subsequently took place between the promoters of the meeting and the chief constable, at which an undertaking was given that such language should not be repeated, and meetings have subsequently been held without interference by the police. No meeting was actually stopped.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who this language was used by and what it was?

It was used by one of the speakers at one of these meetings. It was language of a very gross character, which, in the opinion of the chief constable, and in mine, was likely to lead to a breach of the peace

Was this speaker prosecuted, and was the language used by him a breach of the law?

No, Sir, he was not prosecuted.

Did the chief constable act on his own initiative or did he refer to the right hon. Gentleman?

He acted entirely on his own initiative.

Are we to understand that a person in the position of the chief constable is to be the judge whether the language used—

Order, order!

did not resume his seat.

I again call the hon. Member to order, and have to say that, if he persists in disregarding me when I call him to order, I shall have to direct the attention of the House to his conduct.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.

Mr. Gibson Bowles.

I rise to a point of order.

The hon. Member, I: repeat, is not in order in asking the question.

I claim, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of personal explanation—

A personal explanation is not a point of order.

A personal explanation, Sir. I trust you will allow me to say that I did not hear you call me to order at all, and I had not the slightest intention of disregarding your ruling. I thought I was putting a question which legitimately arose out of the answer as to whether the chief constable—

Order, order! That is the question which I ruled was not legitimate. I quite accept the hon. Member's statement.

I shall raise the subject on the Home Office Vote.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the fact that all aliens suffering from dangerous contagious diseases are excluded from admission to the United States under the Immigration Laws of Congress, and that by a recent decision of the Washington Treasury tuberculosis of the lung is henceforth to be so regarded; and having regard to the importance of excluding such diseases, whether he will introduce the same or analogous regulations as those laid down by his predecessor at the time of the cholera epidemic at Hamburg to keep out that disease.

The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. As regards cholera cases, the regulations require the isolation in hospital of persons who arrive in this country suffering from the disease and the supervision by the local authorities of other persons landing from an infected ship. It does not appear to me that similar regulations could be made with regard to such a disease as tuberculosis.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that whilst the Day School Code, 1900, in Footnote to Article 90, encourages elementary schools to establish libraries, and allows the school accounts to include expenditure upon libraries, auditors are surcharging members of school boards for such expenditure, notwithstanding that in its Instructions to Inspectors, issued by the Board of Education on 27th February, 1900, it is stated that a good library is considered as the necessary complement of an efficient school apparatus; and whether he will take steps to harmonise the action of the two Departments.

I am aware that a surcharge has recently been made in respect of expenditure incurred by the Norwich School Board in connection with a library. On receiving a formal appeal from the Members surcharged, I will carefully consider the legality of the expenditure, and before arriving at a decision I will communicate with the Board of Education on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if any decision has been come to respecting the matters named in the petition presented to the inspector by the Bolton postmen on 19th July, 1900, and whether he is aware that the more serious grievances therein complained of are still unremedied.

The Bolton outdoor postal services are now being revised, and the duties of the postmen will be greatly improved.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that British postal orders are on sale at the British post office in Constantinople, whether he can explain why the English Post Office has refused to supply postal orders to the British post office at Salonica.

The Postmaster General has had this matter under his consideration, but he is not in a position to make any statement upon it at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a recommendation has been made to increase the postal staff in the Keyham Barton, district of Devonport; and, if so, whether it is intended to give effect to it.

Yes, Sir; such proposals have been made, and they are now being considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that it is the practice of the Comptroller of the Post Office Savings Bank to inform depositors that when a deposit is made by means of a cheque the usual acknowledgment is not despatched until a period of twelve days has elapsed, including the date of deposit of the cheque; will he explain why the Department requires a period of twelve days to clear a cheque; and will he say whether the rule applies to London as well as to provincial cheques.

The practice with regard to deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank by means of cheques is as stated, and applies to London as well as provincial cheques. To keep a record of the clearing of each cheque would be unnecessarily expensive; and the rule has therefore been adopted to retain the acknowledgments of all deposits by cheque for a uniform period of twelve days, by which time notice of failure to clear any particular cheque will have been received by the Department. Experience has shown that a shorter period is not sufficient in all cases to guard against the risk of loss. For calculation of interest a deposit by cheque is treated as having been made on the date of deposit, and not on the date of the acknowledgment.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can without further delay reply to a petition from the Newton Abbot postmen, sent to the Postmaster General in August, 1900, which was in April last said to be in course of careful consideration in conjunction with other similar memorials, and to which a reply was promised as soon as practicable.

A reply has been given to the memorial in question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that on board the North German Lloyd and American lines of mail steamers from this country to New York there are post offices, with an official or officials who during the voyage sort all mails, so that its delivery in New York or forwarding thereon to the interior takes place three hours earlier than the mail matter from on board the steamers of the Cunard or White Star lines; and, in view of the inconvenience caused thereby, whether he will adopt such measures as will prevent this delay.

The Postmaster General is aware that there are post offices on board the steamers of the North German Lloyd and American lines, and the sorting of the correspondence on board of course admits of its earlier disposal in the New York Post Office, where, it is understood, the contents of unsorted mails arriving by sea cannot be so expeditiously distributed as in the case of mails reaching this country in such circumstances. The advantage, however, which would be gained if similar post offices were established on British steamers has not been thought sufficient to justify the heavy expense which such an arrangement would involve.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the

The house-to-house delivery of letters is now effected throughout England, and practically throughout Scotland 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. Since that time it has not been considered necessary to keep a special record.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of my question.

Yes, I have answered that.

Then I beg to give notice—

Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice in the ordinary way.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant the Return relating to Illicit Distillation standing on to-day's Paper.^*

No, Sir. I am unable to consent to the Return asked for.

Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider that answer in view of the fact that during the discussion on the Estimates a most extraordinary state of things was disclosed, and he was good enough to promise to make inquiries. If he does not grant this Return, we shall get no information until the Estimates come on again next year, and I would therefore respectfully ask him to consent to the Return.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what has been the result of his inquiries so far?

I have communicated with the Board of Inland Revenue, but I am not at present prepared to make any statement as to any steps I may propose to take. The matter is under discussion. I could not give a portion of the information asked for in this Return under any circumstances, but at the same time I hope that the steps to be taken will render it unnecessary to have any Return at all. I am unwilling to throw additional work on the Inland Revenue at the present time, and I will ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until I have been able to decide what steps shall be taken.

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to make some statement as to the result of his inquiries, or must we wait another year?

I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman as soon as I am able to take any action.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is contemplated to reduce the cost on the transmission of newspapers to Australia, and will the Canadian postage rates for papers be applied to the other colonies as well.

No reduction of the postage on newspapers is in contemplation. The rate for newspapers to Canada and to Australia is already the same.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that the registration fees imposed by the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, were increased in 1891 by the imposition of 5s. on each writ recorded; and that this presses on small proprietors, whose deeds form the main part of the register; and, in view of the fact that the net revenue of the Sasine Office shows a surplus for the year 1901 of £12,799, and that under Section 25 of the Land Registers Act, 1868, it is laid down that the fees to be drawn from the Department shall not be greater than may reasonably be held sufficient for defraying the expenses of the said Department, or the improvement of the system of registration, will he consider the expediency of rescinding the Order of 1891.

I am informed by the keeper of the Sasines Office that the basis upon which the hon. Member's question is founded is entirely wrong. The scale of fees introduced in 1891 only increased the fees of the register to a very small extent. The uniform fee of 5s. for each writ instead of the former sliding scale was approved as necessary to cover the actual cost of registration. It is certainly extremely moderate, less than half the agent's fee for ingiving and uplifting the writ. There is no surplus revenue of £12,799 or any such sum. The hon. Member has omitted to take into account the expenditure in other branches than salaries. These are noted on page 281 of the printed Estimates, and include office accommodation, stationery and printing, and the non-effective class pensions, etc.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will submit to the law officers of the Crown the question whether municipal councils may make subventions from the funds at their disposal, under the Technical Instruction Acts, to school boards in aid of the instruction of adult pupils at evening schools in the obligatory and standard subjects of the Whitehall code.

This question would be decided in the first instance by the local authority under the Technical Instruction Acts; then, by the Local Government Board auditor; and finally by the Courts of Law. The Board of Education have no jurisdiction to interfere, and would not be justified in asking the opinion of the Law Officers merely to gratify their curiosity. I may add that, so far as I know, instruction of this kind is now given without objection being taken.

Is it not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has referred the Leeds School Board to the municipal authorities?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will state what will be the position of evening continuation classes under the management of such bodies as Polytechnics and Young Men's Christian Associations in the event of the Education Bill of 1901 becoming law; and will it be allowable for the new local educational authorities, which are to be created under the Bill, to aid such classes as are now carried on under the management of these institutions and are in receipt of Government Grants under the Evening Continuation Code.

The Bill now before Parliament does not in any way affect these classes. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the number of agricultural holdings sold to the occupiers under each of the Purchase Acts, namely, the Church Disestablishment Act, the Land Act of 1870, the Land Act of 1881, the Purchase Acts of 1885, 1888, 1891, and the Land Act of 1896, and the amount actually advanced on account of said purchases.

The numbers of tenant purchasers under the Acts mentioned, in the order stated, are 6,057, 877, 731, 25,368, and 29,208, making a total of 62,241 purchasers to 31st March last. The amount advanced under each of the Acts, to the same date, is £1,674,841, £514,536, £240,801, £9,992,640, and £8,759,450, making a total advadce of £21,182,268.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Charles Phibbs, of Doobeg House, county of Sligo, has been under military and police protection during many periods between the years 1881 and 1893; whether he was in the habit of supplying cars for the conveyance of his own escort; and, if so, what has been the amount paid him on account of car hire for these years; and from what source has this amount been drawn.

I will at the same time reply to the similar question of my hon. and gallant friend the Member for East Antrim. Mr. Phibbs received special police protection from 1880 to 1892. It does not appear that he was afforded military protection. The conveyance of his police escort was necessary from time to time; on such occasions his vehicles were employed as being the most suitable, and payment was made to Mr. Phibbs for their hire. The amount so paid cannot be ascertained at such short notice. The payments were made from the Constabulary Vote. He has not been required to defray any portion of the cost of his protection.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the amount paid yearly to Mr. Phibbs for the use of his own vehicle?

I should like to have longer notice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Charles Phibbs, of Doobeg House, county Sligo, who has been under military and police protection during many periods between the years 1881 and 1893, will be called upon to pay any share of the expense incurred for this protection; and whether he is aware that such protection has been from time to time necessitated by his being denounced by the Land and Irish National Leagues in the past and by the United Irish League at the present time.

I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is competent for an hon. Member to copy almost verbatim a question of which another Member has given notice.

The question seems to be different in some respects.

I can only repeat to the hon. and gallant Member the reply I have just given to the hon. Member for South Sligo.

Was not this man held up to odium at the instance of the League?

I should say, generally, yes, because of resolutions purporting to come from local branches.

Will the right hon. Gentleman particularise the kind of risk this man has been exposed to?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Intermediate Education consists of an equal number of Protestants and Roman Catholics, with two paid assistant commissioners, one a Protestant and the other a Roman Catholic; that the principle has always been recognised that a due proportion of the Protestant members should be Presbyterians; and that the office of assistant, commissioner has been held for some twenty years by a member of the Church of Ireland; and whether, seeing that there were five Presbyterian candidates; possessing the highest qualifications for the recent vacancy, he can explain why their claims were again passed over in favour of a member of the Church of Ireland.

The number of members on the Board of Intermediate Education was fixed at seven by the Act of 1878. The Board then consisted of three Roman Catholics, three Church of Ireland, and one Presbyterian. In 1880 the number of Presbyterian members was increased to two, and the number of Church of Ireland members reduced to two. This proportion was maintained down to last year when the strength of the Board was increased by Act to twelve members. The Board now consists of six Roman Catholics, three Church of Ireland, and three Presbyterians. The selection of a Church of Ireland candidate for the vacant assistant commissioner-ship was not made on the principle suggested in the second paragraph.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause an inquiry to be held as to the reason why the average cost per week per inmate for the past year has been 3s. 11¾d. in Carrickmacross Workhouse, while in Clones 3s. 0½d. and Monaghan workhouses 2s. l0½d. suffices for the average cost per inmate per week.

It is not the practice of the Local Government Board to cause an inquiry to be held into the differences in the cost of maintenance in various unions. These differences are attributable to the terms of the contracts for supplies in each case and the proportion of sick to healthy, and other similar causes. The average weekly cost of maintenance in the Leinster unions is 4s., and in the Ulster unions it is 3s. 5¾d. It does not appear, therefore, that there is anything exceptional in the case of Carrickmacross.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the medical officer of health reported to the Dromore (county Down) Urban Council at its meeting on 4th March that several tenement houses in the town were in an unsanitary condition and in need of better accommodation, namely, houses in Meeting Street, houses in Gallows Street, and houses in Rampart Street; and that only as regards the houses in Rampart Street the sanitary law has been enforced, and will he state why the council has not compelled the other owners to carry out the recommendations of the sanitary officer; and will he direct the Local Government Board to hold an inquiry as to the alleged unsanitary condition of Dromore, with the view to the improvement of the housing accommodation in that town.

The Urban District Council have taken steps to ensure that the premises reported on are put in a proper sanitary condition. The council have ordered their medical officer to make a street to street inspection of the township. No interference on the part of the Local Government Board is called for at present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Bawnboy Board of Guardians elected for the union hospital, on the 21st January, 1899, at a salary of £60 a year, a trained nurse who possessed all the qualifications prescribed by the Local Government Board to enable the county councils of the counties of Cavan and Leitrim, on behalf of this board of guardians, to get half of this salary refunded out of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 58 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, and will he state under what authority the Local Government Board on behalf of the Treasury refused to pay half the salary of this nurse while in the service of this board of guardians.

The sum of £60 was proposed by the guardians as remuneration, including both salary and rations, and was apportioned by the Local Government Board in the proportion of £36 for salary and £24 for rations. Recoupment is allowed under the 58th Section of the Act of 1898 in respect of salary only.

But was it done in accordance with Section 58?

I understand so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the building which was formerly used as a gaol in Cavan, built at the expense of the ratepayers in the county Cavan, has been handed over by the General Prisons Board in August, 1900, to the War Department to be used as a military barrack in future, without any compensation to the County Council, who represent the ratepayers; and, if so, upon what grounds and by what authority.

The building formerly used as a prison at Cavan was built by the Grand Jury out of county rates, but at what cost I am unable to say. Section 31 of the Prisons Act of 1878 authorises the Prisons Board, within twelve months after the closing of a prison, to allow it to be used for any public purpose, with the consent of the Treasury. Subject to this provision the prison was handed over to the military authorities in August last with all liability for rent and cost of maintenance. There is no power to award compensation, as suggested.

complained that part of his question had been struck out, and was proceeding to put another question relating to that part when he was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the Report of the Irish Land Commissioners will be presented to the House.

Every expedition is being used to complete the work of printing this Report, which it is hoped will be laid on the Table this month.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the decision of the King's Bench regarding the rates struck for Belfast, there can be no municipal, harbour board, or jurors' lists prepared at the present time for the coming year, and whether, seeing that such complications do not arise in England, where the local authorities are the rating authority, he will consider the advisability of assimilating the Irish system to that in force in England.

At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. I am aware of the decision referred to, which is now under appeal. I do not admit, however, that if the decision be upheld all the consequences mentioned will follow from it. I think it is generally admitted that the Irish system of valuation by a skilled central body is superior to that existing in this country. The reply to the last paragraph is, therefore, in the negative.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is the intention of the English Government to assimilate the English system with that in Ireland?

That question should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government when laying upon the Table of this House Admiral Rawson's letter or Report to the First Lord of the Admiralty on the Gibraltar works, dated 30th March, intend also to present the letter of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis to the First Lord of the Admiralty on the same subject and dated on the same day.

I have not had time to consult my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty; but if my hon. friend will put his question down on Thursday I shall be glad to answer him. I do not think that in any case the letter of my hon. friend could be laid as part of the Papers embodying the Report of Admiral Rawson's Committee.

In that event, will my right hon. friend consider whether he cannot publish this letter separately, and so avoid the necessity I shall otherwise be under of publishing it myself?

I do not know that there is any objection to my hon. friend's publishing the letter. There may be parts of it which it might be expedient to make public; but I daresay my hon. friend will exercise a wise discretion in that respect.

I shall be quite ready to omit any portion the publication of which may be contrary to the public interest.

put a question the point of which was understood to be that there had been no debate whatever on Class 3 of the Naval Votes, which provided for an expenditure of over nine millions. He hoped the First Lord would make special arrangements for some discussion of it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the promised Reports of the Gibraltar Committee will be laid upon the Table.

The Report has been laid, and I hope it will be in the hands of hon. Members by Thursday next.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state on what day he proposes to make his promised statement of the decision of the Government as to the naval works at Gibraltar.

If the hon. Gentleman will put a question to the Secretary to the Admiralty on Thursday, I think he will be able to make such a statement as can be compressed into the limits of an answer to a question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has received a communication from the secretary to the Irish Trades Congress urging that the minutes of evidence of the Royal Commission on University Education should be printed in Ireland; and whether, assuming the sittings of the Commission are held upon this side of the Channel, and seeing that the inquiry is one affecting Ireland only, he will undertake that the claim put forward on behalf of Irish printers will be favourably considered.

I have received the communication to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have no doubt the Commission find it convenient to have many of its meetings on this side of St. George's Channel, but as it is an Irish Commission dealing exclusively with an Irish question I think, in all probability, the printing will be done in Ireland.

Can the First Lord of the Treasury say when the Votes will be taken for the salaries of the Colonial Secretary and of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as well as the War Office Vote? I think we ought to have some notice.

And as to the Shipbuilding Vote?

It is quite impossible for me to make a statement now as to when these various matters are to come up for discussion, but of course due notice will be given.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some explanation as to what had necessitated the introduction of this resolution. Did the resolution cover a large amount of the Supplies voted for the continuance of the war in South Africa? If so, he would be entitled to raise the whole question of the conduct of the war. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might not like it, and indeed it was neither his desire nor his intention to do so; but he wished to raise a comparatively narrow point, but one of which had become a question of definite matter, of infinite public importance, seeing that it had attracted unfavourable comment, not only in what was called the pro-Boer press, but in newspapers which supported the Government. He referred to the plan of keeping the people of this country in the blankest ignorance of what was going on in South Africa. All the country was treated to was a series of telegrams from Lord Kitchener, some three or four lines long, which might be described as the weekly butcher's bill.

How does the hon. Member connect that question with the Vote out of the Consolidated Fund?

This is an Appropriation Bill, as I take it.

A Consolidated Fund Bill.

It is the same thing. This is a resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, which is to be followed by a Consolidated Fund Bill. I assume that the resolution is concerned with some of the large Votes granted for the use of the Army. If that is so, I am entitled to raise the question of the conduct of the war.

I do not think that that follows as a matter of course. It depends upon the services for which the money is required.

, on a point of order, suggested that this was a resolution on which it was intended to found a Consolidated Fund Bill. That Bill did not appropriate sums to specific purposes, but it authorised the Treasury to issue the sum named out of the Consolidated Fund for the expenses of the year. Was not that issue authorised by the Bill an act of Supply? If so, did it not come under the rule that grievance must precede Supply?

I do not think that the rule as to grievance preceding Supply is applicable. Under this Bill about £21,000,000 will be issued for the Army services. These Army services, which have been already voted, are military education, miscellaneous services, pensions, superannuation, ordnance factories, remounts and so forth. I was asking the hon. Member for East Mayo how he could connect the conduct of Lord Kitchener in not sending fuller telegrams with any of the Votes to which this Bill applies.

The larger part of the sum is for miscellaneous effective services—in other words, for the conduct of the war, including the pay of Lord Kitchener.

There is no Vote for it.

What are the miscellaneous effective services?

The Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill will come on on Thursday, and then the hon. Member will have before him exactly the Votes with which the Bill deals. There will be a full and much more convenient opportunity for debate then.

said the First Lord of the Treasury had correctly defined the position. No doubt it would be a more convenient opportunity for a long discussion on the Second Reading. This, however, was a question of order, and it was not his intention to do what he was entitled to do—namely, to raise a general discussion on the conduct of the war. He wanted to call attention to the un-satisfactory character of the news placed before the public in regard to the conduct of the war generally, and the widespread dissatisfaction which existed in this country as to the insufficiency of the news sent from South Africa.

That is why I asked the hon. Member how he connected that subject with this resolution, and I still think that he has not answered the question. I have been endeavouring to find out how he can connect his observations with any of the Votes contained in the resolution, and they do not seem to me to be connected with them in any way. There is nothing about the salary of Lord Kitchener, and the pay of the Army is not borne on any of these Votes.

Is it not a fact that this sum is issued for the services of the Army, and that any portion of it may be by the direction of the Treasury diverted to any portion of Army service? If that be so, does not the issue of any sum for Army services cover any portion of the grievances connected with any portion of it?

asked the Secretary of State for War, or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to say whether any portion of the £35,000,000 was to be used for the support of the Army in South Africa.

I think it is more than probable that that will be so, but this does not settle the point upon which the hon. Gentleman asked the ruling of the Chair. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has suggested that the debate might extend to services not included in the resolution, because the War Office in certain circumstances can allocate money voted for one service to another service. But it would not be possible in Committee of Supply to raise a debate on a Vote which was not before the Committee because of the power of the War Office to allocate the money in that way, but the discussion would have to be confined to the Vote actually before the Committee.

said the Committee had not yet heard a definite statement as to whether any of the £35,000,000 was to be used for the purposes of the war in South Africa. He believed that a large portion of the Vote was for the expenses of the war in South Africa, and therefore he was surely entitled to ask a few questions on the subject.

There is a Vote for transport and remounts, and that of course is applicable to the war in South Africa; but I do not think that on this question it would be possible to discuss the conduct of Lord Kitchener in not sending fuller telegrams. The same rule must apply now upon this resolution as would apply in Committee of Supply. On any particular Vote you must discuss a question connected with that Vote.

asked whether for the convenience of the Committee the Chairman would read the Votes which were covered by this resolution.

"War Office Estimates—military education, miscellaneous effective services, pensions and other non-effective charges, superannuation, compensation allowances and gratuities, works, buildings, and repairs, transport and remounts, and ordnance factories."

said that this was a very important point. Was he not right in saying that any one of the items of money allocated to these purposes might be by the direction of the Treasury diverted to the salary of Lord Kitchener, the salary of the censor, or to any other purpose connected with the war? That being so, was it not open to an hon. Member on a general issue like this Consolidated Fund, and considering the power of diverting such sums, to raise grievances before this kind of Supply?

It is true that with the assent of the Treasury money voted for one purpose may be used for another, but I do not think that opens the discussion upon all the other purposes to which the Treasury assent that the money might be applied, because, if so, all limitation would be futile. On any particular Estimate it would be open to any hon. Member while discussing the Estimate to say—"It is true that this money is to be devoted to a particular Estimate, but the Treasury may permit it to be devoted to another Estimate; therefore I do not propose to discuss the Estimate before the Committee, but some other subject not before the Committee." The same rule of relevancy must apply to a resolution which empowers the money to be devoted to its objects as to a resolution in Committee of Supply.

asked whether the Government had any information as to 500 horses having been captured by the Boers from a remount station near Colesberg, at the latter end of May last.

I have already answered the hon. Member's question. I have no information.

said if one could be perfectly certain of all the news which came from South Africa one could accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with perfect equanimity, but in one or two cases certain items of news came from various sources, and the Government knew nothing about them. He would like to ask what was being done with regard to the remounts in Cape Colony, whether the horses there had been commandeered, or whether the horses were being left for agricultural purposes on the farms.

I think that the bewilderment in the mind of hon. Members arises from the common practice of Parliament, founded upon a necessity of which I am not aware, of attaching a certain air of mystery to these proceedings in Ways and Means. The Committee is only told of the resolution; it comes upon us like a thunderbolt, and it seems to be a much more formidable and terrible proceeding than it really is, because of the mystery attaching to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moves a resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, but we never see the resolution; it is not put on the Paper for the information of the House until the House is called upon to "stand and deliver," and to pass the resolution. You, Sir, have been reading from a document which enumerates the Votes dealt with. Why should it not be given to the House? This is a matter for which I do not blame the Government in the least, but it seems to be a somewhat futile and anomalous proceeding that the House should be put in the position in which it now finds itself. The Leader of the House is right in saying that in the main this stage is purely formal, and that the proper time to raise any serious questions involved in the money voted is on the Second Reading of the Bill. But it is certainly anomalous that undescribed resolutions should come as it were from the blue sky, and should not be explained, except in the most general terms, by the Minister. The Committee generally is placed at a disadvantage. You, Sir, have ruled that any discussion must be confined to the subject actually involved, and I think you are undoubtedly right, but the Committee cannot exercise any intelligent confidence in your decision unless we know what are the subjects in the resolution. The Government are acting according to rule, but I think that the rule and practice are bad, and I hope that there may be some arrangement made to avoid this difficulty in future. We quite understand that there is necessity for some kind of secrecy before the Budget is introduced, in order that there may be no premature disclosure of the terms of the Government's proposals. But there is no necessity in this case, and I think it would be a good thing if in the future a simpler method were adopted.

said that he was in agreement with the views of the right hon. Gentleman. Except in the case of the Budget resolutions, there was no reason for not giving notice of all resolutions to be moved in Committee of Ways and Means. He hoped that in future reasonable information would be given to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for War how long the Government could carry on the war without coming to Parliament for further funds. He also asked whether the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill would be the first Order of the day.

The hon. Member's first question does not come within the terms of any of the Votes included in the resolution. As regards his second question, the Second Reading of the Bill will be put down as first Order.

remarked that, even after the interchange of views that had taken place, they were still in the dark as to the Votes covered by the resolution.

All the Votes that have been taken in Committee of Supply and agreed to on Report will be included.

observed that if that information had been given at first it would have saved this discussion. He hoped a division would be taken in order to indicate the view held on the question of remounts. It had been abundantly proved that in regard to that subject there had been more incompetency and more blundering by the War Office than in regard to any other matter in the whole of the South African campaign. It had been shown that on the question of buying remounts, and getting horses suitable for the campaign in South Africa, the officials had been guilty of the greatest blunders. It was notorious that horses had been sent out which, when they arrived in South Africa, were found to be wholly unsuitable. Having regard to the fact that the war was being carried on in such a fashion, he hoped the discussion upon its general conduct would be taken at an early date. With regard to transport arrangements, he too might say he had received a number of letters from private soldiers which said that on some of the ships the men had been treated most disgracefully, and the accommodation provided for them was grossly insufficient.

There has been a good deal of misapprehension in regard to the procedure that has been adopted. The Secretary to the Treasury was quite right when he said this is not an Appropriation Bill. It is a Consolidated Fund Bill. Money for the public service is voted in Supply, and the Vote is sanctioned by the House on Report. But that is not sufficient to get the money out of the Treasury. Sir Erskine May said with reference to that procedure—

"Until a grant in Supply has been appropriated by statute to the service and object for which the grant is destined, the Treasury, unless otherwise ordered, is not capable of making the issue of the sum so granted from the Consolidated Fund. The introduction of the Appropriation Bill cannot, however, take place until all the grants have been voted for the service of the current year, a process usually ranging over a period of six months. A more prompt issue must therefore be made of the money granted from time to time for the current service of the Crown, and accordingly from time to time Bills are passed during each session known as Consolidated Fund Bills, which empower the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the Departments for whose use the grants are voted such sums as they may require in anticipation of the statutory sanction granted by the Appropriation Act."

There is no statutory sanction until the Appropriation Act is passed for the expenditure of the year. By the Bill now to be brought in, the Treasury is authorised to issue the money, but it will not be an Appropriation Act. Sir Erskine May goes on to explain that the first Consolidated Fund Bill of the session must be passed during the month of March. That Bill finally appropriates the amount of the Supplementary Estimates and of the expenditure which has taken place between the close of the last session and the end of the financial year. Then—

"the remaining Consolidated Fund Bills are passed, during the progress of the session, at such times as may be requisite for the maintenance of the public service."

The Committee will see from that that this is a simple form of procedure to authorise the Treasury to sign cheques and the Paymaster General to pay them, which until this Bill is passed they cannot do. But the final appropriation of the money voted this year will be made at the proper time by the Appropriation Act which will be passed during the last week of the session.

asked for information as to the sufficiency of the supply of remounts in South Africa. Very little news had been published as to what was being done by the War Office in this direction. A month or two ago an assurance was given that Lord Kitchener had sufficient horses for his requirements. Since then comparatively few horses had been imported into South Africa, while, according to private information he had received, the colonial stock—the horses in South Africa—was now running short, and there would be some difficulty in finding remounts unless a large number were imported. The only notice he had seen of fresh remounts going to South Africa was that of a shipload of about 1,000 horses from South America the other day, and those, he believed, were not considered to be of the best description for the purpose. Statements had repeatedly been made that the great difficulty in South Africa was not the scarcity of rifles or of ammunition, but the question of horses. The war would be decided by our being able to outlast our enemies in the matter of horseflesh, and that could only be done by keeping up a good supply of remounts. He therefore hoped an assurance would be given that the supply of horses was not running short, and that the Government were fully alive to their responsibilities in this matter.

May I respectfully repeat that this has invariably been regarded as a purely formal stage of the procedure, and, because I understood that it would be again so regarded, I promised to put the Bill down as first Order on Thursday. Of course it is impossible that we should have a discussion to-night and another on Thursday. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the Committee will treat it on this occasion as it always has been treated before, as a formal stage, and I will then put the Bill down as first Order on Thursday.