I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Gold Law of 1896 and the Pass Law of 1896, with the Supplementary Regulations of 1899, applicable to public gold diggings in the Transvaal, are now enforced by the British Government; whether the penalties under these laws of fine, imprisonment, with hard labour and flogging, for the enforcement of labour are applicable to all coloured people and coloured races of South Africa within the proclaimed districts, whether they are native residents of the Transvaal or immigrants from elsewhere, and whether under contract of labour or not; and whether these penalties may now be inflicted by resident magistrates and assistant resident magistrates without appeal, except when the lashes exceed twelve in number; and whether care has been taken that these magistrates shall not be persons connected with the gold mines; whether in His Majesty's West Indian colonies any similar penalties are in force respecting the labour of coloured persons not being immigrants under indenture; and whether in the case of the latter the penalties for breach of contract of service are of a much lighter character than those in the Pass Laws, the use of the lash being wholly excluded; whether His Majesty's Government will abrogate the existing Pass Law as regards natives of colour in the Transvaal not being immigrants, and whether he will extend to immigrants under contracts of service the humane provisions in force in the West Indian Colonies, such as those contained in the Immigration Ordinances of 1899 for Trinidad and Tobago; whether he will lay upon the Table copies of the Gold Law and Pass Laws now in force in the Transvaal, and also the Immigration Ordinances of 1899 applicable to the West-Indian Colonies, and also any proclamation of the High Commissioner giving effect to the native labour laws and other laws now in force in the Transvaal.

The Gold Law of 1898, which repeals that of 1896, and the Pass Law of 1899 remain in force until repealed, and so far as the gold industry is now carried on they are operative. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative, but I may add that by a proclamation issued on 24th June the minimum penalties prescribed under the Pass Law have been abolished, and magistrates may inflict as small a punishment as they think fit. The answer to the first part of the third question is in the negative, and to the last part in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government have the amendment of the legislation in question under their consideration. I may add that Lord Milner is in favour of very strict limitations of the penalty of flogging, if not its ultimate total abolition, except for brutal crimes such as rape, and Lord Milner has been requested to take the earliest opportunity after his return to deal with the whole subject. The Papers asked for shall be laid.

^* : I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House of the precise alterations which have been made to modify the penalties of lashes at discretion under the Pass Laws, and of twenty-five lashes under the Gold Laws, applicable to coloured workmen, the term coloured including British-Indian subjects.

No sentence inflicting more than twelve lashes can now be carried out without the confirmation of the High Commissioner, minimum penalties have been abolished, and the legal adviser to the Government has issued a circular to resident magistrates intimating that it is his very strong opinion that it is not as a rule desirable to impose the sentence of lashes as a punishment for a first offence, unless the offence is of so serious a character that it would be more proper for the cognisance of the special criminal court. As I have stated in reply to Sir William Harcourt, the whole question will be carefully reconsidered immediately on Lord Milner's return.

May I ask the Colonial Secretary whether care will be taken that the resident magistrates administering the gold laws shall not be persons connected with the gold mines?

I do not quite understand in what way the right hon. Gentleman means. The resident magistrates, who are legal persons, cannot be connected with the gold mines.

It was stated by the hon. Member for Mansfield some time ago that civil appointments had been given to a number of persons connected with the gold mines.

That statement did not apply to the magistrates, and the appointments referred to by the hon. Member were made, not by the civil but by the military authority. I am not sure, either, that the statements were admitted.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is contemplated to advise the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa to prohibit in future the obligation being imposed on burghers to be present at the execution of rebels.

I am only aware of one case in which this has been done, and I do not think it necessary to give Lord Kitchener any advice on the matter referred to.

Did the War Office condemn the practice?

I communicated with Lord Kitchener and asked for facts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this country public executions have been abolished for thirty years?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what officer gave the order for the attendance at the execution of their countryman in the prison of Dordrecht, Cape Colony, of some twenty British colonists of Dutch descent; whether the order was given with the knowledge of the general officer commanding; and, if not, whether such a proceeding is in accordance with Army Regulations; were these compelled to attend as prisoners of war, under what penalty did they attend, and what was the object to be attained; whether there is precedent or such action; whether, seeing that in.1882, at the time of the insurrection in Egypt, when a public execution was carried out in Alexandria, the Government refrained from compelling the attendance of the public, the Government will at once issue orders that, in he event of other executions taking place, such compulsion shall be prohibited.

The only information I have as to this execution I lave already read out to the House. I have not been able at such brief notice to inquire into the historical precedents relating to military executions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry of Lord Kitchener as to the exceptional circumstances of this case?

I imagine the object n bringing together other persons who were disloyal under such circumstances was that the scene should act as a deterrent, for the purpose of preventing similar acts on their part in the future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry in South Africa?

Has it increased the loyalty of these persons?

I respectfully submit that I ought to have an answer to my question.

^* : Order, order! The question on the Paper has been answered. If the hon. Member wishes for further information he must put a question down.

I shall be satisfied if the right hon Gentleman promises to make inquiry in South Africa.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what explanation, if any, the War Office has to give of the fact that, while two clerks in the De Beers Company, the one a cyclist and the other employed throughout the siege of Kimberley in a clerical capacity, have obtained the Distinguished Service Order, two officers of distinguished merit, the one a holder of the Victoria Cross, have been passed over although mentioned in Colonel Kekewich's despatches for conspicuous ability and gallantry during the siege of Kimberley.

I propose at the same time to answer another question by the hon. Member on the same subject.

No, no. I rise to a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is the only Minister whom I have to accuse of want of courtesy. I have put down two perfectly distinct questions, and I wish to ask them separately. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to jumble both together. I will ask one only.

^* : It is an exceedingly common practice to answer together questions which deal with the same matters. If any inconvenience arises the hon. Member can put another question. I hope he will not do so unnecessarily.

The following was the second Question on the Paper:—

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why Colonel Kekewich, who was in command at the siege of Kimberley, was not consulted as to the way in which rewards should be distributed to those whom he had brought under the notice of the Commander-in-Chief.

It is not in my power to give the hon. Member any information with regard to either question. All rewards have been carefully considered, with the reports of the officers in command, and I am not prepared to discuss the reason of any recommendations made by the Commander-in-Chief.

Why don't you inquire of Cecil Rhodes?

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commander-in-Chief for information on the point raised by my second question?

I am quite aware of his motives, but I am not going to give them to the House.

Is it the practice to consult Cecil Rhodes—

^* : Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state how many claims have been sent in to His Majesty's Government by De Beers for expenses incurred during the siege of Kimberley, what was the amount of the sum claimed in the first instance, and what is the date of the presentation of the claim; what was the amount of the sum recently claimed, and the date of the presentation of the claim; whether he is aware that among the items of the claims of the Company for payment are £19 10s. for a wreath for a staff officer's grave, £70 for cab hire for a newspaper correspondent connected with the company, £788 in respect of employment of native runners to bring up newspapers to Mr. Rhodes from Modder River, and £25, being the expense incurred by Mr. Rhodes in getting a private letter sent to Mafeking; and whether he can state the result of the negotiations between the Government and the De Beers Company, and whether he is prepared to lay the Papers respecting them upon the Table.

The first statement of expenses incurred by the De Beers Company during the siege of Kimberley amounted to about £300,000, and was put forward soon after the relief of Kimberley, early in 1900. This statement was returned to the company by the military authorities in South Africa with a request that they should send in a tabulated claim with vouchers of such charges as they proposed to press against the Imperial Government. This claim, amounting to £54,641 4s. 9d., was referred by the military authorities in South Africa to the War Office for instructions on the 24th April, 1901. 'The original statement, which was not in the nature of a claim, did include items of the nature described in the second paragraph. The claim is still under examination, and no payment in respect of it has been made. There does not appear to be any necessity to Jay any Papers on the subject.

Do I understand that the claim first made by the De Beers Company was £300,000, and that it has now been reduced to £54,000?

No; the statement of expenses incurred was £300,000, but the claim made on the Government is £54,000.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has noticed that there were 310 deaths among the 19,811 white children confined in the refugee camps in the Transvaal during the month of June, this being at the rate of about 18 per cent. per annum, whereas in the refugee camps in Cape Colony, where 274 white children were confined, there were no deaths during that month, and whether he can explain the causes of this discrepancy; whether he has noticed that whereas there were during the month of June 182 deaths amongst the 17,963 white children, i.e ., a rate of 2,184 per annum of deaths, in the refugee camps in Natal, there were no deaths amongst the 11.201 coloured children confined in these camps during that month, and whether he can explain this difference in the deaths between white children and coloured children.

In reply to a telegram despatched on the 14th July, inquiring whether any special epidemic is accountable for the death rate in the Transvaal and Orange River camps in the month of June, Lord Kitchener telegraphed that measles have been very prevalent. I have no further information to hand. Any comparison of these statistics without proper and detailed data would be most misleading.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether hospital accommodation is provided for sick and wounded officers returning to this country from the seat of war; if so, whether the accommodation provided has been found sufficient for all cases that require attention; and whether for such officers as are not accommodated in hospital professional attendance is furnished at the public expense, and pecuniary allowance given to meet the cost of private hospital, provision of nurses, or other necessary outlay.

At Netley sixteen beds are available, and seventy-five officers in all have been treated there. At Herbert Hospital two beds are available, but none have applied to be treated there. More officers might have availed themselves of the accommodation provided in these hospitals. As regards private accommodation, it was provided in some cases free of expense owing to the generosity of private organisations. The question of providing for private medical attendance at the public expense is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether lie can say what amount has been paid, or will be paid to Lord Roberts, out of the gratuity allocated to His Majesty's troops in South Africa.

A war gratuity of £2,500 will be payable to Lord Roberts under the scale adopted.

Is that in addition to the increase of his salary from £4,500 to £5,000 a year? He is well paid for his telegram.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the notification of the death of Corporal Edward Collard, Border Regiment, a Reservist, who was killed on the railway at Hunslet, near Leeds, on 8th June, while returning from South Africa, was sent to an old address, with the result that his relatives knew nothing of his death until a week after the inquest and burial; and seeing that his orders to rejoin as a Reservist, together with orders for reserve pay, were sent to 49, Barnsbury Road, Islington, which, had the notification of decease been so addressed, would have given his relatives timely notice of his death, whether he will inquire into this matter.

Corporal Collard's death was properly notified to his next-of-kin at the address which he gave as that of his next-of-kin. If there was any change in the address of his next-of-kin, Corporal Collard should have notified it to his company officer. His reserve pay orders were duly sent to the address which he gave as his own. It must be remembered that a soldier and his next-of-kin frequently do not have the same, address.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the men of the 78th Company Imperial Yeomanry, who were discharged six weeks ago, are unable to get their overdue pay, because the pay sheets have not yet arrived from South Africa; and that the 42nd Company on discharge received £10 on account of arrears of pay, being told it was uncertain when they would get the remainder; and if he can state what proportion of discharged Yeomanry are re-enlisting.

Instructions have already been sent to pay the men of the 78th Company four-fifths of what pay appears to be due to them, and of the 42nd Company such sum, not exceeding sixty-one days arrears of pay as the men may claim, or four-fifths of the amount claimed, if there is any evidence of the approximate sum due. The Imperial Yeomanry is not at present open to re-enlistment.

Why have not the pay sheets come?

The hon. Member, I hope, will recognise that in the circumstances, of the war, pay sheets are sometimes difficult to make up, and excuses must be made for delay. I can assure the hon. Member everything possible is done to avoid delay.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the proportion of honours conferred on the officers and men of the Militia as compared with other branches of the military forces serving in South Africa.

As stated in the preamble to Lord Roberta's despatch published on the 16th April, the honours to be conferred on the officers and men for regimental service will be published in a later Gazette , and until this Gazette is published the proportion asked for cannot be stated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, seeing that medals have already been distributed to officers and men of the Regular, Volunteer, and colonial forces, and will be on the 26th instant to the Yeomanry, he can state when it is intended to distribute medals to officers and men of the Militia who have returned from service in South Africa.

On Monday next His Majesty will present some medals to officers and permanent staff of four Militia battalions and to men of some service companies. The rest will be issued as soon as the medal rolls are forwarded to the War Office.

On behalf of my colleague in the representation of Dundee, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of No. 7,225, Black Watch Royal Highlanders, who enlisted when under sixteen, and is now only seventeen and a half years of age, was in thirteen engagements in South Africa, and after being kept almost continually marching was found asleep from physical exhaustion when on duty and sentenced to two years imprisonment, which he is now undergoing in the prison at Wakefield; whether it has been brought to his knowledge that this boy has two well-conducted brothers in the Army and another in the Navy, that his parents are in distress on account of his treatment, and that his mother is suffering in her health on account of it, and whether there is any prospect of the lad's sentence being speedily mitigated.

This question refers to the case of No. 7225, Private H. Mellon, 2nd Royal Highlanders. He was sentenced in January last to two years hard labour for sleeping on his post. In the early part of this month it was decided to release him.

Will you inquire as to the enlistment of this boy under age?

No, Sir.

May I call attention to the case of a boy of sixteen years who .has been twelve months in prison, and has not yet been released?

^* : Order, order!

Has the boy been released?

Yes, in the early part of the month.

Are the facts stared in, the question as to the boy's age correct?

I cannot say.

Will the noble Lord, inquire?

[No answer was returned.]

I respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, if I am in order in putting that question?

^* : The noble Lord has stated that he is not in a position to give an answer, and that he will not enquire.

I will bring the matter up on the Estimates to-night.

I beg, on behalf of my colleague, to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will agree to a Return of the number of soldiers who have served in the South African War now imprisoned in this country, of the offences for which they have been committed, the punishments awarded them, and the number of cases in which the sentences have been revised; and the punishments mitigated.

No, Sir. Would the hon. Member kindly refer to the reply to a similar question put by the hon. Member for North Louth on the 14th March.†

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the 3rd and 4th battalions of the 8th King's Liverpool Regiment, formed last year, and now quartered in Ireland, are to be disbanded at once;

† See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xc., page 1546.

and, if so, whether he will state the grounds for such a change of policy.

When the Estimates for the present year were made, eight battalions of the garrison regiment were included, with the double advantage that they required no twin battalions at home to maintain them, and that they did not involve an additional strain on "the recruiting market. It was decided that under the circumstances it was feasible to reduce the number of new line battalions authorised in 1900 from fourteen to twelve, and the Commander-in-chief selected the two battalions of the Liverpool Regiment as those which, for recruiting reasons, it was most desirable to dispense with. The strength of these two battalions is only together 875 non-commissioned officers and men, and the men will be absorbed in the first and second battalions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the labourers employed under the War Department at Devonport and other naval establishments will receive a similar advance in wages as recently conceded to labourers employed by the Admiralty.

The matter is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Commanding Officer of the 3rd Seaforth Highlanders (Militia) asserts that Mr. David M'Brayne was warned by the Officer Commanding the 72nd Regimental District that a special boat would be required on 11th June to convey the Lewis section of the battalion (600 men) to Stornoway, and that thirty-six hours notice was given of the hour of sailing, will he call upon Mr. M'Brayne to explain why he gave no intimation of his inability to provide a steamer capable of conveying all the men until 7.30 p.m. on 11th June, by which time the men had been en-strained at Dingwall for Kyle of Lochalsh, where, in consequence of Mr. M'Brayne's failure to provide a suitable steamer, they had to spend the night under conditions which involved suffering and inconvenience.

I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will ascertain why Mr. David M'Brayne's steamer "Clansman" was not available to convey 600 men of the 3rd Seaforth Highlanders (Militia) from Kyle of Lochalsh to Stornoway, seeing that she was lying at Kyle of Lochalsh on 11th June, the night on which the men reached that place for Stornoway; and, seeing that the men had only just returned from a hot climate, and that the night was cold, wet, and stormy, will he ascertain why a steamer was provided which afforded no protection from the weather.

In reply to these questions, I have nothing to add to the information which I have already given to the House.

Will the noble Lord answer the first part of my question? He has ignored it absolutely. It has never been answered.

I have nothing to add to my previous answers.

Well, I shall raise the question again.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will grant the Return on the Paper as to South Africa (Cost of Transports).

I have been asked by my right hon. friend to answer this question, as it concerns the transport department of the Navy. For reasons which I gave to the hon. Member the other day, when he addressed a similar question to the Admiralty, it will not be possible to give the Return in the exact form asked for. The preparation of such a Return would involve the expenditure of much time and labour, without any apparent commensurate public advantage, inasmuch as each case has to be dealt with according to its particular circumstances. When the transactions connected with the chartering of ships for the operations in South Africa are concluded, full particulars on this subject will probably be available.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether at the present time any armour-piercing shells filled with high explosives have been supplied to His Majesty's Navy, and can he say what thickness of plate the present lyddite common shells will penetrate, and whether he has any official information showing that the United States Government have adopted a high explosive which can be carried through thick armour, and which does not detonate outside the plate, but which explodes by the action of the fuze only; and, seeing that ships carrying such shells would have an advantage over our ships which carry only armour-piercing shells filled with common black powder, whether he can say what steps he proposes to take.

The armour-piercing shells used in the Navy are not filled with high explosives. Shells containing lyddite detonate against thin armour and do little damage inside the ship. No official information has been received in the sense suggested in the third paragraph of the hon. Member's question. The question of whether it be possible, or desirable, to substitute a high explosive for black powder in armour-piercing shells is now under consideration by the Explosives Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the cause of the delay in presenting the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the victualling of the Navy, and whether any decision has been arrived at as to the reforms recommended.

The Report is now being printed, and I hope it will shortly be presented to the House. The question as to whether the recommendations of the Committee should be adopted in full or otherwise is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what sum was paid by the Admiralty for the licence to manufacture Belleville boilers, and how much has been expended in special plant and other preparations for their manufacture.

No sum has been paid by the Admiralty for the licence to manufacture Belleville boilers, but a royalty of 18 francs per square metre of heating surface has been paid for each boiler constructed for or by the Admiralty. The sum of £7,000 has been expended in special plant for the manufacture and repair of Belleville boilers.

Can the hon. Gentleman give the total amount of the royalties paid?

I have already given that information to the House.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have given attention to the growing needs of Hong-Kong as the headquarters of the British Fleet and the entrepot for trade in the Chinese seas, and whether they have taken these considerations into account in selecting the site for the dock on the island of Hong Kong now in course of construction; whether they have received any representations either from the naval authorities on the station, from the colonial authorities, or the commercial community at Hong Kong, or from their own engineers, showing that a mistake had been made in the selection of that site; whether there is available another site on the mainland, instead of the island of Hong kong, which would allow of the expansion of the works and be in other respects preferable to the present site; how much of the total estimated expenditure of £1,275,500 has already been expended; and will the Admiralty, before proceeding further with this dock, reconsider, the whole matter, and meantime suspend the further prosecution of the works now in progress.

^* : The reply to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. Representations have been received from the colonial authorities suggesting the removal of the dockyard to the mainland. These have been fully considered by the naval advisers of the Admiralty and it has been decided to retain the present site, the area of which has been much extended by the acquisition of the adjoining War Office reclamation. In reply to the third paragraph, the sum is about £150,000. The reply to the last paragraph is in the negative.

Have the Admiralty decided to retain the site contrary to the recommendation of their own engineers, and after it has been condemned by the colonial authorities?

^* : I did not say that the site had been condemned, but that representations had been received.

Were the representations from the colonial authorities to the effect that the site was the right one?

^* : No, Sir; they were not.

^* : May I ask whether the Civil Lord of the Admiralty will consider the advisability of inviting the hon. Member for King's Lynn to proceed to Hong Kong at the earliest opportunity, for the purpose of probing this matter further?

May I ask whether, in that event, His Majesty's Government will pay some attention to the Report, and will not ask for it to be rewritten?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the date upon which the Indian Budget will be discussed.

I am afraid I am not in a position to state the exact date.

Will the Famine Report be issued before the Budget is taken?

I am afraid there is no likelihood of that being done.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any restrictions are intended to be imposed upon the present system of trial by jury in India, and, if so, whether he will explain to the House the reasons offered for such restrictions; and whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter before a final decision is taken.

There is no authority for the allegation in the first part of the question.

Will the noble Lord consider the advisability of introducing the Irish jury system into India, so that Parsees may be refused admission to the jury box?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Britannic consulate-general at Odessa has been removed from the central urban position it has occupied for many years to a distant suburb, to which the 800 British shipmasters who annually enter and leave the port must pay two visits, upon entering and leaving, at a cost of a rouble each visit for droschky hire; whether he is aware that persons doing business with the consul general are thus incommoded and put to otherwise needless trouble and cost, and whether the removal of the consulate was made with the knowledge and assent of the Foreign Office, and whether he will inquire fully into the matter.

^* : (1) The Foreign Office is not aware that the office of the consulate general at Odessa has been moved, but inquiry will be made. (2) The position of the consulate has not been made the subject of any complaint.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have asked for or received any assurance from the French, German, and Japanese Governments that their troops are only temporarily stationed at Shanghai; and at what period these troops are to be withdrawn.

^* : The date of the final evacuation of Shanghai, as of other parts of China occupied by the Allied forces, has not yet been determined, but we have no reason to believe that any of the Governments alluded to desire to retain troops permanently At that port.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the bursting of the banks of the Yang-tsye, near Ngan-king, and the consequent destruction of property.

^* : We have not received any report relative to this.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, out of 64 cases of lead poisoning reported during June, only eight cases were in the china and earthenware trades, and can he state in what trades chiefly the remaining 56 cases occurred; and for what reason the Home Office issues new special rules for the china and earthenware industries rather than for the trades where there are a greater number of cases of lead poisoning.

^* : The figures quoted by the hon. Member are correct, but it might be added that the eight cases in the china and earthenware trade included two out of the total of four fatal cases for the month. The remaining 55 cases were spread in small numbers over several trades. There is only one trade (the manufacture of white lead) in which the number of cases is greater than in china and earthenware, and for this trade new rules have recently been made. The reasons for proposing the new rules for china and earthenware are fully given in published reports and in letters to the manufacturers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that mutoscopes or kalloscopes, with pictures of an objectionable nature and titles of a suggestive character, are now being exhibited in the Vale of Health, Hampstead, and elsewhere, and, seeing that the police declare themselves powerless to interfere, whether he can apply or propose a remedy.

^* : I must refer the hon. Member to a previous answer on this subject, in which I pointed out that there are many pictures which may be suggestive and objectionable but which are not so indecent or obscene as to afford grounds for a successful prosecution. The pictures referred to in the question are, I am informed, of this nature. I am glad to learn, however, that this evil has recently greatly abated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the memorial presented last year to his predecessor signed by the officers of His Majesty's prisons, whether he has replied to the same, and whether he proposes to carry into effect any of the wishes of the memorialists.

^* : I have considered the memorials in question, which were 1,782 in number. Answers were given by my predecessor to questions on the 12th March and 23rd July, 1900, to the effect that the question of pensions is primarily one for the Treasury, and that he was not prepared to propose the legislation which would be necessary in order to carry the prayer of the petition into effect. I fear I can only repeat those answers.

Will an answer be sent to the memorialists?

^* : I have no doubt they have seen the answer, but if my hon. friend wishes to have it directly communicated to them, I will take care that that is done.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that for several hours on Tuesday last not merely vehicular traffic but the passage of pedestrians in the vicinity of the Guildhall and the Mansion House was obstructed and at times suspended owing to the congested state of the streets by the crowds who collected on the occasion of the conferring of the freedom of the City of London on Lord Milner, and whether, having regard to the inconvenience entailed on private individuals by the state of the streets, care will be taken on the occasion of future functions of this nature to secure the freedom of vehicular traffic and the passage of pedestrians through the business and commercial centres of the City of London.

^* : I am not surprised to learn that large crowds collected in order to do honour to Lord Milner on the occasion of the presentation of the freedom of the City. No doubt this caused some congestion, with which I am sure the police did their best to deal. In any case, this is a matter for the City police authorities, and I have no authority to give directions with respect to it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that persons were unable to transact their banking business owing to this corrupt Jingo harlequinade?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Board of Trade, in the Mansfield Light Railway Order, the Barnsley Light Railway Order, and the Blackburn, Whalley, and Padiham Light Railway Order, ordered that the maximum rate for the conveyance of a bicycle upon the light railway should be 2d. per mile, with a minimum charge of 6d., and that this charge is considered by cyclists as prohibitive; and, seeing; that in the same Orders the maximum charge fixed for the conveyance of calves pigs, and sheep was at the rate of l½d. per head per mile, and that there is less trouble and attendant expense in conveying a bicycle than in conveying a, sheep, a calf, or a pig, whether the Board of Trade will, in considering further Orders, fix a smaller rate of charge for the conveyance of bicycles.

The Board of Trade have inserted provisions in the Orders referred to which have the effect of reducing the maximum charge for the carriage of bicycles from Is. a mile, which appeared in the Provisional Order to the rates mentioned by the hon. Member. The Amendment was put in by consent. The Board will consider each case on its merits.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the aggregate age of four iron-built steamers employed by Mr. David M'Brayne on the West Highland Mail Packet Service is 161 years, the "Clydesdale" being thirty-nine years old, the "Glencoe" fifty-four years old, the "Lovedale" thirty-four years old, and the "Gael" thirty-four years old; and seeing that these steamers have to carry passengers as well as mails and goods through seas which are frequently stormy, will he have some inquiry made with a view to ascertain whether they are seaworthy and suitable for the conveyance of passengers in rough weather.

The ages of the vessels to which the hon. Member refers are practically as stated in the question. They are thoroughly surveyed periodically by Board of Trade surveyors, and I am advised that they are strong, well maintained vessels, fit in every way for the service in which they are engaged.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the provisions supplied the crew of the steamship "Mayfield" on her last voyage were examined by a Board of Trade inspector; if so, whether he is in a position to give any explanation as to the quality of the food; and whether the vessel was provisioned at the owners' expense, or whether they allowed the captain money to find the crew in food; and, if so, what amount.

I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a case at South Shields where three seamen of the steamship "Mayfield" were awarded compensation by the bench of magistrates for receiving insufficient food on board ship; and, seeing that the meat on the "Mayfield" was unfit for use and the biscuits in such small quantities that each sailor received but one a day, whether the Board of Trade will take steps against the owner of this vessel for not having made proper provision for the feeding of the crew.

I propose to answer together the hon. Member's two questions with regard to the "May-field." The vessel's provisions did not come under inspection by the Board of Trade. The Merchant Shipping Act only provides for the inspection of the provisions of ships going through the Suez Canal or round the Cape of Good Hope, or Cape Horn. I am advised that, in the circumstances, I have no power to interfere. As the hon. Member s aware, some of the crew recovered compensation, but the others did not proceed, and accepted their wages without any addition by way of compensation. I am informed by the owner of the vessel that she was provisioned at his expense.

May I ask whether, in view of the fact, which is admitted, that this ship was at sea forty days inadequately provisioned, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of the Board of Trade taking fresh powers in order to be able to deal with cases of this kind?

I doubt whether such powers are necessary, but I will consider the matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the loss of tie sailing vessel "Moel Tryvau" in the English Channel on the 19th January last; whether he can state the number of the crew employed on this vessel at the time of her loss, how many were able seamen, and how many of the able seamen were able to prove four years sea service; whether the owners have made any report as required by Section 255 of the Merchant Shipping Act, and whether he will insist on the owners furnishing a return at once.

Yes, Sir; as I have already informed the hon. Member in reply to a previous question, my attention has been called to the case to which he refers. The crew of the "Moel Tryvau" consisted of eighteen hands all told. The owners inform me that eight of these were able seamen, but the Board of Trade have not yet obtained official information as regards the length of their service. The owners are sending in the list required by Section 255 of the Merchant Shipping Act.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that William Morrison, fireman on the steamship 'Numidian," was arrested on 23rd May, in Montreal, for being absent without leave, and that the master left him in prison and sailed for Liverpool without paying him off, in accordance with Sections 187 and 188 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and can he state what steps, if any, he has taken to see that this man is paid and compensated for his loss of time; and will he get a report of the case from the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office and magistrate's clerk at Montreal.

The Board of Trade have not yet received particulars of the case to which the hon. Member refers, but inquiries shall be made.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Northern Lighthouse Board is composed of the law officers of the Crown, sheriffs, provosts, and senior bailies of certain municipal corporations; and, taking into consideration the ordinary avocations of these gentlemen, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation with a view to the reconstruction of the Board, so that shipowners, merchants, and mariners may have direct representation thereon.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As at present advised, His Majesty's Government do not contemplate legislation dealing with the constitution of the commissioners of northern lighthouses.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, geographically and for all general purposes, the county of Staffordshire is divided into two parts, North and South Staffordshire; and that each part has its own separate trades, interests, and associations; and whether, in view of its population, he will follow the precedents adopted in similar cases with regard to other counties similarly circumstanced, and take steps to establish a separate county council for the northern part of the county.

I have no power to establish a separate county council for part of the county of Staffordshire, except upon a representation under Section 54 of the Local Government Act. 1888, and I have not received any such representation.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a portion of the local refuse of the city of York is carted and deposited outside of city, and that at the present time quantities of filth have thus accumulated in a field close to the Hull Road, which thoroughfare is daily frequented by hundreds of cyclists and other passengers; and whether such a system of scavenging is conducted with the sanction of the Local Government Board.

I understand that a portion of the refuse of the city of York is deposited on a field outside the city, whence it is carted away by farmers and spread on their land. I am informed that the nearest deposit is 67 yards from the public road, and 100 yards from the nearest house, the next house being 320 yards distant. No sanction has been given by the Local Government Board in this matter, nor is any such sanction required.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the statement made at the Tuberculosis Congress by Dr. Koch, and whether in consequence thereof he will cause the recommendation issued long since by the Local Government Board to the inspectors and medical officers of health to refrain from confiscating or destroying the bodies of animals alleged to be affected with localised tuberculosis to be carried out in future.

I am aware of the statement made by Dr. Koch as to the non-identity of human and bovine tuberculosis, but I do not think that this view can at the present time be regarded as having received the general assent of scientific men. The matter is one which will require very careful consideration, and I could not promise to take any action which is based on the view referred to.

Arising out of that reply, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will cause the inspectors and medical officers to comply with the recommendations sent out by the Local Government Board some time since with regard to the matter of uniform inspection?

I have no power to compel them to do so, but we do our best to advise the local authorities.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will consider the possibility of issuing to the public books of postal orders with counterfoils either of fixed amounts or available for payment of any sum up to a fixed maximum, the balance being repayable to the purchaser of the book.

For some time the Postmaster General has had under his consideration the subject of issuing postal orders with counterfoils, and the question of supplying such orders for fixed amounts in books has not been overlooked. There are, however, many practical difficulties in the way, and he has not yet arrived at a decision. It is not practicable to issue postal orders otherwise than for fixed amounts.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the Argentine postal authorities have raised the postage rates on letters for England to an equivalent of 3d. for each letter weighing 15 grammes, while the postage from this country is 2½d.; and whether this charge has been made without consulting the British Government or Postal Union; and, having regard to the dissatisfaction existing among the British community of the Argentine at this and other postal charges, particularly in regard to the parcel post, whether he will make fresh representations to the Argentine Government with a view to the abolition of these rates.

The Postmaster General is aware that the Argentine Administration have raised the rate of postage for letters as stated, but under the Postal Union regulations it is within its right in doing so. The point was not one on which the British Post Office or any other administration of the Postal Union was entitled to be consulted, and the Postmaster General is not aware that any consultation took place. He could not usefully address any representations to the Argentine Government on this matter; but representations have been made on the subject of the fiscal charge of 1 peso levied on parcels entering the Republic by Parcel Post.

Will a communication be addressed to the Argentine Republic on this matter?

I have said that the Postmaster General is of opinion that that cannot usefully be done.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the rule under which postmen may regain forfeited good conduct stripes by two years unblemished service is still in operation; and, if not, when was it cancelled, and what are the conditions now obtaining under which lost stripes can be recovered.

The rule under which postmen may regain forfeited good conduct stripes after two years unblemished service is still in operation. It should, however, be explained that the period of two years is a minimum, and that the precise time which must elapse before a stripe can be restored depends upon the circumstances of the particular case.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has now been arrived at as to the application to the Probate Court officials of retirement at the age of sixty-five, under the rule which is generally enforced throughout the civil service.

The Probate Division is a part of the Supreme Court, and the Lord Chancellor considers it impossible, without legislation, to apply to clerks appointed under the Judicature Acts the rule which makes the retirement of civil servants at the age of sixty-five compulsory.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any further efforts have been made by the Congested Districts Board to acquire land in the Island of Lewis for the erection of fishermen's dwellings and the creation of small holdings for the landless cottars; and if so, will he state what lands have been applied for.

^* : No, Sir; at present I can add nothing to the information which has already been given to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state how many stations for curing fish there are in Scotland, the number of girls employed therein, the cubic space allowed per person in the huts in which the women are housed, and what steps are taken to see that the provisions of the Public Health Act are enforced in connection with the industry.

^* : I am informed by the Fishery Board that there are 1,054 fish-curing stations in Scotland, and the number of girls employed has amounted to 19,016, but that it fluctuates greatly according to the season and success of the fishing. Or the East Coast very few of these girls live in huts, most of them living in their usual homes or in lodgings in ordinary dwelling houses. If lodgings are not available, barrel stores are fitted up as lodgings. The cubic space allowed per person varies, but these temporary lodgings are under the jurisdiction of the local authorities. I am informed by the Local Government Board that the sanitary condition of fishing stations, towns, and villages receives the special consideration of local authorities, who, if necessary, enforce the bye-laws which they make.

If any report is made will the right hon. Gentleman take action on this matter of the sanitary accommodation?

^* : It does not come within my Department.

What is the duty of the Secretary for Scotland then?

^* : The matter is within the province of the Local Government Board.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the effect in the Highland counties of school boards not having the power to remove from the attendance register the names of those scholars who have been granted exemption from the obligation to attend school, if he is aware that, by the retention of the names of all exempted children until they are fourteen years of age, the names upon the register may become so numerous that the average attendance, compared with the register, may fall so low as to deprive the school of the Highland Grant; and whether he will suggest to the Scotch Education Department the issue of a minute modifying the code on the point in question as far as the Highland counties are concerned.

^* : When the Education Bill now before the House becomes law it will be matter for consideration whether any modification of the code is expedient in the direction indicated by the hon. Member. The matter will not be overlooked.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland has only been presented in dummy, will he say when the Report itself will be placed in the Library.

^* : Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. I am informed by the Stationery Office that the Report will probably be ready for circulation in about three weeks.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my question. When will the Report be placed in the Library? I have been unable to find it there.

^* : If it be possible to do it in less than three weeks, it shall be done.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state under what authority the Board of Education propose to abolish in evening schools the 17s. 6d. limit set up by the Elementary Education Act of 1876.

The Board of Education do not propose to abolish the statutory limit, which can only be done by Parliament. The limit will still apply to all evening schools conducted under the Elementary Education Acts.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey hold strongly the opinion that certain stands usually erected in abbey for State ceremonies are unsafe and should not be erected for the forthcoming coronation, and that they are supported in this view by competent expert authority; and if, in view of the calamity which would result from the collapse of one stand in particular, he will give the matter his serious attention

I have heard that some members of the Chapter hold this view, but that there is some diversity of opinion on the subject among them. Though I am confident that the stand in question could be erected with perfect security and without damage to the Abbey, I may, however, inform my hon. friend that in consequence of other objections, altogether distinct from considerations of safety, it is not proposed to erect the stand over the communion table.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he can now state how many appeals have been entered in the Court of Appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Acts since they were passed up to the present date, how many have been heard and determined in favour of the workman, and whether any, and, if so, how many, appeals are still pending therefrom to the House of Lords.

220 appeals have been entered in the Court of Appeal since the passing of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Of these 156 have been heard, and fifty-six decided in favour of the workman. Two appeals are pending in the House of Lords.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state the cost of the fitting up of the Royal Gallery for the holding of the trial of Lord Russell on 18th July last, and what has become of the benches and scarlet cloth coverings, or canopy of the Lord Great Chamberlain, and will he say whether the ceremonial accompaniments of the trial have become the property of the Lord Great Chamberlain in right of his office; and whether an opportunity will be given for the discussion of these expenses on the Vote for the Office of Public Works.

The cost will be between £250 and £300. The answer to the hon. Member's second inquiry is in the negative. The fittings, etc., are still in my possession. They have been claimed by the Lord Great Chamberlain; but I have disallowed the claim. An opportunity for the discussion of these expenses and other matters connected with the Houses of Parliament will, I hope, be found on Vote.3 of Class 1 of the Estimates.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he can state the fees of the law officers of the Crown at the recent trial of Ear Russell, and by what authority the amount of these fees was recognised or ascertained.

No, Sir. I must refer the hon. Member to the Treasury Minute for information.

The Treasury Minute says the right hon. Gentleman gets £31,000 a year.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that no progress has been made towards the erection of a goods store at Sneem Pier, county Kerry, although the opposition to the Congested Districts Board, by whom the pier was built, has been withdrawn, and whether he can state the reason of the delay; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the traders of the district, he will cause further inquiries to be made.

I have referred this matter to an inspector of the Board, who will take a suitable opportunity of inquiring into the position of affairs.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this great disability has been going on for two or three years? Will he put pressure on the local landlord?

I am afraid that the matter is more complicated than that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the condition of the graveyard attached to the Belfast Workhouse; whether he is aware that the graveyard has been in use for over thirty years, and that, although only a few acres in extent, nearly 10,000 bodies have been interred in it; whether he has any official information to the effect that the bodies are buried in quicklime and set out in layers; and whether it is proposed to take steps to close the graveyard, in view of the danger of an epidemic of disease.

The facts are, I understand, correctly stated in the first paragraph. The bodies are not buried in quicklime, but when the coffins are covered with earth a small quantity of quicklime is thrown over the earth as a disinfectant. The Local Government Board has been in correspondence with the guardians as to the necessity of providing additional burial accommodation, and a committee of the guardians has been appointed to report upon suitable sites for the purpose.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the workhouse inmates are supplied with vegetables grown on this plague spot? In view of the existence of wells in the neighbourhood, have steps been taken to have this ground drained as required by law?

I am informed that the local authorities do not take so unfavourable a view of the condition of the cemetery as is suggested by the question, but I will inquire.