said that by the Local Government Act of 1898 for the first time the city of Londonderry was separated from the county of Londonderry, and there was no such thing under the section as the County Council of the City and County of Londonderry. The Act of 1875, which was incorporated, placed a charge for twenty-three years of £45,000 on the capital of £220,000, and it placed that charge not upon the entire county of Londonderry, but upon certain baronies of Londonderry. In these circumstances what did the promoters do? He submitted that the Amendments inserted by the Lords were a gross breach of the privileges of this House.

There is only this one Amendment, and of course the hon. and learned Member must confine himself to the effect of this Amendment. I think it would be more convenient if the hon. and learned Member made his criticism upon the question that the House do agree with the Lords' Amendment.

said he was submitting that the Amendment of the House of Lords was a breach of the privileges of this House, and he submitted that upon the question now before the House his arguments were pertinent. The Amendment made by the House of Lords in this Act was unconstitutional in itself, and it was a breach of the privileges of this House, for it affected a large body of ratepayers who never had any notice that this charge was to be placed upon them at all. That was his argument. He had demonstrated by the section of the Act of 1875 that the Act placed this charge upon four areas out of the entire county of Londonderry. This was a most serious inroad upon the privileges of the ratepayers, but how did it stand with regard to the House? The whole county of Londonderry was now rated for the purposes of this charge. Notices of this ought to have been given to every ratepayer in the county of Londonderry by the original notices drawn up in October and November of every year. They had the right to petition. He would not have complained of this extraordinary step so much if it had been for the purpose of continuing the existing charge for the benefit of the local ratepayers, but the proposal now was that a large number of persons in certain baronies who had never paid this charge before would now have to contribute. The Standing Orders of the House provided that problems of this kind should not be dealt with without notice, and insisted upon the privileges of the House with regard to any clauses inserted in private Bills or provisional Orders sent down by the House of Lords being observed, more especially in regard to local charges being placed on local authorities for local purposes. The charge in the original Act was solely upon certain baronies—

Order, order! What the hon. and learned Member is now going into cannot be raised upon a point of order, and it would be better if he would raise his objection upon the general question.

said the ratepayers of Ireland would be placed in a grave position if they were denied the protection of the privileges of this House in regard to a matter of this kind. The procedure in regard to private Bills was sufficiently difficult and cumbrous, but the Standing Order rigidly insisted, under a joint Order of both Houses, that no Bill should even be introduced to create a public charge unless notice had been given to every man in the locality, and unless the public bodies had notice and given their approval of the charge. What became of this Standing Order in the case of the Lords' Amendment to this Bill? The unfortunate shareholders were to be robbed of all their money and property for the benefit of a Treasury arrangement with a monopolist company.

That is hardly a point of order.

said his point was that there was no such body as the County Council of the City and County of Londonderry.

Order, order! The hon. Member is going wide of the question. He is discussing the merits of the Bill, and he cannot do that upon a point of order.

said his submission was that it was contrary to the Standing Orders that the House of Lords should make this Amendment, which deprived the public of the protection of the Standing Order which required that all new charges laid upon the ratepayers should first have the approval of the local bodies.

On a point of order, may I submit to the House that this clause containing the onerating charges was not inserted by the House of Lords but by this House, and all that the House of Lords hasdone is to exonerate the city of Londonderry, which was included in error in the clause inserted in this House. Therefore the action of the House of Lords has not been to cast a burden upon any ratepayers or taxpayers, but simply to remove from the city of Londonderry a burden placed upon it by mistake in this House.

Is there such a body as the County Council of the City and County of Londonderry?

No.

It certainly appears to me to be a mere case of error of description. It is a question whether the Lords have not merely corrected an error which the Commons had fallen into.

contended that the House of Commons had fallen into no error. Because of an objection addressed to the House of Lords by some private interested parties the Lords had put in a clause which onerated the whole county of Londonderry.

I do not understand that to be the case. As far as I can understand the position, there is no such body as the County Council of the City and County of Londonderry.

Under the Local Government Act of 1898 there was no grand jury of the city of Londonderry at all, but there was one grand jury which covered both the city and the county. Under the Act of 1875 the seven baronies of the county of Londonderry were charged under the guarantee with the payment of interest on the sum which has been stated at 5 per cent. In the clause as it left the House of Commons a non-existent body was named, and the House of Lords had simply corrected the clause by substituting for that nonexistent body the body that is obviously intended. What the House of Lords has done is simply to strike out those words relating to the non-existent body and make the clause describe an existent body, namely, the County Council of the County of Londonderry, upon whom the burden is thrown.

It seems to me that all this Amendment does is to describe correctly a body which had been incorrectly described. Apparently there has been no new burden imposed upon the ratepayers by the House of Lords.

said he was of course bound by this ruling, and he would address himself to the merits of the question.

May I suggest that some hon. Member should first move that the House do agree with the Lords in this Amendment, and then the hon. and learned Member can move to disagree.

said he could well understand why the learned Attorney General was anxious that this clause should pass, because he happened to represent North Derry.

That is not the result of this Amendment. The only point is whether this Amendment should be inserted, and it appears to me to be simply a correction. Therefore the hon. and learned Member cannot go into the question of the effect of the whole clause.

said he was dealing with what was his own impression as to the effect of this clause as a matter of argument and not of law. As the clause left this House, it could not be denied that it laid a charge upon no man. It was idle to contend that this was simply a correction. The public of Ireland were entitled in an onerating. Bill to be heard and to say whether this Amendment created an onerating charge. That was only common logic. Slips often occurred in Acts of Parliament of which prisoners got the benefit of the doubt. The real construction was that the mind of Parliament was expressed by the words of the Act, and as those words left this House, slip or no slip, they laid no charge upon anybody in the county or city of Londonderry, and the result would have been that they would have escaped by the terms of the Act as it left this House. Those hon. members who were familiar with the Local Government Act of 1898 noticed the slip, and they blessed the name of those who drew up this section. This would have passed the House of Lords without alteration so far as the county council of Londonderry was concerned, and the other local bodies, had it not been for the interested action of a number of private shareholders who, in their own interests, set themselves the task of getting this alleged ship corrected. He challenged contradiction upon the point that this Bill as it left this House relieved the people of the county of Londonderry from all obligations in regard to this charge. The result of the Lords' Amendment must be considered in relation to the existing statutes. He submitted that the effect would be that those persons living in the southern baronies and areas of this county would for the first time be onerated with this charge.

said that the hon. and learned Member for North Louth was under a very great misapprehension in regard to this question no doubt. The Local Government Act of 1898 had put an end to baronies as taxable areas for general purposes under the Act, but it had at the same time provided that charges for railways, tramways, and the like could still be levied off the areas which had originally been made liable for such charges, and he understood that these charges had actually been levied and paid in this way since the passing of that Act. When the section left that House its intention was to preserve to the shareholders the rights which they possessed under previous Acts. There was no intention to impose a liability upon ratepayers not previously liable.

Order, order! The hon. Member is now going into the general merits of the Bill, and he is not in order in doing so.

said it seemed to him that the intention of the section of the Act of Parliament alluded to when it left the House was to preserve to the shareholders any rights which they already had. If there was any slip in the language used or any mistake, was it not a reasonable and right thing to correct it? If the clause would extend a liability not before incurred, he should have supported the hon. Member in resisting the change. He would not touch the merits of the case; but content himself with saying that he did not think the House would impose any liability on the ratepayers to which they were not previously liable.

said his action would be largely guided by the

Order, order! That matter cannot be raised on this Amendment.

Nothing else arises. That is the whole point.

said he had not the slightest hesitation in saying that so far as the liability of the ratepayers in the particular baronies mentioned in the Act of 1875, they remained exactly as they were before. There was no federation of the baronies. The Provisional Order simply provided that the county districts should be used instead of the baronies. It neither circumscribed nor extended the area on which any particular charges were made.

Read the section.

said that was his interpretation. So far as that Amendment was concerned, it was obvious that it did not charge any district; but what the Amendment intended, he presumed, was to indicate the bodies that should henceforth pay the charge.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Colonies whether the proclamation of Lord Kitchener, issued to-day, was drawn up on any suggestion of Lord Kitchener or after consulting Lord Kitchener.

Of course. Sir, it was drawn up with the full approval of Lord Kitchener.

Was the approval given before?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has, through Lord Milner or otherwise, taken steps, since the shooting down by British soldiers of natives attempting to escape from the compound at the Wesselton Mine at Kimberley, in October last, to lay down regulations or otherwise to prevent the use of British soldiers for the enforcement of contracts, or for any other purposes than those which come within the law and the Army Regulations.

No. The employment of military forces in districts under martial law must be left to the discretion of the military authorities, who are responsible for the manner in which they employ such forces.

I understand this question has no reference to martial law, but has reference to the enforcement of contracts in the compound at Kimberley, and I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will inquire into the matter. I now ask him whether the employment of British soldiers to enforce contracts is within the law and the regulations.

I never made any promise to inquire into the matter, because under no possible circumstances could it concern my department. Either it is an act of a self-governing colony, with which I cannot interfere, or it is an act of the military authorities at a time when martial law prevailed. If so, the question should be addressed to the War Office.

As the right hon. Gentleman is laying down conditions dealing with the employment of natives I would ask whether he contemplates, in connection with this matter, the employment of British troops to enforce contracts either in Kimberley or the Transvaal.

The hon. Member appears to be unaware of the fact that Kimberley is not under the Imperial Parliament. It is under the control of the Government of the Cape, which is a self-governing colony, with which I do not wish to interfere.

Is not the Governor of Cape Colony, as representing the King, bound to obey the orders of the right hon. Gentleman?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Milner or Sir Holy Hutchinson have, on their own authority or under direction of the Colonial Office, taken any steps by requiring the Attorney General of Cape Colony to act or otherwise to secure the bringing to trial of Captain Cox for ordering a Cape policeman named Smith to shoot a native named Dolley, which order was accepted by the court in October last as sufficient evidence to acquit Smith on the charge of murdering Dolley.

No, Sir; the matter is one entirely within the discretion of the Cape Attorney General, who accepts full responsibility towards the Cape Parliament for his decision after careful consideration not to prosecute Captain Cox.

DO I understand that it is not within the power and jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and Lord Milner to make any suggestion or recommendation to the Cape Colony Government on a matter of this kind?

I have the right to make any courteous communication to the Government of any colony, but I do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the Cape Colony in this matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the exact sum proposed to be allocated to the scheme of land settlement in South Africa; whether, when such scheme has been prepared, will it be submitted to the House; and whether, before any Imperial money is used, will the Imperial Parliament have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the details of its disposal.

No, Sir. I have nothing to add to my reply of yesterday.†

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of the killing of

† See page 26.

Godefroy at St. Helena, an investigation before a coroner was demanded by the Boer prisoners, which demand was refused; and, if so, can he state why it was refused; whether at the military inquiry which did take place the friends of Godefroy were represented; and whether his representatives were allowed to cross-examine the military witnesses; whether the committee of Boer prisoners who communicated with the Governor in reference to this incident have sent in any statement; and, if so, whether such statement was considered by the court which conducted the inquiry; and whether he will allow the Member for East Mayo to have access to any correspondence which has passed between the camp committee, the Governor, and the president of the court in reference to the shooting of Godefroy, and to the official record of the proceeding of the court.

The report called for has not yet arrived. I am not therefore in a position to answer the question.

Seeing that this occurred in the month of February last, and as there are means of telegraphic communication, cannot the noble Lord get the information?

I can only say I have asked for the report and it has not yet arrived.

I shall repeat this question.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether orders have now been sent or will forthwith be sent by telegram to South Africa directing the authorities, in the case of any further executions, to discontinue the practice of compelling the Dutch inhabitants to witness these executions.

There is nosuch practice as the hon. Member supposes. The single instance to which he refers was due to the necessity which, in the opinion of the military authorities, existed for showing that the sentences inflicted by court-martial were really carried out. It will not have to be repeated.

I should like to ask the noble Lord whether I am to understand from his answer that His Majesty's Government have sent directions to South Africa to prevent any such occurrence again.

No, Sir. In the opinion of the General Officer Commanding in South Africa this will not have to be repeated.

Has the noble Lord received any fresh communication on the subject since yesterday, when he was questioned in regard to it.

I believe a communication was received this morning.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, having regard to the recent military successes of the Boers will he state what measures are in contemplation and are being taken by the Government to enable Lord Kitchener to conduct the war with more vigour by fresh mobile troops.

I am not aware of any recent events which would justify the supposition that further fresh mobile forces are necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of twenty-eight men of the 1st Battalion Munster Fusiliers, who have been sentenced to seven years penal servitude after landing at Southampton from Africa; and can he state what was the offence committed by those men to call for such a sentence.

No information has reached the War Office of any such court-martial sentence.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in cases of such convictions by courts-martial as must be submitted to a judge advocate general for confirmation or consideration, the accused person is required to undergo the inflicted sentence, whether of imprisonment or other punishment, before the validity of the conviction has been determined by that officer; if so, whether this procedure can be so altered as to secure that punishment shall not be undergone until the conviction has been adjudged to be valid by the proper legal authority.

General courts-martial only must be submitted to the judge advocate general for confirmation by the Sovereign. Other courts-martial are only referred to him before confirmation when the confirming officer is in doubt on some legal point. All general, district, and field general courts-martial are sent to him for review and custody, and if total illegality is discovered the proceedings are quashed, but in 1900 only one in 400 was quashed. The sentence takes effect from the date of the signature of the president of the court. It would not be practicable to allow a prisoner to be at large after trial, and the delay involved by the suggestion would render discipline quite impossible.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that a quantity of foreign beef is being supplied the troops,, whereas the contract is for beef from native cattle; and if he will take steps to prevent this in the future.

I beg also to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that in some cases contractors are supplying foreign beef obtained in Deptford, Birkenhead, and elsewhere as native home-fed meat; whether he will inquire into the matter and enforce the terms of contract.

I am not aware that any foreign beef is being supplied to the troops contrary to the terms of existing contracts. General officers commanding districts are well aware of the conditions of supply, and may be trusted to enforce compliance with the terms.

Will the noble Lord make inquiry into facts which I have had laid before him as to the supply of foreign instead of native meat?

It is a very large question, but if the hon. Member will bring any specific cases under the notice of the general officer commanding I am sure they will be fully inquired into.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Militia and Yeomanry Bill of this session extends the provisions of the Militia Act of 1882 to the Imperial Yeomanry, he will consider the advisability of placing officers of the Imperial Yeomanry on an equality with officers of the Militia as regards precedence.

Yes, Sir; this point will be considered.

said the whole question of promotion was under consideration, but it would not do for him to make any statement at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the expected return of a number of troops from South Africa at the end of September, he will consider the claims of those soldiers to be sent home who have served the longest time in the field, especially those who, like men in the Derbyshire regiment, served in the Tirah campaign before going to South Africa, and have been wounded in this campaign.

I am not at present in a position to make any statement in the direction suggested by the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a militiaman, after disembodiment or discharge in South Africa, is entitled to receive seven days pay, ration, and messing allowance for each month of embodied service after twelve months, in addition to the forty-two days laid down in paragraphs 27 and 32 of the Instructions relating to the Embodied Militia, issued with Army Orders of May, 1901.

The embodied militiaman whose whole service is given in South Africa gets a gratuity of pay for forty-two days for the first six months, forty-two days for the second six months, forty-two days for the third six months or any shorter period, and seven days for each month after the eighteenth month. He also gets a gratuity of 30s. for the first year, and if his service extends beyond twelve months of £3.

Does it date from the embodiment or from the day of going out to South Africa?

I do not know.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state when the Report of the Commission to inquire into the question of Army remounts will be published; and if he can say how many witnesses were examined from Ireland, and from what portions of that country did the witnesses come.

This is a Committee appointed by the Secretary of State to advise him as to the best method in the future of obtaining remounts, and is not a Commission as suggested by the hon. Member; and it will be for the Secretary of State to decide whether all or any of the proceedings shall be made public. Meanwhile the proceedings are confidential.

Cannot the noble Lord say how many witnesses have been examined from Ireland? There should be no secrecy as to what part of Ireland they come from.

The Report is being drawn up; all the proceedings were confidential.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state what progress has been made in providing new rifle ranges this year, what new rifle ranges have been opened, and how soon the range near Lichfield will be completed.

Over £58,000 has been spent on rifle ranges between 1st January and 31st March, 1901. The figures for the subsequent months are not yet to hand. Five ranges have been completed since 1st January. Thirty-six ranges for the Volunteers have been approved, and are in course of construction. The purchase of land at Lichfield is not yet completed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state when the Report of the Commission on the Army Medical Department will be ready, and if it will be published.

I am not able to say when the Report of this departmental Committee will be ready. The question of its publication does not therefore arise at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Sergeants Stephens and Brind and Private Carmichael, 18th Hussars, were captured by the enemy, and consequently lost the field glasses with which they had voluntarily provided themselves for the public service; that the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa has recommended that the claims made by the men for the field glasses should be paid, as they had shown considerable zeal in providing them- selves with field glasses at their own expense, and had been exonerated by a court of inquiry from all blame as to their capture, and that the War Office has declined to sanction their indemnification; whether, taking into consideration the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, and the resistance to which he alludes, the claims of these men will be reconsidered.

Field glasses are not required by regulation, and have not therefore hitherto been considered matter for indemnification. The question is receiving further consideration.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the total number of recruits raised for the Regular Army and for the Militia respectively since 1st January, 1901, specifying in each case the numbers obtained for the infantry arm and the number of specials.

The total recruits for the Regular Army up to the 27th July amounted to 25,700, of whom 12,390 were for infantry and 8,668 were specials. For the Militia there were 22,369 recruits, of whom 18,579 were for infantry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say when the last Annual Return of the British Army was published, and when the next will be issued.

The last Return was for 1898. As the House has been already informed, it will not be possible to collate the necessary information for another Return until the war is over.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state whether it is intended to give effect to the proposals referred to in paragraph 69 of the unanimous Report on Indian Expenditure, to the effect that the Indian financial year should end on 31st December, in order that the Indian Accounts may be laid before Parliament at an earlier date than is now practicable, and with a view to the discussion on Indian Finance taking place earlier in the session.

I stated, in reply to a similar question on the 2nd of April last, that a proposal to make the Indian financial year end on the 31st December had been considered, in 1873, by a Select Committee of this House, who reported against it; and that I had communicated the suggestion of the recent Royal Commission to the Government of India, but did not believe it would be found practicable to adopt it. To this I can add nothing at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the present character of the Indian Revenue, he will consider the desirability of extending the principle of the Finance Act of 1894 to the Indian fiscal system.

My hon. friend's question is a suggestion that it would be desirable to raise revenue in India by means of Death Duties. The question has often been considered, but in the opinion of nearly all who have discussed it, the habits and usages of the people of that country are such as to make this form of taxation unsuitable, if not impracticable.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a further report from the Governor of Trinidad, relating to the closing of Government schools, and their transfer to denominational management, has come to hand; whether he has received a petition from the inhabitants of Trinidad objecting to the threatened closing of these Government schools, and asking for an inquiry into the state of education in that island; and also a petition for permission to erect a new building for the Royal College, and for sanction to add to its teaching staff; whether he has reached any decision in regard to these matters, and whether the correspondence relating thereto will be produced.

I have received the further report referred to in the question and a petition against the closing of the schools. I have not received a petition for a new building for Queen's Royal College. I have sanctioned an addition to its teaching staff. I have not yet come to any final decision on the subject of the Trinidad schools.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the prisoners in the Egyptian tame foxhunting case who have appealed against their sentence are still confined to gaol; and, if still in gaol, will His Majesty's Government take steps for their release pending appeal.

His Majesty's Government have no information which would enable me to answer the first question of the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the second, the hon. Gentleman is evidently unaware that the Egyptian courts are as independent as the courts of the United Kingdom, and it would be highly improper for His Majesty's Government to interfere with their discretion.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the mischief resulting from the incompetency of masters of steam trawlers in Scotland in navigation; and, if legislation is necessary to effect a remedy, whether he will be prepared to legislate on the subject next session.

The expediency of requiring masters of trawlers in Scotland to take out certificates will be considered when any opportunity arises of amending the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, but I cannot make any definite promise of legislation.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the general ignorance prevailing among parish councils as to their powers under the Post Office Amendment Act, 1895, and the Post Office (Guarantee) Act, 1898, he will be willing to issue to them a circular conveying to them anew in plain language the explanation of these Acts, as was attempted to be done in the circular letter of 3rd September, 1898.

I will give consideration to the suggestion of my hon. and gallant friend.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the action of the Seisdon Rural District Council in permitting an encroachment on the highway at Hinksford, in the parish of Swindon, in their district; whether be is aware that the district council have approved plans for buildings which do not comply with their own bye-laws; whether it is with the sanction of the Local Government Board that the person who advises the rural district council as to the acceptability of plans is an architect who prepares plans for buildings in the district; and whether he can take any steps to secure the proper performance by the district council of their duties in regard to these matters.

I have applied to the rural district council for information with regard to the matters referred to in the question, and am awaiting a reply from them on the subject. No sanction on the part of the Local Govern- ment Board is required to the appointment of the person who advises a district council as to the acceptance of plans.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any official intimation of the fatal accident to the "Queen Bee" at Aberystwith, and if he will give the latest information to the House, whether he can say when this boat was last officially inspected, and whether, having reference to the accidents occurring to pleasure boats at this season, he can suggest any better system of inspection and registration than that which is now in force.

My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have not received any official information as to the accident referred to, but I am in communication with the local authority on the subject. I have under consideration proposals for the amendment of the law relating to the registration and licensing of pleasure boats.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether ho will state what progress has been made by the Ordnance Survey Department with the revision of the ordnance maps for the counties of Wales, and what counties are now in course of revision; whether he has given instructions for the commencement of the revision of the maps for the county of Carmarthen; if not, whether ho will do so, having regard to the fact that the revision of the adjoining county of Glamorgan has been completed.

The counties of Anglesey, Carnarvon, Denbigh, Flint, Merioneth, and Glamorgan have already been revised. The revision of the county of Montgomery is in progress. Carmarthenshire was revised only thirteen years ago, and as revision is to take place every twenty years its revision is not yet due, but it will be completed well within the twenty-year limit. The original survey of Glamorganshire was completed twenty-three years ago.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can give the date when the last known case of rabies was discovered in the county of Carmarthen, and whether he is in a position to state when the muzzling order now in force in that county is likely to be withdrawn.

The last known case occurred in March last, but some suspicious cases have occurred at later dates. Having regard to the long period that may elapse before the disease is developed in an infected dog, it would be undesirable to withdraw the Order at present.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the exhibition of the works of students in the National Competition of Schools of Art is held at the dead season of the year—between 26th July and 31st August—and in a temporary iron building at the end of a lane; and whether, in view of the public interest in the competition, he could make arrangements to have the works exhibited in a more suitable place and at a more convenient time.

The exhibition is held at the time most convenient to art masters and teachers and art students, by whom it is very largely visited. The present structure, in which the exhibition has been held for the last ten years, is temporary; and ample accommodation will be provided in the buildings now being erected.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Walsall School Board, at its meeting in July, granted a number of complete and partial exemptions illegal in character; and whether the Education Department propose to hold any inquiry or to take any stops to prevent this body from breaking its own bye-laws.

This question is still under investigation.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what was the amount of net income, arising from the Crown lands and properties and from the working of the Post Office in the Isle of Man, received in the financial year ending in 1901, to what accounts these sums have been carried, or to what purpose applied; and whether there is any, and, if so, what, agreement or arrangement between the Government and the Isle of Man, and of what date, relating to the application of these funds respectively.

The net income arising from Crown lands in the Isle of Man in the year 1900–1 was £3,935. I am unable to state the amount of net income derived from the working of the Post Office in that island. There is no special agreement or arrangement between the Government and the Isle of Man respecting the application of these receipts. They form part of the general public revenue of the British Isles, and are dealt with under the provisions of the Acts of Parliament relating to the Crown lands and the Post Office, which Acts extend to the Isle of Man.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that British postal orders are only obtainable at the British post office; at Constantinople, and are neither issued nor payable at the British post offices at Salonica, Smyrna, or Damascus, and can he say what is the cause of the delay in carrying out the reform.

At present the British post office at Constantinople is the only British post office in the Levant at which postal orders are obtainable. As the hon. Member has already been informed in this House, the question of extending the postal-order system to the British post office at Salonica, has been under consideration; and the Postmaster General hopes shortly to give postal-order facilities not only to Salonica but to Smyrna. There is no British post office at Damascus, but there is one at Beyrout, and when there is any sign of a demand for postal orders at Beyrout—which at present there is not—the question of supplying them to that office also shall be considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the French post offices in Turkey issue money orders and bons de paste or postal orders payable at any post office in Prance at the same rate as in France, and seeing that, at the British post offices at Constantinople, Salonica, and Smyrna, 6d. commission is charged on a £1 money order to the United Kingdom, whilst the French post offices at Constantinople, Salonica, and Smyrna charge only twenty-five centimes or 2½d. on a £1 money order to the United Kingdom, will he take into consideration the reduction of the charges at these British post offices.

It is the fact that the French post office charges its inland rates of commission on money orders and bons de poste issued at its post offices in the Levant, and the commission on a French money order for 25 francs is 25 centimes. The commission on a £1 money order at British post offices in the Levant is 6d.; but £1 can be remitted from the British post office at Constantinople by postal order for a commission of 2d., and the same facilities will exist at Salonica and Smyrna so soon as the extension referred to in my answer to the last question is carried out. In these circum- stances it is not proposed to interfere with the present money-order rates.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that the Austrian post offices in Turkey accept parcels of 11 lbs, or five kilogrammes for Great Britain at a charge of 2s., while the British post offices in Turkey charge 3s. for an exactly similar parcel to the same destination, whether he will state what steps he proposes to take.

The Postmaster General has no information concerning the amount of the postage charged on parcels for the United Kingdom at an Austrian post office in Turkey except that of Constantinople. At that office the postage is 12 piastres—equivalent to 2s.—on parcels of any weight up to the maximum of eleven pounds. The British post office offers a rate which is identical for the parcel of maximum weight, to which the hon. Member particularly refers, while on a seven pound parcel it is sixpence less, and on a three pound parcel only half the Austrian postage. It also offers a more expensive rate, hut this is for a quicker service.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, in the case of money orders drawn in England in favour of persons in Germany, it is unnecessary to write to the persons to whom they are addressed, because the German postal authorities take the money direct to the houses of the addressees and receive receipts; and whether he will introduce this practice in England if the German postal authorities supply evidence that the system works well both as regards telegraph and postal money orders.

The Postmaster General is aware of the arrangement referred to by the hon. Member. The question of introducing it into the United Kingdom has already been fully considered in all its details, with the assistance of the German post office; and the Postmaster General is convinced that from the point of view of the public as well as of the Post Office the arrangement would be much less satisfactory than that which already obtains here.

asked whether the Postmaster General would give the system a trial.

I understand that in the opinion of the advisers of the Postmaster General the difficulty of identification would be greater in this country than in Germany, where more is known about individuals, and money orders would miscarry and fail to reach the persons for whom they are intended.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any arrangement has been come to between the Government and the National Telephone Company for equal charges for telephones and telephone services in London; and whether the Government or the Postmaster General has now abandoned the intention to enter into competition with the National Telephone Company, as indicated in the speech of the late Secretary to the Treasury.

Negotiations are in progress between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company with a view to secure the greatest possible facilities for telephone users in the London district, and in particular free intercommunication between all subscribers on either system within that area. These negotiations are not yet completed; and it is not possible for me to make any further statement upon them at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has inspected the red colour penny stamps of the various colonies of the British Empire, most of which were manufactured by Messrs. De La Rue and Company; and can he say when a definite reply will he given to the petition of 200 Members of the House of Commons for the abolition of the present penny stamp, and the introduction of a royal scarlet or red colour penny stamp in this country.

The question of the colour of the new penny stamp is still under consideration, and it is not likely that a decision can be arrived at immediately.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that while all inspection notes, invoices, and letters addressed to the Army Clothing Department by contractors are post free, exactly similar documents to the Naval Store, Deptford, require to be post paid, whether he will take steps to remedy this difference.

The question of including the Naval Store, Deptford, in the list of Government departments entitled to receive correspondence free of postage is one for the Lords of the Admiralty, in conjunction with the Postmaster General, and no communication has been received on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state on what basis the calculations are founded which operate to prevent the extension of telegraph offices except under guarantee; when were the Treasury regulations last revised, and can he give the number of telegraph guarantees now existing in England and Wales, distinguishing between those by private individuals and those by district and parish councils or meetings.

In the case of villages where it is estimated that the revenue to be derived from telegrams will cover the expenses there is generally speaking nothing to prevent the extension of the telegraphs. It is only where the estimated revenue is not sufficient that a guarantee is required. The amount of the guarantee is made up of a charge for interest on the cost of constructing the line, the annual cost for maintenance, and the payments to the sub-postmaster. The regulations were last revised in 1897, on the occasion of Her late Majesty's Diamond Jubilee, and the State then undertook for the first time to bear half the risk of every guarantee.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state what is the number of established and unestablished postmen who were dismissed for dishonesty or on suspicion in the years 1897, 1898, 1899, and 1900.

The number of postmen dismissed on the charge of dishonesty during the years in question is as follows:—In 1897, 53 established and 46 unestablished postmen; in 1898, 52 established and 46 unestablished postmen; in 1899, 54 established and 45 unestablished postmen; in 1900, 72 established and 72 unestablished postmen.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will make an early appointment to the postmastership at Laurencekirk, which has been vacant since June, in view of the inconvenience caused to the public by having a post office employing eighteen subordinate officials without a head.

The vacancy for a postmaster at Laurencekirk has been advertised in the weekly "Post Office Circular," and an appointment will be made as soon as all the applications from candidates have been received and their claims and qualifications have been considered.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to persons of small fixed incomes in having to make out each year in detail a statement of income before receiving the abatements of income tax to which they are entitled by law, and seeing that many persons, such as ladies and others unaccustomed to business, forfeit the abatements to which they are entitled sooner than face the annual ordeal of filling income tax forms, he will provide that in those cases wherein the right to abatement is once established, particularly under Schedules A and B, a simple declaration that the previous income has not increased be accepted by the Revenue authorities in proof of any further claims for abatements from the same person.

In strictness the income tax laws require that a person whose income falls within the statutory limits of abatement should establish his claim to abatement year by year. But, as a matter of practice, when a title to abatement has once been established, the officers of the Board of Inland Revenue do, whenever practicable, dispense with a fresh formal claim from the same person during the next few years.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would state the reasons which necessitated the conclusion of a fresh agreement with the Eastern and South Africa Telegraph Company for a prolonged period, based upon certain stipulations and subsidies, without waiting for the Report of the Cable Committee appointed for the special purpose of examining and reporting upon these very terms and conditions; also whether the omission of an expropriation clause on fair terms was intentional.

The completion of this arrangement has been delayed by protracted negotiations on points of detail, but its principle was accepted by His Majesty's Government and the Cape Government nearly a year before the Cable Committee was appointed.

put a question which was inaudible.

On that point we are waiting for the opinion of the Cable Committee, which specially directed its attention to this point. I can express no opinion until we have their Report.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state when the Royal Commission on Local Taxation will issue their Report for Scotland.

A definite date cannot be fixed, but it is hoped that the Report in question may be issued in the course of the autumn of this year.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that a Return recently published shows that 117 applications have been made to the Stornoway parish council for allotments since 15th May, 1895, under Section 20 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1891; and, seeing that the whole of these applications have been refused, will he explain the cause.

I am informed by the clerk to the parish council of Stornoway that the applications for allotments referred to by the hon. Member were refused on account of the proprietors not consenting to grant the land for that purpose. I also understand that the parish council made no application to the county council for compulsory powers.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, seeing that an application made by the parish council of Kincardine, Ross-shire, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, Section 26, authorising land to be taken on lease compulsorily for allotments, was refused by the county council for Ross and Cromarty on 4th May, 1899, will he state the cause of the refusal.

I am informed by the Local Government Board that the refusal of the county council of Ross and Cromarty to grant an order authorising the parish council of Kincardine to take land on lease compulsorily for allotments was the subject of an appeal to them in terms of Section 25 (5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894. The Board made careful inquiry into the case, and induced the county council to reconsider their decision, but at this stage the circumstances had so altered as to convince the county council that they ought not to issue the order craved. The parish council of Kincardine, in view of the altered circumstances, intimated to the Board that they did not desire to press their appeal.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Tyrone County Council, shortly after its entrance to office, considered the claims of its assistant surveyors for increase of salaries, and decided on giving an increase of 25 per cent., that this action of the council received the sanction of the Local Government Board in September, 1899, and that at the bidding of the assistant surveyors and against the wish of the council the Local Government Board sent an inspector to Omagh last month to hold an inquiry into a matter settled and sanctioned in September, 1899; is he aware that the county council at the annual meeting in June last passed a resolution requesting the Local Government Board to allow it to hold half-yearly instead of quarterly meetings in future, and that in case the request is granted the duties of surveyors will be reduced to what they were under the old grand jury system, and will he direct the Board to deal with the resolution in respect to half-yearly meetings before deciding the claims of assistant surveyors for still further increase.

In August, 1899, the county council passed a resolution increasing the salaries of the assistant surveyors from £80 to £100 a year. These officers made no protest at the time, and the Local Government Board expressed its concurrence in the arrangements made, on the assumption that an agreement had been arrived at between the council and the assistant surveyors. The latter subsequently protested against the salary proposed, and as it was clear that no agreement had been, or was likely to be, arrived at, the Board was under a statutory obligation to determine the matter. The local inquiry has been held, but the inspector's report has not yet been received. In reply to the second paragraph, the Board has no power to reduce the statutory meetings of the council from four to two in each year. Under the Amended Procedure Order a council may arrange to make half-yearly payments to contractors, but under the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order four quarterly meetings must be held in each year.

Did the Local Government Board sanction the arrangement without examining it?

I have given a full account of the matter. No protest was entered, and the Local Government Board understood that the assistant surveyors had entered into a reasonable arrangement.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received resolutions from associations of teachers in which they state that the charges made against the management of the book store by Archbishop Walsh were correct, and the defence set forth in the memorandum incorrect; whether he is aware that several teachers not only have their supplies delayed for months, but have forfeited the money and supplies, and whether, in view of these charges made against a public department, be will cause an inquiry to be held in order to ascertain what has become of this money.

I have received a number of resolutions to the effect stated in the first paragraph. The Commissioners, as I have already stated, have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the reports which have been made to them in this matter by their responsible officers on the condition of the book department. The Commissioners are quite prepared to investigate statements tending to impugn the correctness of these reports if they are supplied with facts and figures enabling them to do so.

If I send the right hon. Gentleman specific cases, will he give an undertaking that they shall be investigated by the Commissioners and not merely by officials?

The hon. Gentleman cannot make me a court of appeal for the Board. They have stated they are prepared to consider any cases, and I should advise him to send them to the Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at a special meeting of the county council of Monaghan, it was resolved that deputies should be appointed to the assistant county surveyors, by which the duties of the assistant county surveyors would not be increased from the time of the grand jury, whether he can state if the county council of Monaghan appoint deputies to the assistant county surveyors, the Local Government Board will allow the salaries to remain at £80 per annum, as was paid to the assistant county surveyors during the time of the grand jury.

The hon. Member has sent me a copy of a resolution to the effect stated in the first paragraph. The question whether the county council is legally empowered to appoint deputies to assistant surveyors, otherwise than in cases of illness, is one upon which I am not prepared to express an opinion without a fuller opportunity of examining the authorities. Perhaps the hon. Member will postpone the question until Thursday next. There are words in the Act which might be held to support the hon. Member's contention.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware the number of claims for malicious injuries in the Omagh rural district is on the increase, and in excess of former years, and that the police, before the passage of the Local Government Act, used to inquire into the circumstances of each claim, and give evidence at presentment sessions and before the grand jury as to the result of the investigation; is this still a part of the duty of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if not, will he ask the police in Omagh to afford the same assistance as formerly in the investigation of claims for malicious injuries.

The number of claims for compensation for malicious injuries at the last Omagh quarter sessions was in excess of the number heard at the corresponding sessions of 1900, but there has been no increase in the amount of compensation awarded. In many of these cases the police were witnesses. They investigate every case, and give evidence when summoned as witnesses, either on behalf of county councils or applicants for compensation. The passage of the Local Government Act has made no alteration in their duty in this respect.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that discontent exists in Mount-joy Convict Prison, Dublin, among the officers and men employed there since the recent appointment of the present Principal Warder Murray; that this official has treated both officers and prisoners with harshness; that, owing to the manner in which he acts, there has been an increase in the number of alleged breaches of the prison rules; and that, consequently, the governor's time is taken up in investigating complaints; whether he is aware that a warder named Barber, an officer of over eleven years service, has resigned owing to his treatment by Principal Warder Murray; and whether, seeing that this officer was appointed over the heads of more experienced and older officers in the service, if he will not cease to act in the manner complained of, he will be removed to some other prison.

No complaints have been made to the Prisons Board of the character mentioned in the first paragraph. There has been an increase in the number of breaches of prison rules, but this is not due to any action on the part of the principal warder. Very little of the governor's time is taken up in investigating these breaches. Barber's resignation was not due to the cause alleged. Hs resigned because he was aware that the Prisons Board would be obliged before long to recommend his discharge from the service. The principal warder has given satisfaction to the Board, who do not propose to remove him from Mountjoy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since this question was put down there have been very few complaints as to this warder? Will he see that this state of affairs continues?

I have no information.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to give consideration to representations and to cause inquiries to be made regarding the housing of the fishermen of the south and west coast of Ireland, and whether the character of the houses in which these men live has been brought under his notice; and, seeing that the applications of fishermen for labourers' cottages have been uniformly rejected by the Local Government Board, even when evidence has been adduced that they have devoted a portion of the year to agricultural work, he will state what steps it is proposed to take, either by amendment of the present Acts or the introduction of fresh legislation, to secure better dwellings for fishermen and for rural tradesmen and factory hands at present outside the scope of every enactment for the better housing of the working classes.

Under the existing Labourers Acts "fishermen "and" hand-loom weavers" who do agricultural work at any season of the year are included in the term "agricultural labourers," for whom cottages may be provided. It is not, I am informed, correct to say that applications of fishermen for cottages have been uniformly rejected by the Local Government Board. The question of the extension of the Housing of the Working Classes Act (which at present extends only to urban districts and towns under the jurisdiction of town commissioners) so as to include the cases of artisans and others living in towns and villages too small to support town commissioners is one that deserves, and is receiving, consideration. At present, however, I cannot make any more definite statement.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the recent improvement scheme under the Labourers Acts promoted by the Mac-room Rural District Council, a labourer sent in a properly filled representation paper for a cottage on the lands of Mrs. Ellen Manning, Droumdrive, in the electoral division of Macloneah; that, though his present abode was pronounced unfit for human habitation, and that no objection was made to his claim for a cottage, his representation paper was never considered at the Local Government Board inquiry; and will he state whether his representation paper was mislaid in the offices of the Local Government Board, or what are the reasons why it was not considered in the ordinary course.

The scheme promoted by the district council contained no proposal to erect a cottage for this man, consequently his case was not considered at the inquiry.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the caretaker of Dawra court house, in the county of Cavan, refused to allow the members of the Enniskillen Rural District Council No. 2 to hold its last quarterly meeting in the petty sessions room, although the county council of the county of Cavan pays a rent of £10 a year for this house; and can he state whether the county council of a county or a district council is entitled to use the court house or petty sessions rooms for the transaction of their business when not required for the administration of justice.

Section 72, Sub-section 3, of the Local Government Act, 1898, provides that—

"except so far as the sheriff, or the justices' may require for the administration of justice' or the discharge of his or their duties, the use of any court house, sessions house, or other county building under his or their custody or control, the county council may use the same for the purpose of the execution of their duties."

The county council is thus entitled to the use of the court house or sessions house for the execution of its duties when the same can in the judgment of the sheriff or justices be done without interference with the administration of justice. The district councils have no right to the use of any court house or sessions house.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the debit and credit balances found to exist by the adjusting auditor under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, between the several divisions of the Trim Union, were the growth of many years, seeing that one division had a credit balance of 2s. and another a debit balance of 1s. 10½d., while the poor rate in the standard year was only 1s. 6d., and having regard to the fact that the Local Government Board Auditor was bound in each half-yearly audit to see that each poor law division contributed its due proportion of union expenditure, will he state whether this was done, and, if not, whether ho will inquire who is responsible for a system of accounts which has caused hardship to ratepayers who were obliged to bear the whole of those debit balances, half of which the landlords would have been obliged to allow the tenant if levied when due by the several divisions previous to the passing of the said Act.

Considerable research would be needed to determine whether the balances were the growth of years. It was the auditor's duty to see that the proper proportion of receipts and expenditure was charged in each half-year to each electoral division in accordance with statutory requirements. That duty was properly discharged. The auditor was under no responsibility to see that each electoral division contributed its due proportion towards the general expenditure of the union. This lies entirely within the competence of the guardians for decision by them when preparing the estimate of rates to be levied. It seems that, in the case of the Trim Union, the former board of guardians failed to assess their proper contribution on certain electoral divisions, while they appear to have placed an unduly high assessment on others.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the ratepayers of Island More, in Lough Derg, appeared before the Borrisakane Board of Guardians, on the passing of the Local Government Act into law, requesting that they might be incorporated in the Borrisakane Union; and that the application was considered by the Local Government Board, who decided on leaving the question to the decision of the North Tipperary and Clare County Councils; whether any steps have since been taken to bring the matter under the notice of these bodies; and, seeing that the people on this island have recently been made responsible for a loan in connection with the Scariff water work's scheme, whether he will make provision in the amending Local Government Act to remedy their alleged grievance.

The facts appear to be as stated in the first paragraph. The Board is not aware that any action has since been taken in the matter by either of the councils mentioned. It is open to the ratepayers on the island to renew their application, and the provisions of the existing law are sufficient to enable the question of the transfer of the island to the Borrisakane Union to be dealt with, without recourse to further legislation.