I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the letters and articles sent by Mr. J. J. Comerford, as correspondent of the Freeman's Journal in South Africa, posted weekly at Cradock during February and March, 1900, with two exceptions, were never received; and that, on Mr. Comerford making complaint to the Chief Military Press Censor in Pretoria of the seizure of his letters and articles, Major Sawyer was directed to investigate the matter, but on his making inquiries at Cradock he was suddenly transferred to another station, and no further step in the investigation was taken; and, having regard to the fact that Mr. Comerford has addressed repeatedly letters to the Chief Military Press Censor on this matter, and has received no reply, whether any and, if so, what steps will be taken to restore to this gentleman the photographs and manuscripts seized in transmission through the post, or to compensate him for the loss of his literary work as a journalist not at the seat of war and not holding a military licence.

I have spoken to my hon. friend the Member for Westmoreland on this subject, as he was censor at Cape Town and dealt with this question when it arose. He has promised to look up the papers and communicate with the hon. Member on the subject.

Will that be before next session?

I hope so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the medical officer's report upon the state of health of the children in Bloemfontein camp has been yet received at the War Office; was Lord Kitchener asked by telegraph in the last week of June concerning the doctor's report, and, if so, with what result.

The report has not yet been received. Lord Kitchener telegraphed on the 2nd July that he would forward the medical officer's report.

Will the report when received be published?

I am afraid I cannot give any answer to that question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, when he has obtained the information from South Africa, he will circulate the report received to hon. Members or make a communication stating what were the exceptional circumstances connected with the compulsion of British colonists to witness the execution of their countrymen at Dordrecht; who gave the order for such compulsion; if it was sanctioned by the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, and, if not, whether the officer responsible for it has been punished; and whether these colonists were convicted criminals or prisoners, under what penalty did they attend, and what object was gained by such compulsion.

I am not in a position to make any such pledges on behalf of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has yet received any official information to the effect that several of the leading inhabitants of Cradock have been deported for refusing to obey the order to attend the execution of Johannes Petrus Coetzee; and, if so, will he state by whose order was the deportation carried out.

No information has as yet reached the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the officer commanding the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers insured the life of each member of his company who went out to South Africa; whether he can state what sums have been paid in respect of such policies and to whom; and whether this officer was acting in this matter with the knowledge and consent or sanction of the War Office.

I am not aware of this transaction, which, if it exists, is purely a private transaction, and does not concern the War Office.

If such a thing has been done, could the noble Lord prevent it?

No, Sir; it is a purely private transaction.

Is an officer allowed to make money by insuring the lives of soldiers?

Had he the power to send the men into the fighting line?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what arrears of pay and pension are due to Private George Reilly, No. 6,304, of the 1st Battalion, Devonshire Regiment, who died at Standerton on 6th May last, and when the amounts due will be paid to his father; also whether the officer commanding the Royal Welsh Fusiliers held an insurance policy on the life of Private Reilly; and, if so, whether he has paid over the sum so obtained to the father of the deceased lad.

This man's estate has just been reported from South Africa as amounting to £15 1s. As he appears to have died intestate, steps will be taken at once to issue the estate to the father. Any insurance that may have been effected is purely a private matter, of which the War Office has no cognisance.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any inquiry has been made into the case of James Rogers, late of the 33rd Foot Regiment and Army Reserve, who enlisted on 29th November, 1860, at Manchester, and the date of whose discharge as stated on the War Office parchment is 7|7|'82; and, seeing that this man has been refused the pension to which he has been entitled, as the Chelsea Commissioners have confounded him with another soldier of the same name and with shorter service, whether he will take steps to have Rogers remitted the arrears of pension to which he is entitled.

The information given in the question is insufficient to enable the case to be traced. Will the hon. Member be good enough to forward to the War Office the parchment certificate referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many Army pensioners are at present inmates of the Belfast Union Workhouse, and what pension each of these old veterans receives; whether he is aware that some time ago the commanding officer of the district refused, when applied to for a military funeral for an old soldier, an inmate of the workhouse, to grant the request thus made, or to in any way assist in providing interment for the old man, and that ultimately the funeral was carried out by subscriptions raised locally; and if, in the future, some arrangements will be made whereby old veterans who have served in the Army will be provided with decent interment at the expense of the State, so as to obviate such funerals being carried out by public subscription.

There are forty-two pensioners inmates of this workhouse, with pensions varying from 4d. to 2s. 3d. a day. I am not aware of the application for a military funeral mentioned, but under the Regulations such funerals can only be granted to officers or soldiers dying during their colour service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether foremen employed in or about Woolwich Arsenal have been offered a pension on condition that they forego their right to payment for overtime and withdraw from membership of any trade union.

A proposal is under consideration for granting pensions to foremen employed in certain departments under the War Office. Among other conditions attaching to the grant are the cessation of payment for ordinary overtime, as is now the case with principal foremen, and the withdrawal from membership of any trade union. The latter proviso was made at the suggestion of the Foremen's Association, a body which is recognised as representing their interests.

Will the cessation of membership be compulsory?

Yes, Sir; at their own request.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to certain proposals contained in a scientific publication for the prevention by means of a Royal Water Corps of enteric and other water borne diseases in war, and whether, in view of the recent heavy losses by these diseases in South Africa, he will give these, proposals his serious consideration in order to ascertain whether they offer any practical suggestions for preventing such disasters in future.

The attention of the Secretary of State for War has been called to the pamphlet in question. The proposals have been carefully considered, but are found to be entirely impracticable for active service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, in order to prevent Clause 10 of the draft of a scheme relative to the efficiency of the Volunteers now lying upon the Table, prior to submission to His Majesty the King in Council, operating to the detriment of the Volunteer force, and to Volunteer soldiers unable by the nature of their employment to attend a camp every other year, he will cause it to be amended so as to give general officers commanding districts power to dispense with such attendance under exceptional circumstances upon the recommendation of commanding officers.

No, Sir. Attendance at camp for at least every alternate year is considered a vital part of the scheme of reorganisation. The Secretary of State for War cannot, therefore, consent to any such concession as is suggested in the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, before sanctioning any increase in the present musketry requirements of the Volunteer force, and bearing in mind that they exceed those of the Army Reserve, Militia, and Yeomanry, and entail in most cases of urban corps frequent journeys to distant ranges, he will give consideration to the difficulties encountered in fulfilling the existing conditions, owing to the paucity of target accommodation and the restrictions to which the ranges available are subject.

The cases alluded to would appear to be amply covered by paragraphs 5 and 6 of the draft of the scheme of efficiency laid before the House, which will be generously interpreted.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the prevalence of gambling on His Majesty's transports, and is he aware that during the past week a case was tried in the law courts in which it was given in evidence that a youth of eighteen years had lost £330 during a journey from Africa to England, and will he adopt such measures that will reduce or extinguish this practice of gambling on His Majesty's ships.

I am not aware of the prevalence of gambling on board transports. Inquiries are being made into the case referred to. The Regulations forbid any such practice, which should be firmly suppressed by the senior officer on board.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the rate of pay received by the joiners employed in the Portsmouth Dockyard is under the rate paid to joiners employed in outside shipyards in the district; and, seeing that the pay for joiners employed outside the dockyard at Portsmouth is 8d. per hour and not 7½d. whether he will give instructions that the rate of pay of carpenters and joiners engaged at Portsmouth Dockyard shall be altered to correspond to the rate paid by outside firms.

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on the 26th ultimo. The information at the disposal of the Admiralty is to the effect that the rate for outside joiners is 7½d., and not 8d., as stated in the question. Under these circumstances it is not considered necessary to make any alteration in the rates of pay of joiners in Government employment. In reply to a further question the HON. GENTLEMAN said the difference between the two rates of pay was very small indeed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the list of persons entitled to unclaimed naval prize money, which was to have been taken in hand in January last, is near completion, and whether the form of that list will be such as to enable claimants to verify their claims; and whether, to save time and facilitate examination by claimants, he will consent to a publication of the list in sections, and have the first section published immediately.

The preparation of the list referred to was sanctioned in May last, but it deals with a long period, and I cannot as yet precisely state when it will be completed. It will be proceeded with as rapidly as possible, and I hope to be able to present it in about three months. The list will be in such a form as will enable applicants to verify their claims readily. It would be possible to publish the list in sections, but in the opinion of the Admiralty such a course is not desirable.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, having regard to the fact that the Admiralty have refused to allow correspondents to be present at the forthcoming combined manœuvres of the Channel and Mediterranean Squadrons, with the view of information being afforded to the public as to the readiness for war of the British fleets, the Admiralty will reconsider their decision, and will afford the correspondents facilities for seeing the movements of the ships.

It is not considered in the interests of the service that any persons not connected with the service should be embarked on the ships engaged in the forthcoming tactical exercises. Full opportunities of obtaining information as to the state of preparation of the Fleet are always afforded to representatives of the press during the annual manœuvres, and it is not proposed to extend the privileges already granted.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, for the information of the public respecting the late naval manœuvres, the Admiralty will forthwith publish a complete statement of the claims referred to the umpires upon both sides, together with their decisions thereupon; whether on the conclusion of the approaching combined manœuvres of the Mediterranean and Channel Squadrons they will publish a similar statement with regard to them; and whether they will appoint a committee with similar general instructions to those given to the committee which was appointed in connection with the manœuvres of 1888 to consider and report upon the recent and approaching manœuvres.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is intended to issue any Report upon the recent naval manœuvres; and, if so, when such Report will be issued.

A complete statement of the claims referred to the umpires will be included, as usual, in the Report of the manœuvres presented to the House. The reply to the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the negative, as the combined fleets will be engaged in tactical exercises only. There is no intention of appointing a committee, as suggested in the third paragraph.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that the Report of the Indian Famine Commission appointed in 1900 was submitted to the Viceroy in May last, whether, in view of the bearing of the Report upon the future administrative action as regards famines, he will state the reasons why this delay has taken place in laying its recommendations before Parliament.

The delay is due to the fact that the Government of India had to consider very carefully the recommendations of the Commission and the action to be taken upon them, which, as I stated in this House on the 8th instant, involved complex and most important questions. I have only very recently received the Report from the Government of India together with a despatch giving the result of their deliberations. As soon as I have dealt with the various suggestions made I shall publish the papers together with conclusions upon them that the Government have arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the Bombay Land Revenue Bill recently introduced in the Bombay Legislative Council; whether he is aware that this Bill will empower the Government to resettle the holdings of cultivators, without the rights of sale or mortgage, in tracts of the country where tenants have possessed those rights for the last fifty years; whether it is the intention of the Government, under this Bill, to sell the holdings now in arrear on account of the recent famine, and to resettle their holdings without the rights at present enjoyed by them; whether he is aware that this Bill is opposed by the native members on the Select Committee of the Bombay Legislative Council, and by associations in Bombay; and is he aware of the feeling it has created in the province; and whether, in view of the principle hitherto followed in Bombay and other provinces with regard to the preservation of the tenant-rights of cultivators, he will give an assurance that this House will have an opportunity of further considering the subject before the measure is passed into law.

I am aware that a Bill is before the Bombay Legislative Council for the amendment of the Land Revenue Code of the Presidency, though I cannot accept the hon. Member's description of it as altogether correct. I am also aware that some misapprehension exists in India as to its objects and provisions. The whole subject is being very carefully considered, both by the Bombay Government and the the Government of India, and will be further considered by myself in Council, if the measure in question becomes law. I can give no assurance that I will take any steps to interfere with the constitutional methods of legislation for India.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Public Works Department of the India Office has been drawn to the delays and congestion of the traffic on the East Indian and other railways converging on the Howrah goods station at Calcutta, and the consequent hindrance to export trade from the port of that city; and whether he will consider the desirability of causing an independent investigation to be made by an engineering Commission as to the practicability by means of canals or otherwise to relieve the congestion of railway traffic at the point referred to.

The congestion of traffic on the railways referred to has recently been under consideration by a special Committee of railway authorities, members of chambers of commerce, and merchants appointed in India. This Committee has recently reported to the Government of India, who will inform the Secretary of State of their recommendations after considering that Report. Pending the receipt of the views of the Government of India, I do not propose to take any such action as is suggested in the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that it is customary in the China trade for our merchants to make contracts, more especially for cotton goods, for forward delivery, extending in some cases over some months; and whether exemption from the increased import duty will be granted to merchandise under such contracts as were made prior to the acceptance by His Majesty's Government of the five per cent. effective tariff.

We understand that the arrangement which the foreign representatives at Peking have decided to propose to the Chinese Plenipotentiaries provides that the enforcement of the five per cent. tariff shall not take effect until two months after the signature of the protocol, and that merchandise which has started on the way out within ten days after the date of signature will be exempted from payment of the new duties. If it should appear that cases of hardship arise under this arrangement His Majesty's Government will consider whether some further arrangement can be obtained for treating such cases on their merits.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can explain why the negotiations between Great Britain and France with regard to the claim for compensation for the murder of British Officers and men at Waima in 1893 have taken nearly eight years and are not yet completed; and also will he say what arrangements have been made for the widows and orphans pending the settlement of these prolonged negotiations.

The delay in arranging for a settlement of the Waima incident has been due to the necessity of establishing to the satisfaction of the French Government that the incident took place in British territory, to the time required to come to an arrangement as to whether arbitration should be adopted as the method of settlement for several pending questions, of which the Waima incident is one, and, finally, as to which of these questions should go to arbitration first. Various payments have been made to the sufferers by His Majesty's Government in anticipation of the award.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in the case of an Irish lady (Miss Mary Teresa Barry) who died in Madrid on the 15th June, 1899, leaving considerable property in that city, a Dublin solicitor, acting for the next of kin, communicated with Sir H. M. Durand, British Ambassador at Madrid, so far back as 29th June last, asking for information about the property of the deceased, and subsequently cabled requesting a reply and offering to defray the expense of procuring the information, and that no reply has yet been given; whether he can say if Sir H. M. Durand received such communications; and, if so, why he did not reply; and will he see that Sir H. M. Durand, or the person whose duty it is to interest himself for the protection of the property of British subjects in Madrid, will give immediate attention to this matter.

Nothing is known at the Foreign Office of the matter to which the hon. Member refers, but Sir M. Durand will be communicated with and requested to report.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, following the precedent of rebate of duty to those who had made coal contracts, the Treasury will grant a similar rebate of duty to importers of sugar under bona fide contracts made so far back as December, 1900, for monthly deliveries extending up to the present date, and resold at old prices during the first three months of this year, and on which the contractors can prove they will thus lose the sugar duty.

There is no statutory authority to grant the rebate asked for by the hon. Member, nor do I think there ought to be. Section 10 of the Finance Act specially enables importers of sugar, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, to recover the duty as an addition to their pre-Budget contract prices.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that in executions as carried out in this country death is seldom instantaneous, that in the majority of cases the vertebra is neither dislocated nor fractured, and that in many cases the pulse beats at the wrist after the fall of the drop for five or six minutes; and whether he will order a careful inquiry to be made into the present method of conducting executions in Great Britain and Ireland, with the view of steps being taken to prevent any possibility of the convict being conscious of suffering.

The exact cause of death is carefully investigated in each case, and this evidence is entirely opposed to what is suggested in the question. I have no reason for supposing that any further inquiry is needed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is inviting a number of Continental china and earthenware manufacturers to a conference, and, if so, can he state when the conference is to take place, and where, and will British manufacturers be also invited to attend it.

No, Sir, there is no such proposal.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the late sittings of the House have involved a corresponding extension of the hours of duty of the constables in and about its precincts, and what remuneration he proposes to make to these men.

The police employed at the Houses of Parliament receive a special allowance while so employed. No additional money allowance is made to them on the occasion of late sittings, but the men are relieved for refreshments from time to time, and compensation in the shape of "time off," and also extra leave is allowed when the House is not sitting. When a sitting of prolonged duration is expected, arrangements are made to supply extra men if required.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, on the 17th of July, four members of a trade union, who were acting as pickets in connection with a labour dispute now being waged at Bradford, in Yorkshire, were arrested at the instance of an employer whose workmen are on strike, and conveyed to the police station, where, after being examined, they were liberated, no charge being preferred against them, whether he is aware that shortly after midnight on 19th July these same men were arrested in their homes and conveyed to prison, charged with intimidation and persistent following, and that the charge of intimidation broke down and had to be withdrawn, and three of the accused were acquitted of the charge of persistent following, and whether he can explain why these men were arrested during the night, and will he say what action he purposes taking.

I am informed that the men were not arrested as suggested in the first paragraph of the question. They gave their names and addresses at the police station, and went away without any charge being made against them. Warrants were afterwards issued, and the arrests were effected in the early morning of the 19th. The chief constable informs me that these men reside in different parts of the town, and that it was necessary to effect the first arrest early in order to give time to arrest the others so as to bring them before the magistrate at once. I can take no action in the matter, but I must add that this explanation does not appear to me to be satisfactory.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fatal accident which occurred near London Bridge Station on the 18th July to a boy named Percy James Southey, who was travelling in a South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company's train; whether he is aware that at the inquest it transpired that efforts made to stop the train by means of the communication cord were unsuccessful in consequence of the latter being out of order, and whether he proposes to order an inquiry into the matter.

Yes, Sir, the Board of Trade are in communication with the railway company in this case, and when their reply has been received I will consider whether an inquiry can usefully be held.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that James M'Donald, an able seaman, was put on shore on Saturday, 10th August, at Palmouth, from the British sailing ship "Colony," suffering with scurvy, that M'Donald is now lying ill in Greenwich Hospital, and that during the passage home the crew of this vessel were supplied with short allowance of provisions; whether he will cause inquiries to be made at once with regard to this matter, and instruct the superintendent before whom the crew may be discharged to take a statement from each man respecting the provisions with which they have been supplied during the voyage, and whether the Board of Trade have power to prosecute shipowners who, in consequence of not supplying crews with proper allowance of good wholesome food, endanger the health of the men.

I have ascertained that, on the arrival of the "Colony" at Falmouth it was found that the seaman referred to in the question was suffering from a bad leg and thigh, being the only sick man on board. He was at once seen by the port medical officer, and by the owner's instructions was paid off at Falmouth instead of being taken on to Hamburg. I have at present no evidence that he was suffering from scurvy. The master reports that lime juice was regularly issued, and the owner states that ample provisions (including fresh meat and vegetables) were supplied. No complaint was made to the officials at Falmouth by any one of the crew, but further inquiry will be made at Hamburg. The Merchant'Shipping Act lays down regulations with regard to seamen's food, medicines, anti-scorbutics, etc., and provides penalties for infringement.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in November last, at Baltimore, the master of the steamship "Mab" assaulted the steward, that the steward asked permission to go on shore to make a complaint to His Majesty's Consul, and that the master had the steward and cook arrested and imprisoned for three days; that on the arrival of the vessel at Liverpool in December last proceedings were taken at the police court against the master, who was fined £3; and that on the vessel's arrival at Barry the master endeavoured to deduct the expenses of his trial from the wages of the steward and cook; whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to ask the master of the "Mab" for an explanation of his conduct in refusing to allow the steward and cook of this ship to go ashore at Baltimore to lodge a complaint against him for his assault on the steward, and will he ask His Majesty's Consul at that port to explain on what grounds he issued a warrant for the arrest of these two men.

I have no official information with regard to the occurrences referred to in the question beyond entries in the log of the "Mab" which appear to show that the proceedings at Charleston (not Baltimore) were quite regular. Inquiry shall be made as to what took place at Liverpool and Barry, and also respecting the allegation that the steward was not allowed to make a complaint to His Majesty's Consul at Charleston.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will cause an inquiry to be made respecting the treatment of the crew of the "Ancona" by the master and first and second officers, who assaulted several of the crew during the voyage from Tacoma to Hamburg. I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a seaman named Henry Herbert, engaged on the British sailing vessel "Ancona" on 18th February of this year at Tacoma, and that shortly after joining the vessel he was assaulted by the chief mate and a boarding master named Ryan; whether he is aware that Herbert immediately complained to the master, asking his permission to go on shore to report the matter to His Majesty's Consul, which permission the master refused and left Tacoma without giving him an opportunity of having the boarding master arrested for the assault; and will he take steps at once to hold an inquiry into the matter.

In reply to this and the following question, I can only say that the Board of Trade have no information with regard to the matters to which the hon. Member refers, but inquiries shall be made.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the death of a fireman, named Townsend, on board the ss. "Gathorne"; whether he is aware that, although this man complained of being ill for several days, he was compelled by the chief engineer and the master to continue at work; and that, in consequence of the treatment which he received at the hands of the chief engineer, Townsend jumped overboard and was drowned: and whether he intends to have this case thoroughly investigated on the arrival of the "Gathorne" in the United Kingdom.

Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the case to which the hon. Member refers, and I have already instructed the Solicitor to the Board of Trade to make arrangements for the holding of an inquiry by a Superintendent of Mercantile Marine under Section 690 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, on the return of the "Gathorne" to this country.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any report with regard to the accident which happened to a seaman named Robert Christiansen on board the steamship "Devon" on 3rd March of this year at Port Natal; whether this man was sent aloft to put a new guy on number five derrick, and that he had to climb up the guy with a heavy sling over his shoulders, with the result that his strength gave way and he fell a distance of 50 feet into the hold of the vessel; and whether he can state if the owners have paid any compensation to this man for the injuries he sustained, and if he will cause an inquiry to be held in this case.

The information I have received with regard to the case to which the honourable Member refers shows that the accident happened on the 2nd April, not on the 3rd March as stated. I am not in possession of any details in the case, but will make furthur enquiries and place myself in communication with the owners.

I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have not given him notice, but I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman can answer it—namely, when he roposes to appoint the sub-inspectors of railways, for which salaries have been provided in the Estimates.

I cannot answer that question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the local authorities do not agree that the order for isolating the pigs in Abingdon Market was given on the 13th May, that the inspector, Mr. Anderson, frequently wired to the Board as late as 15th May to get the order, and that Mr. Elliott admitted in his letter that the order for isolation was given on 16th May, although the police did not receive the actual order to isolate till 18th May; and, under these circumstances, and as the pigs were taken from the owners and kept for two and a half months, during which time all but eight of them have died, will he agree to pay compensation as though they had been slaughtered.

I stated that the order came into force on the 13th. It was of course given long before, as it is a standing instruction to all local authorities which comes into force directly an outbreak occurs. It is not the fact that the Board's inspector telegraphed to get the order either on May 15th or any earlier or any subsequent day. It is not the fact that the Secretary to the Board admitted that the order for isolation was given on 16th May. It is not the fact that the police did not receive the order till 18th May. The police superintendent is also the inspector of the local authority, and it was his duty to isolate, and he did isolate, the swine under the Swine Fever Order on May 13th.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, having regard to the fact that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has now ceased in Argentina for over nine months, and in view of the measures adopted by the Argentine Government against the importation of British pedigree cattle into Argentina, whether there is any prospect of this regulation being rescinded or a short period of quarantine being substituted in the near future, and whether his attention has been called to the effect of the dislocation of the trade of farmers and breeders of pedigree cattle with Argentina in agricultural districts throughout the country.

The evidence before me does not support the statement in the first part of the question. I shall be glad to show the hon. Member that evidence. I do not see why the export trade in pedigree cattle from this country to Argentina should be affected by the existence or non-existence of the disease there.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the nature of the inquiry to be held by the Butter Regulation Committee, he would recommend that the evidence of all witnesses be taken in the presence of the press.

The decision on such a point must rest with the Committee themselves, who at their first meeting decided that the usual course should be followed, and the inquiry be held without press reporters.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will give particulars of the cases of outbreak of swine fever in the Spalding Division of Lincolnshire which have necessitated the closing of the markets of Spalding, Holbeach, Boston, and other places; and also whether he will consider the advisability of putting a cordon round the area of the outbreaks in preference to closing the whole of the markets available for the small holders and farmers of the district.

There have been thirty detected outbreaks of swine fever in the area referred to since the beginning of July. Several of them have been traced to the markets referred to. The system of allowing no movement over the whole area except after twenty-eight days' detention in one place has been found to be the most effective method of extinguishing the disease in the district. If the hon. Member suggests that free movement should be permitted within the whole area, but no movement outward should be allowed, this would mean the spreading and continuance of the disease within the area. If he suggests that there should be thirty small areas in which alone movement should be prohibited, and in all the rest of the present area movement should be free, there is no guarantee whatever that the diseased swine are all included in those thirty areas, and the disease would therefore continue to spread over the district outside them.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, owing to the vital importance of this question to an important trade in Ireland, it would not be possible to allow the witnesses to give their evidence in public? What is there to conceal?

It is a matter for the Committee to decide. I do not see any special reason why the ordinary rule should be broken.

Is it not usual for the press to attend these inquiries?

No, Sir.

Well. I hope the evidence will be published.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it would be possible for the promised Royal Commission on tuberculosis to inquire whether cancer is communicable from animals to man.

As I stated yesterday, the appointment of a Royal Commission with regard to tuberculosis is still under the consideration of the Government. Assuming, however, that such a Commission is appointed, I do not think it would be practicable that the matters referred to it should include an investigation of the subject mentioned by my hon. friend.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will explain why the instructions of the Secretary to the Post Office, to surveyors, of April, 1891, regarding special leave, are not being equally carried out in all districts; is he aware that Postman G. W. Bates, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, has been compelled to refund two days' pay for special leave granted on the occasion of his marriage in May last, whereas officers in London, Glasgow, and elsewhere have been granted such leave without deduction of pay; and whether, in view of these circumstances, the Postmaster General will issue an order to have the instructions of April, 1891, applied equally to all officers of the Department.

The Postmaster General is not aware of the circumstances of the case referred to, but be will make inquiries, and let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state how many hours duty per day constitute a full time duty in regard to postmen's employment counting for the award of good conduct stripes for unestablished service previous to appointment to the establishment.

Eight hours for day duty, or seven hours for night duty, for town postmen.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will inquire into the case of town postman Eastell, of Colchester, who, on 23rd November, 1898, was deprived of a stripe for an offence which he denied having committed; is he aware that, although the Tweedmouth Committee recommended the restoration of a stripe after a lapse of two years, this man's stripe was only restored on the 1st April, 1901; what was the reason for so withholding it; and will the stripe pay which would have been received by him between November, 1900, and April, 1901, had the Committee's recommendation been acted upon, be now paid to this postman.

The Postmaster General is aware that postman Eastell was deprived of a good-conduct stripe in 1898 for misconduct, and that the stripe was not restored until April last. The Tweedmouth Committee did not recommend that stripes so taken away should be restored in two years. Two years is the minimum period which must elapse before a stripe can be restored. There is no intention of allowing Eastell stripe pay for the period between November, 1900, and April, 1901.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will issue instructions to charge as one word only the name of each place in the United Kingdom; and can he say why in telegrams Woodford Green is charged as one word, but Camden Town as two words, and St. Pancras as one word, but Charing Cross as two words.

Instructions were given many years ago that the name of every town and village was to be charged for as one word. The Postmaster General agrees with his predecessors in thinking that this was an intelligible and clearly defined concession, and he is not prepared to extend it to the names of places or districts within towns. The fact that the concession has been made in the case of towns and villages explains the anomaly to which the hon. Member calls attention; and I may add that to do what he suggests would not only involve the telegraph service in further loss, but would create fresh anomalies of a nature much less intelligible than the one he has now in view. As to St. Pancras and Charing Cross, the Postmaster General believes that he is simply following established usage, words having the prefix "St." being universally regarded as one, while "Charing Cross" is always regarded as two.

Will the hon. Gentleman carry out the reform this year or not?

What is it the hon. Member wants?

The fulfilment of a promise made some years ago.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the' Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the manner in which vacancies in the clerks' class on the telegraph establishment at Liverpool have been filled recently; whether he is aware that, on the last occasion, a telegraphist, who has been passed over twice previously during the present year, received promotion, passing over twenty of his seniors; whether the men to whom promotion has been refused were warned of the intention of the department to ignore them, and whether the qualifications necessary for promotion were indicated clearly.

It is the fact that a sorting clerk and telegraphist, who has been passed over twice during the present year, has recently received promotion, passing over twenty of his seniors. The men passed over were not warned that there was an intention to ignore them, because there was no such intention. The promotions were made only after the fullest consideration of the claims and qualifications of each of the men concerned, and on the ground that the officer in question and the others who were promoted were the best qualified to fill the vacant posts.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, with reference to a petition, dated February, 1899, from the postmen of Tonbridge, praying for a higher scale of pay, he can say what decision has been arrived at, or when a reply may be expected.

The memorial for increase of pay forwarded by postmen at Tonbridge in 1899 was duly considered, and it was decided that there was then no case for raising the wages. It is regretted that by an oversight this decision was not conveyed to the memorialists at the time. A later petition has been received from the postmen on the same subject and is now under consideration, and the Postmaster General's decision shall be communicated to the applicants as early as possible.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the sublease entered into between the Fishery Board and Dr. Fullerton, in regard to the Clyde mussel beds, was submitted to the town councils of Greenock and Port Glasgow for their approval before being signed; and, if so, upon what date did this take place. I beg also to ask the Lord Advocate whether in granting a lease of the Clyde mussel beds to Dr. Fullerton, the provisions of Clause 13 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act were taken into account by the Fishery Board of Scotland, and can he state the names of the members of the Fishery District Committee.

The answer to the first question is in the negative. The matter was fully explained in my answers to the questions asked by the hon. Member on the 26th of last month.† In reply to the second question, no Fishery District Committee has been appointed for the district in question. The lease to Dr. Fullerton was granted by the Fishery Board in exercise of their statutory powers.

Is it competent for the Fishery Board to grant this lease where a district board has been formed?

No such board has been formed.

I beg to ask the Parliamentary representative of the Charity Commission whether he can explain why the income of the Richard Cloudesley Estate Fund over and above £1,000 per annum has not been transferred to the Official Trustees of Charitable Funds in Chancery as required by the Commission's scheme of 1873 dealing with the charity, and whether the Charity Commission will communicate to the Borough Council of Islington the names of any gentlemen submitted for their approval to act as trustees of the charity; and whether they will consider any recommendations made to them before giving their approval.

The balance appearing in the accounts does not consist entirely of income, but partly of capital and partly of certain sums deposited for the renewal of leases and similar objects, and it must be apportioned before any transfer to the official trustees

† See preceding Volume, page 228.

is effected. The Commissioners do not propose to take any steps for the appointment of trustees of this charity until the present proceedings in Chancery are terminated, but whenever they do propose to make any such appointment they will communicate their proposals to the Borough Council of Islington.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, having regard to the fact that a contract was made between the School Board for London and their non-teaching staff in 1888, whereby the employees submitted to a deduction of two per cent. from their salaries, the conditions being that when they reached the age of sixty, or if previously incapacitated through infirmity, they should be entitled to superannuation on the Civil Service scale; whether he can explain why the non-teaching staff servants of the Board are now obliged to accept less than one-fifth of what was agreed upon, and whether he can suggest any course that would mitigate this treatment.

This is a matter between the School Board for London and their staff, of which the Board of Education has no cognisance and in which it has no right to interfere.

Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any means by which these people can get full payment?

No, Sir, I cannot.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the practice of publishing notices of local government elections in Ireland by placards only exists in some districts; and whether, in view of the complaints that this system of advertising, where not supplemented by advertisements in the local newspapers, is not sufficient notice to the public, whether he will see that in future all such notices of elections are advertised in the local newspapers.

The Election Orders require that notices of the elections shall be given by posting copies of the same at public places. No complaints have been made to the Board that this system of publication is insufficient. If any representations are made they will be considered, but, obviously, no change could be made in the direction suggested without consulting the local authorities upon whom the expense would fall.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that property left in cabs and cars of licensed drivers in Dublin, and handed over by them to the Carriage Office authorities of the Dublin Metropolitan Police are, when unclaimed within a certain period, sold, and the proceeds appropriated by the authorities without any consideration being extended to the drivers who delivered them to the police; and, whether, in view of the fact that these cab or car drivers lose time in delivering up valuable articles so found to the authorities at Exchange Court, he will direct that some compensation shall be made to them out of the sums so realised for their loss of time.

The hon. Member has not been correctly informed. Unclaimed property found in licensed vehicles is detained for twelve months and then sold. If the article is valued at £5, or upwards, the Chief Commissioner of Police specially assesses on the merits of each case the reward to be given to the finder. If under £5, a reward equal to three-fourths of the sum realised by the sale is paid.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a prosecution took place at Ballyhaunis, county Mayo, on 29th July last, at the suit of the Crown, against two youths named Carney and Boyle; that a lad named Delaney, who was a witness for the Crown, swore that he was prepared in the evidence he should give by a policeman when serving him with a summons; and, whether he will take steps in future to prevent members of the police force from preparing Crown witnesses in the evidence they should give in a court.

This boy, aged twelve, did, by replying in the affirmative to a leading question put in cross-examination, accept the suggestion referred to. On re-examination he made it clear that he had received no instruction whatever and had sworn only to what he had himself seen and heard. His evidence was confirmed by other witnesses. The defendants, who were twenty and twenty-three years of age, were ordered to give sureties for their future good behaviour, or to be imprisoned in default. They adopted the first alternative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will advise the Local Government Board to inform county and district councils that the Provisional Order enabling councils to employ direct labour on roads and other works has become law, and that they may now proceed to prepare schemes which can come into operation on the 1st of April next.

This matter will be fully dealt with in a circular letter which will shortly be issued to the local authorities.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any communication to make to the House in reference to the appointment to the vacant position of fishery inspector in Ireland, and whether full inquiry into the qualifications and practical experience of candidates will be made before filling up this vacancy.

The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. Beyond this I have nothing to add to my statement in answer to the questions addressed to me on the 20th. June on this subject.†

Will the appointment be made before the reassembling of Parliament?

I should think it most improbable. It may never be made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Killorglin branch of the Irish United League, proposed by Mr. Thomas M'Donagh Mahoney, J.P., calling upon Mrs. Mary Shea to give up a farm at Keelnabrack, Glenbeigh; whether he is aware that a bullock belonging to Mrs. Shea was injured subsequently to the League meeting, and has died since; whether any protection is being afforded to Mrs. Shea; and whether it is proposed to take any action with regard to Mr. T. M'Donagh Mahoney, J.P.

An indoor meeting of the League was held at Killorglin on the 30th ultimo. The police were not present at the meeting, and the resolution alleged to have been passed at the meeting has not been published. On the following day a bullock, the property of John Shea, died, but whether the act was or was not malicious I am not yet in a position to say. Every necessary protection is being afforded to Mrs. Shea.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is absolutely no truth in the statement?

†See Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. xcv., page 918.

Order, order!

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information that such a resolution was passed?

I have replied fully on that point.

If policemen were standing outside the door, why is there no evidence that the resolution was passed?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what are the difficulties in the way of a sale of the estate of Lord Headley, in the county of Kerry, which is now under the court; and, having regard to the fact that the tenants have expressed their willingness to purchase, whether he can do anything to expedite the sale of their holdings to them.

There are no proceedings pending in the Land Judge's Court for the sale of the estate referred to. There were proceedings at one time pending, but the petition was dismissed so far back as 1884.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether representations have been received by the Board of Works from merchants and farmers resident at or near Rashenny station, on the new railway from Buncrona to Cardonagh, requesting them to have a goods shed erected there in order to protect the goods and farm produce carried by the railway; and whether, considering the small expense that the construction of a goods shed would entail, the Board of Works will have the station buildings completed in this respect.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The probable traffic requirements of the districts to be served by the railway were carefully considered when the plans were being prepared, and the necessity of a goods store as Rashenny was not suggested. If, after experience, it is found that a shed is required at this place, the company will no doubt provide it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of including the Londonderry City and County Infirmary in the list of those prescribed by the Local Government Board Order relating to trained nurses in workhouse infirmaries in Ireland, in order to provide that nurses trained in the said infirmary shall be eligible for appointments in workhouse infirmaries in the surrounding districts; and, having regard to the degrees held by the staff of the said infirmary, which consists of five visiting physicians and surgeons and one resident doctor, and to the ensuring thereby of efficiency of training for nurses, will he place the nurses trained in this infirmary on terms of equality with nurses trained in Belfast and Dublin.

Owing to the relatively small number of patients that can be treated at this hospital, the Local Government Board has not seen its way to recognise the training given there as sufficient to entitle its nurses to recoupment under the provisions of the 58th section of the Act of 1898. I will, however, give the whole subject my personal consideration during the recess.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named M'Elligott, of Shruagh, Ballymagauvan, county Cavan, has been recently arrested and committed to gaol for contempt of court for retaking possession of his farm, from which he was evicted by an order of the Irish Land Commission because he refused to give up his farm to the landlord for the price fixed by the Land Commission, which was £60 less than he was offered by a solvent purchaser; is he aware that M'Elligott recently offered to pay two years rent and costs to the agent of the landlord if allowed to remain in possession; and, having regard to the circumstances under which M'Elligott was evicted, will the Government direct his release and take steps to amend the law so as to prevent similar cases arising in the future.

I am informed that this man was committed to prison on the 30th July on a writ of attachment issued by the Master of the Rolls. The Executive cannot direct his release as suggested; the matter is not one in which it can intervene. To purge his contempt he must apply to the Master of the Rolls. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative.

How long may this man be kept in prison?

That rests between him and the judge.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question?

I have no right to review the proceedings of a court of law, and I do not propose to do so.

I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. James Coakley was appointed to teach Irish in the Midleton (county Cork) Union school, on 8th June last, and that his appointment has not as yet been sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and whether steps will be taken to ratify the appointment without further delay.

The Board will offer no objection to this appointment, and the guardians will be so informed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Martin, a county court valuer in the West Riding in the county Cork, recently in his private capacity valued the farm of Mrs. O'Sullivan, Glencurragh, Skibbereen, for the landlord; whether it is in accordance with official regulations that, as a county court official, he should do so, and, if not, will steps be taken to remove him from the position of county court valuer.

The question has been referred to Mr. Martin, who states that he never valued the farm in question, either for the landlord or for the county court judge. The latter would not employ him to value a farm which he had previously valued in his private capacity.

I beg to ask Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Cork County Council refused to pay £9 4s. expenses incurred by the police authorities in following from Cork, and arresting in London, a man named Cornelius Sullivan; can he state under what authority the police made the demand, and whether it will be persisted in.

The county council has refused to repay this amount, which, under the circumstances, will be deducted from the moneys payable to the council out of the Local Taxation Account. The expenses incurred in the pursuit and apprehension of offenders are chargeable to the county under the provisions of Section 4 of the 14 and 15 Vict., cap. 85.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that more than a month ago the constabulary authorities held an inquiry in Hospital, county Limerick, in connection with the cases of Cornelius Bray and a man named Murphy, when Sergeant Sheridan was stationed in that town; is he now in a position to give the result of the inquiry is he aware that Bray was arrested on a charge of hay-burning on the night of 26th November, 1897, and was convicted at the Cork Winter Assizes on this charge, and that after two years and a quarter in prison he died within four months after his liberation; and whether, under the circumstances, the Government intend to give any compensation to Mrs. Bray for the loss of her son.

The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative.

In view of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this case, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to grant a public inquiry into the case of this man Sheridan?

No, Sir. I endeavoured last night to give the grounds on which I arrived at the decision, and I am afraid I cannot reargue the case.

I attach so much importance to the question that I shall raise it again to-morrow on the Appropriation Bill.

Is not the evidence sufficient to justify putting the man on his trial?

That does not arise out of the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that rather more than a month ago the constabulary authorities held in Hospital, county Limerick, an inquiry in regard to the conviction of a man named Murphy, for cutting the tail off an ass belonging to a man named Cregan, when ex-Sergeant Sheridan was stationed in Hospital some three or four years ago; have the authorities as yet come to a decision as regards this inquiry; and will the Government give any compensation to Murphy for the time he spent in prison.

The reply to this question is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the prosecution at Kiltyclogher (county Leitrim) Petty Sessions on the 13th instant of eight defendants, at the suit of District Inspector Maxwell, on a charge of intimidation; is he aware that the court on the occasion was constituted of two resident magistrates, under 50 and 51 Vic, c. 20; and will he explain why the defendants were not charged under the ordinary common law dealing with such offences.

Proceedings were instituted (by the police) against ten persons on charges of riot and unlawful assembly (arising out of disturbances which occurred recently in this district). The cases against four of the defendants were dismissed, and in the remaining six cases convictions were returned, resulting in terms of imprisonment varying from fourteen days to one month. On the application of the defendants the sentences were increased to five weeks to allow of an appeal. The proceedings were taken by direction of the Government under Section 2, Sub-section 3 (a) of the statute mentioned. The Government considered that this procedure was the most appropriate to the kind of offence with which the accused were charged—namely, riot and unlawful assembly. In view of the fact that an appeal is pending I must refrain from further characterising the offence.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury have, in accordance with the undertaking of the First Lord, called up the £93,000 due from the Rosslare Company, or has he had any further reply from that company as to the construction of the Cork and Fermoy Line.

I received a letter yesterday from the chairman of the company stating that he had found it impossible to secure a meeting of the Fishguard Board at this season of the year, but promising to call the Board together at the earliest possible moment after the vacation. At the same time he asked that, having regard to the length of time during which the company's application of the 18th April was under consideration by the Treasury, some little further time should be allowed for the repayment of the £93,000. I think that this is a reasonable request under the circumstances. I have had no indication of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company's intention in regard to the Fermoy line since the debate in this House on the Great Southern and Western Railway Bill, but I gather from the statement made on that occasion that the company intended to proceed with its construction.

said the company had violated the condition on which they obtained the money, and he wished to know what reason there was for giving them further indulgence.

I consulted with my right hon. friend the First Lord on the point. The company approached the Treasury on 18th April, and the final reply of the Treasury was not sent until 26th July. That reply stated that the company must adhere to their parliamentary engagement, and the money would be called up if they did not. The chairman represented that that was very short notice, and, in view of the difficulties of getting the Board together at this time of the year, asked for a short postponement. There is no intention of releasing the company from their obligations.

The obligation to construct this line has not been fulfilled by the company, and the position now is that they have to return this money. I wish to know whether this postponement of the fulfilment of the obligation in regard to the money means that a further indulgence is to be given to this company.

Having regard to the fact that the company's application was under the consideration of the Treasury for three months, and the final reply of the Treasury was only sent to them a few days before the date on which the money was due, it seems not inequitable to give them a little further time to make this payment.

I think it is quite reasonable that they should get some further time.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, although various centres for hand and eye training classes have been formed in different parts of Ireland, it is impossible for teachers in remote districts to attend such classes, which in many cases are only held on alternate Saturdays; and seeing that some teachers who desire to attend the class at Dunmanway, county Cork, are more than forty miles distant from Bantry, the nearest railway station, and that a further railway journey of twenty miles would have to be undertaken, whether he will arrange for the holding of a special training class of a few weeks duration during the months of September or October conducted by the head organiser in Dublin for the purpose of imparting the necessary instruction.

In the remoter parts of the country there are many schools situated at an inconvenient distance from the centres at which hand and eye training classes have been formed. Every effort will be made to reach as many as possible of these schools when selecting centres for the classes that are yet to be formed. Owing to his present engagements it would not be possible for the head organiser to conduct in Dublin, during the months of September and October, a special class such as is suggested, even if it were considered desirable that he should do so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the vacation period in schools in the north of Ireland is about to commence, and that, in many cases, the teachers have not yet received the amount of the expenses incurred by them in attendance at the classes instituted at the various centres by the National Board for the instruction of teachers; and if he will endeavour to have these sums recouped to the teachers before the vacation commences.

All claims for travelling expenses received in the National Education Office in connection with manual and practical instruction and other classes for teachers, where the courses of instruction have been completed, have been paid—with the exception of four irregular claims which are under consideration. Where classes have been interrupted by vacation, the head organisers in charge have already been instructed by the Commissioners to forward claims from the teachers who are entitled to their expenses up to the date of the cessation of those classes.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the views which have been expressed regarding the money known as Balance of Residual Grant, he will consider the advisability of appointing two chartered accountants to investigate the matter, one to be nominated by the teachers and the other by the Government.

A Return has been laid which will, I trust, dispose of the doubts that appear to be widely entertained on this complicated matter. Should this expectation not be fulfilled, I shall be prepared to consider the suggestion which has already deen urged on me by my right hon. and hon. friends the Members for South and North Antrim.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Returns dealing with rates in Kerry, with attendances of National Education Commissioners, with the expenditure of school grant (Act 92) under four heads are yet ready; and, if not, can he say when they will be issued.

The Return relating to the attendance of Commissioners was presented in corpore on the 5th instant. The distribution of the Paper rests with the Stationery Office. I understand it will be available in a few days. The other two Returns, which have been presented in dummy, will it is hoped, be completed and sent to the printers in the course of a fortnight.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what are the conditions and qualifications, if any, under which students may enter the Veterinary College, Dublin.

I am not aware; but the conditions will be found in the college prospectus, which can be had on application to the principal of the college.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the recent Census appointments in the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin, received the sanction of the Treasury Remembrancer; and if not, will they be submitted for his sanction; is he aware that boy writers are put into competition with men clerks, and that, as a result of this task work, the boys go for long periods without food, to the injury of their health; and will he consider the advisability of altering this system of working with the view of securing accuracy in these public reports.

The department referred to is the office of the Registrar General. The number and rates of pay of the staff employed on the work of the Census have been fixed by the Irish Government and the Treasury, but the disposition of the staff is a matter entirely for the Census Commissioners. The boy copyists are not put into competition with men clerks. In no case has a boy employed on taskwork been permitted to work on the same after office hours, and all the boys are allowed the usual half-hour for lunch.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a number of Roman Catholic coopers in the employment of the Anglo-American Oil Company, in Belfast, have been discharged from their employment on the ground that the company was no longer able to afford them any protection from attacks by workmen of other religions; and can he state what steps he intends to take in the matter.

Yes. Sir; I am informed that Roman Catholic workmen, four in number, in the employ of this firm, were discharged by the manager, who assigns as a reason for this step that he "feared some of those employed in the shipbuilding yards might enter the premises, to intimidate the Roman Catholics, smoking, and thus cause a fire." This reason seems to me very frivolous, and in substance wholly inadequate as a justification for an act which is on the face of it arbitrary and unfair and wholly uncalled for, in view of the fact that the Government gives ample protection to all who may need it, and that the owners and managers of the shipyards are co-operating with the Government by threatening to curtail the hours of labour in the yards in the event of any such excesses on the part of their employees. No other firm has adopted such a course. I shall give the matter my immediate and close attention.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death of James Brennan, who was arrested by two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary on Monday last at Thurles, and so badly treated by them that death, it is alleged, resulted from the injuries inflicted.

said he had only received the notice since he entered the House. He had no information, but would make full inquiry and communicate the result to the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the cases of Green v. The Freeman's Journal, decided by the Irish Court of Appeal in 1899, and that of Hildesheimer v. Faulkner, decided on 2nd August, 1901, by the Court of Appeal in England; whether he is aware that in the former case the court held that, under the Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1861, the court were bound to affix a separate penalty in the case of every infringement, and damages of one farthing were inflicted for every copy of a newspaper printed in which appeared a small copyright design, and that these penalties amounted to about £146, whereas in the English case referred to the Court of Appeal held that Section 6 of the Copyright Act referred to did not enable the court to assess damages amounting to money of the realm for each offence; and whether Mr. Attorney General will advise the Government to introduce legislation to assimilate the construction of the provisions of the Fine Arts Copyright Act of 1881 in England and Ireland.

My attention has been called to the matter referred to. It is quite possible that the last-mentioned case may be taken to the House of Lords, and the law on this point finally settled. It is therefore premature to make any promise of legislation on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what progress has been made with the publication of the fifth and sixth volumes of the Brehon Laws, whether the remaining sheets and index have been finally revised, and whether the volumes will be issued, as promised, before the end of the summer.

About 100 pages of Vol. 5 await a final revision. The remaining pages (some 500) and the index have been passed for press. The glossary referred to as a sixth volume is completed with the exception of eight pages of print, which have not yet been revised. I have not given, and cannot give, any promise on the subject of the date of completion of the work; but there is no reason to suppose that its publication will be deferred much longer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state if the difficulties in connection with the erection of a goods store on Sneem Pier, county Kerry, have been removed, and whether the construction of the store can be proceeded with immediately; and whether he can state what steps have been taken to place a buoy in the position agreed upon near the pier.

The Congested Districts Board has given instructions to have a buoy placed near the pier. As regards the first paragraph, I recently stated that I had referred the matter to one of the Board's inspectors, who would take a suitable opportunity of inquiring into the position of affairs. When his report is received the question will be further considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Mr. Fitzpatrick, of Inniskeen, was dismissed from the position of postmaster at Inniskeen owing to alleged intemperance in the post office on behalf of the friends of Mr. Fitzpatrick, and that a declaration has been sworn by two respectable persons that no drink was consumed on the post office premises on the 21st December last, and whether he will take steps to clear the character of Fitzpatrick and his family; whether he can now state how it was that Mr. S. Lockington, the present postmaster, was enabled to apply for the office, while the late postmaster did not know of his dismissal until the workmen came to take away the wires; and as the present postmaster, Lockington, does not live at Inniskeen, but at Dundalk, eight miles distant, if he will appoint someone that will be able to give their entire time to the duties of the office.

Several questions on this subject put by the hon. Member have already been answered giving full information as to the reasons for declaring the Inniskeen office vacant. The occurrence of the 21st December last did not form the sole or principal cause of the action taken, which was grounded on the intemperance and generally unsatisfactory conduct of the persons carrying on the duties of the office, and the affidavit in question furnished no reason for reopening the question. As already stated in answer to the hon. Member's previous questions, the appointment of sub-postmaster at Inniskeen has not yet been filled. The person in whose charge the duties have been temporarily placed is not Mr. S. Lockington but Mr. W. Corrigan, whose premises were selected because they were the most convenient that could be found in the emergency. The duties at Inniskeen are not sufficient to justify the department in insisting on the person appointed giving his whole time to the service.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that considerable delay is occasioned in the delivery of letters addressed in Irish, in the country districts of the county Cork, owing to the non-appointment of sorting clerks possessing a knowledge of Irish; and whether steps will be taken to insure that at least one sorting clerk in each postal district in the county Cork (including Midleton) shall be acquainted with the Irish language.

No complaints on this subject appear to have been reported to the General Post Office in London; but in any case, the Postmaster General does not consider it necessary to take special steps to ensure that a knowledge of the Irish language shall be possessed by persons employed in the post office in Ireland. He has given instructions that in the event of a letter in Irish passing through an office where it can be deciphered, the address shall be translated into English and the letter sent on to its destination.

Am I to understand that no steps will be taken to secure the due delivery of letters addressed in Irish?

The hon. Gentleman is not to understand that. But the Postmaster General does not think it necessary to insist that post office officials should be able to speak Irish.

Then what steps are to be taken to ensure that letters addressed in Irish are delivered?

I think that very few who write Irish cannot also write English.

Why should they not address letters in Irish?

For the convenience of the public and of the Post Office.

Have you not appointed Welsh-speaking officials in the Welsh post office?

Order, order!

Surely Irishmen are entitled to address letters in their own language.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any steps are being taken for transmitting the mid-day mails to Rosscarbery on their arrival at Clonakilty.

The Postmaster General regrets that he is still unable to come to a decision on the question of establishing a day mail service to Rosscarbery, the inquiries on the subject not having been completed. As soon as he is in a position to do so he will communicate his decision to the hon. Member.