I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will now consider the advisability of instituting, in accordance with the promise made some time ago, a general inquiry into the administration of the various Departments responsible for the conduct of the war.

I have nothing really to add to the many answers which I have given on this subject. The position remains, as far as I know, unchanged from what it was this time last year.

The war was over then.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is likely that we shall have the Dutch Papers?

I hope that they will be in our hands to-morrow evening.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he discussed with Lord Milner, at the the time of the latter's visit to England last year, the question of the disabilities inflicted upon His Majesty's Indian subjects in districts until lately known as the Transvaal and Orange River Colony; whether the Boer regulations are still enforced by the British officials in those Colonies; and will he use his influence to induce the authorities in Natal and in the Cape Colony to revise the restrictions as to fixed locations in which Indians must live in certain towns, and other alleged grievances, which have been explained to him in various memorials.

The matter was discussed with Lord Milner, but, as I informed the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, N.E., on 15th July last, I was obliged to reserve it for consideration after Lord Milner's return to South Africa, and he has not yet been able, in the multiplicity of affairs calling for his attention, to deal with the question, but he informed me a few days ago that he hopes to address me on this subject soon. Meanwhile the legislation of the late Government is in force, although some modifications have been introduced into the administration. I do not think it desirable at present to make any representations to the self-governing Colonies.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether there have been any foreclosures of mortgages in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony since Lord Milner's proclamation of 9th October, permitting the recovery of interests on mortgages; and, if so, whether there have been any forced sales of land in pursuance of such foreclosures; and whether in any such case the mortgagor has been a prisoner of war.

The answer is in the negative. I may point out that the proclamation in question does not apply to the Orange River Colony.

:May I ask whether the date has yet been fixed for which it will be possible to sue for capital and interest?

Not that I am aware of.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether Mr. Marais, who was deported from the Paarl to Beautfort West, and imprisoned in August last on an allegation of infringement of martial law regulations, has ever been tried for this alleged offence; whether he is aware that Major General Wynne, the Commanding Officer of the Cape Colony District, made an affidavit before the Supreme Court at Cape Town, on 6th September, 1901, in which he deposed that Mr. Marais would be tried as soon as possible by a Military Court and either acquitted or detained in custody; whether Mr. Marais has been either acquitted or convicted by such a Military Court; and, if convicted, can he state what sentence has been passed on him, and where he is now imprisoned or detained.

I have nothing to add to the information which I have already given the hon. Member.

The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he had had no information since the first proceeding. When will he be able to answer the Question as to the affidavit and the subsequent Questions?

I have made inquiries as to the second paragraph of the Question, and hope to have an answer shortly.

I will repeat the Question this day week.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the contract for the supply of meat to the troops in South Africa has been made with Messrs. Moritz Bergl and Company of Smithfield, and is that firm solely entitled to its benefits, and solely liable for carrying out its provisions; or can he state whether the performance of the contract has been guaranteed by the right hon. C. J. Rhodes and Dr. Jameson; and, if so, to what extent have these latter an interest in it, and does the contract contain any restriction as to sub-letting.

Several tenders were received for this contract, of which the lowest was Messrs. M. Bergl and Company's. The tender being for so large a sum, the firm mentioned in the tender that they contemplated transferring it to a Company, and mentioned substantial names as being associated with them. The War Office being satisfied of the stability of those who participated in the tender, accepted it. I have no knowledge of the guarantee referred to, though I understand that a number of prominent firms in South Africa are interested in the undertaking, which involves a capital of £500,000.

May I ask if it is the case that this contract was treated in the same way as the horse contract which was brought up before the House on Friday night, and whether it is the case that it was re-sold to a syndicate consisting of Messrs. Wernher Beit, Lewis, and Marks?

No, Sir; to the best of my knowledge that is not the case.

Will the noble Lord inquire into the matter?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, seeing that the Resolution of the House of Commons of 13th February, 1891, has not been adhered to in connection with contracts for Army Accoutrements by certain firms in Bermondsey, he will take immediate steps to deal summarily with the firms concerned; can he say during what period of time this breach of the regulations has been going on in the firms alluded to, and what steps, if any, were taken by the Government prior to the 20th of this month for the protection of those employed.

The inquiry which I have already stated was in progress has not yet been concluded. I may add that it is extremely difficult to ascertain accurately the current rate of wages at any time owing to the considerable fluctuations due to the war.

Can I furnish the noble Lord with information which will facilitate the present inquiry?

The hon. Member has kindly given me certain information, on which I am making inquiry.

I will furnish the noble Lord with further information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the quality of the accommodation provided at Frimley and Salisbury Plain, for commanding officers, as compared with that provided in permanent barracks elsewhere, he will grant lodging allowance to the officers concerned until the promised improvements have been effected in order to help them to meet the expense of house rent which they are compelled to incur.

The accommodation provided is in accordance with regulations, and therefore no case arises for the issue of lodging allowance.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that enlistment under eighteen years of age is contrary to the conditions of the enlistment, and further seeing that the Commanding Officer of the 1st Royal Dragoons, Shorncliffe Camp, refused to grant the discharge from the Army of John Donovan, of Knockaderry, county Limerick, who was under seventeen years of age at the time of his enlistment in the said regiment, as a certified copy of the register of his birth sent to the Commanding Officer proves, he will direct the discharge of the boy from the Army.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that enlistment under eighteen years of age is contrary to the conditions of enlistment, whether he will direct the discharge from the Army of Francis Dooley, of Leabeg Frankford, Kings County, who enlisted in the Irish Guards, being at the time under seventeen years of age.

These matters are left entirely to the discretion of the local military authorities, to whom the hon. Members should address any communication they may wish to make.

Will the boy be discharged if application is made to the Commanding Officer?

Is the noble Lord aware of the fact that this boy's father applied to the Commanding Officer for his discharge, and that he has replied that the matter must be held in abeyance till the close of the war; also that if the boy again applies he will be liable to be tried by a Court Martial for making a false statement as to his age. Is he aware that the boy at the time of his enlistment did not know his actual age, and will he, in view of these circumstances, order his discharge?

No, Sir

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether there is any intention to shortly change the system of recruiting by, in addition to other methods, recruiting direct from the schools, and so obtaining boys of reliably known ages to be classed and kept together as boys till they reach the proper age for efficient military service; and, if not, whether in any changes that may be made, attention will be given to the advantages of such a proposal, whereby reliable data as to age of Army recruits would be secured.

Boys are already enlisted from the Duke of York's School and the Royal Hibernian School; further a list of schools is periodically published from which boys can be obtained. Regiments have a fixed establishment of boys who are classed and kept together as boys. There is no immediate intention of making any further changes in this respect.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state when the mule battery stationed at Newport will be re-armed with the new design of mountain gun; and if, for the convenience of inspection by Members, he will cause one of the muzzle loaders firing black powder, at present in use, to be placed with the specimens of a similar type at the entrance to the Museum of the Royal United Service Institution in Parliament Street.

The new guns are in process of issue to the Depôt at Newport. Perhaps the hon. Member will refer the second part of his Question to the Institution, as the matter does not rest with the Secretary of State for War.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether, in the case of Officers now serving abroad in sub-tropical climates who draw retired pay plus £150 in lieu of the pay of their rank, he will consider the question of establishing for them the same rate of pay as that paid to other officers of the same rank who have commuted their pensions for a lump sum.

Officers on retired pay when re-employed may draw the pay of their rank or retired pay plus £150 whichever is most advantageous. Officers who retired on a gratuity when re-employed draw the pay of their rank. There is no advantage to be gained by changing this arrangement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state what arrangements have been made for carrying on the increasing work of the Judge Advocate General's Department whilst Sir Francis Jeune is engaged as President of the Commission to which he has been appointed by the Board of Trade.

The work of the Judge Advocate General will not in any way be interfered with by his occupation in connection with the Presidency of the Committee referred to.

I beg to give notice that at the earliest possible opportunity I will draw the attention of the House to the administration of military law, and move: "That in the opinion of this House the office of Judge Advocate General should be restored."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether, in view of the withdrawal of an order to lay down a battleship at Portsmouth, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have considered the desirability of acquiring an additional dockyard, and, having regard to the formation of a North Sea Squadron, will he take into consideration the creation of a Government Dockyard in the Tyne or on the East Coast of Scotland.

There is no present intention of establishing any additional Royal Dockyard.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether H.M.S. "Irresistible," one of the latest types of battleships, is to become guardship at Gibraltar instead of joining the active strength of the Mediterranean Squadron.

The "Irresistible," a battleship of the latest type, has taken the place of the "Devastation," a less powerful and older vessel, as guardship at Gibraltar. The "Irresistible" is, like all other vessels in the Mediterranean, under the orders and at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if there is any record at the Admiralty of one or more guns of any vessel of similar class to the "Condor" breaking loose in a heavy sea.

There is no record of one or more guns of any vessel of the "Condor" class breaking loose in a heavy sea.

:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he can state what amount of deck cargo was put on board the "Condor" before she left Esquimault.

There is no information to the effect that any deck cargo was put on board the "Condor" before she left Esquimalt.

Was not a quantity of stores put on the "Condor" at Esquimault to be taken?

I have looked through the log-book, and I can find no trace of anything of the kind. That is the only indication I have.

Was not an order sent by the Admiralty for certain stores to be taken on at Esquimault?

Whether any order was sent or not, there is no reference made in the log to the fact that any stores were carried on deck. I can find no trace of it in the log, and it is the only information I have. I have personally examined it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he can state what was the effective strength in non-commissioned officers and men of the British European forces in India on the 1st January 1896, 1897, and 1902, and what number of men are now serving beyond the terms of their engagement.

The effective strength in non-commissioned officers and men of the British Forces in India on 1st January 1896, was 70,615, and on 1st January 1897, 70,400. I have not yet received the figures for 1st January 1902, but according to the latest quarterly return 1st October, 1901, the strength was 61,686. There are no men detained in India except under conditions laid down in the terms of their engagement. I am unable to state the exact number of time-expired men at present serving in India. In June last the number was estimated at 22,000; but of these nearly 17,000 have up to date accepted bounties for the extension of their term of service up to a total of 12 years; in addition to this the number has been greatly reduced by wholesale interchanges of men between India and South Africa. I have therefore good reason to anticipate that in a short time very few time-expired men will remain in India.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether His Majesty's Government has received any assurance of a proximate evacuation of Manchuria by the Russian troops.

The Russian Government have not receded from the intention which they have announced to evacuate Manchuria. It is understood that negotiations for that object, which were delayed by the death of Li Hung Chang, are still proceeding.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been directed to the case of Dr. Rendall, of Great Yarmouth, who, on 23rd November, 1901, was summoned before the General Medical Council and deemed by that body to be guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect, on the ground that he held an appointment as Medical Officer for the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society, which canvassed for members, and which society has been established sixty years, is duly registered under the Friendly Societies' Act, and comprises a membership of two and a half millions: and whether he will take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown with the view to ascertaining whether the General Medical Council have power under the Medical Acts to declare a properly qualified medical man holding such an appointment guilty of infamous conduct and thus be able to erase his name from the Medical Register.

My hon. friend desires me to say that he does not wish to enter into the details of the particular case referred to, as he understands that it is still, in a sense, sub judice; but he is advised that the powers of the General Medical Council as to deciding what is and what is not "infamous conduct in a professional respect" within the meaning of the Medical Act are clearly laid down by that Act and the decisions there under; and he sees no necessity for consulting the Law Officers of the Crown in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it has been brought to his notice that, in consequence of the removal of the Police Station in Highgate out of the county of London into the county of Middlesex, a distance of only about 400 yards, the police constables in that district will lose their lodging allowance of 1s. 6d. per week; and whether he will reconsider the advisability of extending the lodging allowance to all the members of the force, whether doing duty in or outside the London boroughs.

My right hon. friend has decided that the lodging allowance shall be continued in the case of the men who are at present attached to the Highgate Police Station so long as they continue to be so attached, notwithstanding the removal of that station beyond the boundary of the county of London. The answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, under the law relating to the sale of scheduled poisons, an unqualified assistant of a medical man or of a registered chemist is prohibited from selling poisons, under penalty of a fine, but that no penalty is attached to the employer for any offence committed by such unqualified assistant; whether he is aware that, in the case of registered medical practitioners, the General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United Kingdom have given notice that they will treat as infamous conduct in a professional respect, and have the name erased from the Medical Register, under the 29th section of the Medical Act, 1868, any medical practitioner who may leave an unqualified assistant in charge of their medical halls or open shops, whilst no penalty is attached to the registered chemist who employs an unqualified assistant should that assistant sell scheduled poisons; whether it is within the power of the General Council to declare the employment of an unqualified assistant to be infamous conduct in a professional respect under the Medical Acts; and, if so, whether he will introduce legislation which will equally punish a registered chemist who may similarly employ an unqualified assistant, seeing that the danger to the public is equally the same whether the unqualified assistant be that of a medical practitioner or of a registered chemist.

My right hon. friend understands that, under the Pharmacy Acts, 1868 and 1869, any person who, not being a chemist or a qualified medical practitioner, sells poison, is liable to prosecution, but that there is no provision in those Acts for making the employer responsible for the acts of his apprentice or assistant except in the case of a breach of the regulations to be observed in the sale of poisons. As my right hon. friend has said, in answer to another Question, the powers of the General Medical Council as to deciding what is or what is not "infamous conduct in a professional respect" under the Medical Act are governed by the terms of that Act, and the decisions there under, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department has no authority to interpret them. As regards the last paragraph of the Question, the subject of the sale of poisons is now being considered by a Committee, whose recommendations must be awaited before any decision as to the legislation suggested can be arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in connection with the Birmingham riots of December last, whether any of the 97 constables who were injured on that occasion will be compensated from Imperial funds; and, if not, will the injured men be compensated from local funds.

With regard to Imperial funds, the answer is in the negative. The Secretary of State cannot say whether the constables injured will receive any compensation from other sources, as that is not a matter in respect of which he has any authority.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a constable in Ireland sustains the slightest injury under circumstances like these, a heavy compensation is levied on the locality? And why not in Birmingham?

Because Joe lives there.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that a crew of seamen were engaged at Glasgow on 13th December, 1901, on the steamship "Miniah" to proceed to Alexandria, on the understanding that if the vessel was sold at that port, the owners would pay the cost of the men's passage home to the United Kingdom, and their wages, until arrival at a home port; whether he is aware that the British Consul at Alexandria compelled the crew to sign clear of the ship, although the captain was only paying them two days pay each, contrary to the provisions of the articles of agreement, which provided for a continuance of their wages until their return to the United Kingdom; and will he cause inquiries to be made into the matter, and insist on His Majesty's Consul at Alexandria paying over to the crew of the "Miniah" the wages they have lost in consequence of his action.

I am informed by the owners of the "Miniah," that the seamen discharged from that vessel at Alexandria (with the exception of one man, who, I understand, was left in Hospital) were given passages home, and have been paid their wages up to the date of their arrival in the United Kingdom, and this information is confirmed by the Consul with whom I communicated.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can state when the Commission, appointed to report on Professor Koch's theory that bovine and human tuberculosis are distinct diseases and incommunicable, is expected to report.

I am not in a position to state when the Commission will be able to report, but it is not likely that they can do so for a considerable time. I am informed that very extensive experiments will have to be carried out by the Commission, and that for this purpose laboratories and other buildings have been erected on the farms where this part of the work is to be done. It is, I understand, impossible to say how long these experiments will take, but arrangements have been made for the Commission to occupy the farms for three years.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he will state what steps the Local Government Board are taking to prevent the spread of smallpox by tramps.

My right hon. friend has recently issued circular letters to Boards of Guardians, in which he called attention to the risk of smallpox being spread by means of casual paupers, and pointed out the steps which should by taken by the guardians and their officers, with a view to diminishing as far as possible the danger from this source.

Will care be taken that considerations of expense will not be allowed to stand in the way, especially so far as extra remuneration to the medical officers is concerned?

Such considerations will not be allowed to stand in the way. We have not restricted the expenditure in any direction.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that in the Llanelly Union relieving officers have been in the habit of using rooms in public houses for the purpose of dispensing out-door relief; and, whether he has information to show that such a practice prevails in other unions; if so, what steps he proposes to take to discourage a continuance of the practice

From inquiries which I have made I find that it has been the practice to administer relief at a public house in one of the districts of the Llanelly Union. The room in which the relief has been distributed is stated to be outside the main building, to have a separate entrance and never to have been used for the sale of intoxicating liquors, but I am happy to say that arrangements are now being made for the payment of relief at the Parish Hall. I have no information to show that the use of public houses as relief stations prevails in other unions. The Local Government Board have already refused to allow this to be done where the matter has come to their knowledge, and this course I shall continue to pursue.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Llanelly Board of Guardians recently passed a Resolution prohibiting such payments in future?

I have said that in future the distribution is to take place at the Parish Hall, and, I presume, that is in consequence of some resolution passed by the Board.

Can the President of the Local Government Board say at what date it is intended to take the Second Reading of the London Water Bill? Will he give an interval of, at least, a fortnight?

My right hon. friend informs me he thinks that the Second Reading of the London Water Bill should not be long delayed. The Bill will be put down for Thursday next, and he hopes that it will then be possible to fix a day.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he can state in what printed list of National Telephone Exchange subscribers are to be found the names and addresses of 40,000 National Telephone Exchange subscribers in the London Telephone area, who may be rung up by subscribers to the new Post Office Telephone Exchange.

The National Telephone Company's Directory issued last July, with the Supplement issued last month, contains the names and addresses of those subscribers who desire their names and addresses to appear in the Directory. The Company state that among the 40,000 subscribers connected with their London Exchange System are included, in accordance with the usual method of arriving at Telephone Exchange Statistics throughout the world, extension lines and additional connections. Separate entries in the Directory are unnecessary in many of these cases.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the addresses in this telephone book are so indistinct and incomplete that it is sometimes impossible to know whom to call?

I do not think that arises out of the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if any reply has yet been given to a petition handed in by the Brighton postmen, on 19th February 1901, with regard to the appointment of an assistant inspector of postmen.

The Memorialists deprecated the promotion of a Postman who had been strongly recommended by the Postmaster for promotion to be Assistant. Inspector of Postmen, and all their statements were carefully inquired into, before the promotion was made; but they were not considered such as ought to militate against the promotion. In these circumstances, the announcement of the Postmaster-General's decision to sanction the promotion was considered a sufficient reply to the representations of the Memorialists.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General whether he has received a petition from the London Committee of the Telegraph Clerks Association, asking that all appointments in the Engineering Branch of the Telegraph Department, should be open for competition among the operating staff, and that the age limit of 26 years should be abolished; and, if so, whether an answer can now be given.

The Postmaster General received the petition in question. It has been carefully considered, and he hopes to be able to give a reply to the Memorialists in a few days.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if his attention has been called to the fact that the Board of Education Act, 1899, under which an Order in Council establishing a register of teachers has been issued, applies only to England and Wales; and, if so, what steps, if any, it is proposed to take to enable teachers at work in Scotland to be admitted to registration.

The Board of Education Act, 1899, does not apply to Scotland, and this being so, the Scotch Education Department does not propose to issue an Order in Council, establishing a register of teachers as provided by that Act. What steps may be required in connexion with any such register will be considered when occasion arises.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Scotch Education Department, has been called to the effect of the financial conditions of the Continuation Class Code for Scotland, in discouraging School Boards in the poorer districts from instituting such classes; and whether any relaxation of these conditions is contemplated.

Representations have been made as to the difficulty, in some of the poor districts, of raising even the moderate amount of local contribution required by the Continuation Class Code, which, by Article 50, grants terms to rural schools more liberal than any previously allowed. The matter will receive consideration when the Code is under revision, but I am not to be understood as pledging the Department to a modifition of the condition.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state what progress has been made in the acquisation of properties needed for the isolation of the National Gallery, as specified in the Act passed during last session.

Arrangements have been in negotiation for the acquisition of all these properties, and provision for the purchases is made in the estimates for 1902–03. As soon as possible, after the 1st of April next, the purchases will be completed. I hope that possession will be obtained and the premises demolished this summer.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can say what special steps he has taken to preserve the fabrics of Westminister Abbey from damage likely to be caused by the erection of scaffolding for the Coronation Ceremony.

Westminister Abbey will, I presume, be handed over to my Department according to precedent, with a view to preparing the edifice for the Coronation. Every care will be taken by the officers of my Department to preserve the fabrics from injury; and my officers have had recently, and I have every reason to hope, will retain, the friendly co-operation and assistance of the authorities of the Abbey in this connection. I can assure my noble friend I have every desire to avail myself to the fullest extent of their experience.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 31st of December last firearms were discharged on the public road between Kenmare and Templemore, county Kerry, by members of a shooting party; that the occurrence was reported to two policemen, who were on boat duty, by a gentleman who witnessed the occurrence; and will he explain why proceedings have not yet been instituted.

:A complaint was made to the police of the nature mentioned. They at once proceeded to the spot indicated, but found no member of the shooting party either on the road, or within sight, and from further inquiries since made, it is not believed by the police that shots were fired from the road, as alleged. No information has been sworn by the person who stated he witnessed the occurrence. He did not give his name to the police.

:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of teachers admitted into the first division of first class in the year 1888, and how many of these were admitted to the standard number for pensions of the said class; and can he hold out any hope, seeing that the stoppages are increased by, in some cases, 200 per cent., and as the surplus after paying all demands exceeds £20,000, that the standard number, which is only 150, will be increased.

:Thirty male teachers were admitted to the first division of the first class in 1888. Of this number, nine have been absorbed into the Pension Establishment of the same grade, which is limited to 150. The Government is not in a position to hold out any immediate prospect of increasing the limit.

; I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police at Ferryoober, county Galway, took a gun and hare from John Mulvehill on the 9th instant: Whether Mulvehill had a license to have and carry the gun; and, if so, will he direct that the gun be given back to Mulvehill; and whether it is any part of the duty of the police to act as gamekeepers.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. It forms no part of the duty of the police to act as gamekeepers, nor did they do so on the present occasion. They were engaged in enforcing the provisions of the Poaching Prevention Act, under which proceedings are now pending against Mulvehill. The Inland Revenue Authorities are also proceeding against him for shooting game without a Game Certificate. In view of these proceedings I cannot say whether the gun will be restored to Mulvehill.

Did the police have the game?

put a further Question, but Mr. Wyndham asked for notice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state what is the total amount of the receipts from assigned revenue and agricultural grant of the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account for the last financial year, and also what is the total amount of the expenditure?

The receipts amounted to £1,402,866 and the expenditure to £1,320,791. I have forwarded to the hon. Member a memorandum giving details of the receipts and payments.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has become of the difference?

:I will go into that, if the hon. Member wishes to raise the question. I do not know if he has seen the figures.

Yes. I will put a Question down for Thursday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Constable Callanan, of Tallow, County Waterford, refused to leave the house of Mr. John O'Brien, Tallow, when requested by Mr. O'Brien; can he state what explanation the police authorities have to give for this conduct; and can he explain why Sergeant St. John informed Mr. John O'Brien, that his licence renewal would be opposed by the police if he sold drink to Mr. Redmond O'Brien, one of the Tallow traversers.

The constable entered the licensed premises of Mr. O'Brien in the excercise of his duty, as he had reason to believe that persons were assembling there for an unlawful purpose. He was not requested by Mr. O'Brien to quit the premises. The Sergeant did not state that the licence would be opposed if the publican sold drink to Mr. Redmond O'Brien, but he did state that the licence would be opposed if the latter were allowed to frequent the house for an unlawful purpose.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Lieutenant has declined te appoint as High Sheriff of Dublin the gentleman nominated first on the list for that office, by the Corporation of that city; if so, what are the reasons for this step; and is there any other instance since the passage of the Act of 1876 of the choice of the Corporation being overridden.

The three names for the Dublin City Shrievalty having been submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Privileges Act, 39 and 40 Vict. cap. 76, Sec. 3, the Lord Lieutenant selected the second person named on the list, who appeared to him the best qualified to fill the office. There are several precedents for the course which the Lord Lieutenant has taken.

Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware that the first name on the list was that of a working man whose character is second to none in the City of Dublin?

The hon. Member is in error, if he thinks that the exercise of the Lord Lieutenant's discretion involves any imputation on the character of either of the two gentlemen who were not selected.

Then why did he exercise it?

May we take it, that it was because he was a working man that this man was passed over?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state the number of persons regarded as harmless lunatics at present in the Richmond Asylum?

If the expression "harmless lunatics" means those who could with safety to themselves and society be at large without supervision, there are none such in the Richmond Asylum.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if the question of a landing pier for the fishermen of Derreen and Fanore, County Clare, has been brought under his notice; and if he can do anything towards providing a suitable pier for the district.

Representations have been made to this effect. The proposal will be considered in connection with other projects of a similar character.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that the councils of the cities of Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford have the right to elect gentleman to discharge the duties of high sheriff, subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant, and also to the manner in which the councils of these cities have exercised this right for the past 15 years, and seeing that the County Councils in Ireland have to pay the salaries of the sub-sheriffs and keep the Court Houses in repair, will the Government have the Local Government (Ireland) Act amended so as to enable County Councils to elect high sheriffs for their respective counties in a similar manner.

The reply to this Question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state when he intends to introduce the promised Irish Land Bill.

I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to the similar question put to me on Friday last by my hon. and learned friend the Member for South Londonderry.^*

Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to introducing the Bill immediately, as decrees have been obtained against 40 tenants on one estate in my constituency.

I am afraid that the date of the introduction of the Bill must be governed by the proceedings of this House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state what was the object of the Board of Works engineer in inspecting the Glin Pier during the recess, and what was his report thereon.

The inspection of this pier was carried out merely to ascertain its condition. The engineer reported that the pier was in good repair.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give some reason why he did not extend the subsidised steam boat service to this pier?

See page 41

The report was that it could not be done.

Can the right hon. Gentleman not give me some tangible reason why it cannot be done?

No.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that overcrowding prevails in the borough of Wexford; and seeing that the Wexford Corporation have, up to the present, been unable to procure sufficient land for building purposes, whether he will take steps to enable the Corporation to take land outside the town compulsorily as sites for artizans' and labourers' dwellings.

The Corporation can obtain powers to take lands outside the borough by means of a Provisional Order.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General whether he can state what is the cause of the delay in rebuilding the Cork Post Office; what period has elapsed since work on the building was brought to a standstill; and when it will be resumed.

The Postmaster General is informed that there has been no stoppage in the work of enlarging the Head Post Office at Cork. While the iron girders and columns were being placed in position, the setting of the outside stone work could not be proceeded with; but that work was resumed more than a fortnight ago, and in the interval the stone work for the upper part of the building was being prepared. A large staff of men has been at work continuously since the building was begun.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for close on two months there has been practically no work done on this building? And has any attention been paid to the representations of any local authorities?

I have given all the information I possess.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any reply has been sent to the letter and report of the Cork Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, of November last, in reference to the alleged inadequate accommodation provided for the public, according to the proposed plans for the reconstructed post office building; and, if so, can he state the nature of the reply; is he aware that, in consequence of representations made by the Chamber on this point in November, 1900, to the Postmaster General and the Board of Works, an amended plan was prepared showing a larger floor space and increased counter length of about 20 feet; and will he explain why this plan was not adhered to by the Post Office authorities, having regard to the dissatisfaction in commercial circles and amongst the general public of Cork at the apparent intention to carry out the original plans.

A reply has been sent to the letter from the Cork Chamber of Commerce and Shipping, of November last, stating that their further representations have been considered, and that the Board of Public Works sees no reason to modify their judgment that the plans suggested by the Chamber, for the further enlargement of the public office in the Head Post Office at Cork are impracticable. The Postmaster General also is satisfied that the office as it is being constructed, is large enough to meet the reasonable requirements of the public. The plan to which reference is made was never adopted. It was prepared simply to show what would be the effect of the alterations desired by the Chamber of Commerce.

Is the Postmaster General aware that two independent architects reported of this work that it could be carried on without risk for £500, and that the contractors agreed to carry out amended plans for that small sum?

If the hon. Gentleman wants that Question answered, I must ask for notice.

Will the Post Office authorities pay any attention at all to local public opinion?

Yes, they have given great attention to local representations. I am afraid, however, that I cannot hold out any hope that the decision which has been arrived at will be reversed.

Would the people of Belfast have been treated as the people of Cork have been?

That does not arise out of the question.

It arises in this way—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that disappointment exists amongst the merchants and traders of Cork city and county owing to the fact that no substantial progress has been made in the matter of trunk telephone extension; is he aware that, when the General Post Office decided to assume the ownership of the trunk telephone lines, the National Telephone Company were on the point of establishing connection between Cork and Tralee viâ Mallow and Killarney, also between Cork and other towns in the west of the county, but, notwithstanding representations made on behalf of the trading community, nothing has yet been done in the way of telephone extension in the south of Ireland; and whether the Post Office Department are prepared to give at least the same facilities to the district as would have been given by the National Telephone Company if the trunk lines had been in their charge.

May I, at the same time, ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, when the Post Office Department decided to assume the ownership of the trunk telephone lines, the National Telephone Company had commenced a connecting line between Cork and Youghal and had established the line to Midleton (half way); and, whether, under this circumstances, the Post Office Department will consider the desirability of taking prompt steps to complete the connecting line between Cork and Youghal.

No trunk telephone lines in Ireland except one between Dublin, Belfast, and Drogheda, were transferred by the National Telephone Company to the Post Office, nor is anything known of a proposal by the Company to connect Cork with Youghal, Mallow, Killarney, and Tralee. The trunk line between Dublin and Cork was constructed by the Post Office. It is no doubt the case that the National Telephone Company have connected Cork and Midleton, as the company have certain Exchange subscribers in Midleton, and both places are in the same local Exchange Area. The question of extending the trunk system to the places named has been carefully considered on several occasions, but there seems no probability that the revenue would cover the cost of working the lines. The Postmaster General would, however, provide any lines required, if a guarantee were given, either locally, or by the National Telephone Company, on the same terms as for extensions of the trunk wire system in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Telephone Company were prepared, when the Government took them over, to extend telephone communication viâ Mallow?

I am not aware of that.

Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman can hold out no hope of the extension from Midleton to Youghal?

Not unless a guarantee is given which will secure the Post Office Revenue against loss.

Are these guarantees required in England?

Yes, under similiar circumstances they are required in all parts of the United Kingdom.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state at what time and place the Railway and Canal Commissioners will hold their inquiry into the question of the proposed increase of rates by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on their goods traffic, including artificial manures and breadstuffs, in the districts in the South of Ireland to the stations on their line between Dublin and Cork. Whether the Irish Board of Agriculture will intervene to protect the interests of the traders and general public in the districts so threatened with increased rates, and if the cost of such inquiry will be borne by the Railway Company, or will any portion have to be borne by the several public bodies who have given notice to take action in the matter by being represented before the Commissioners. In the latter case can he state how the costs will be apportioned, or what the probable amount might be which an urban council would have to bear. And, whether he can state when the time for lodging objections before the Commissioners will expire.

The hon. Member's Question deals with the procedure of a legal tribunal as to which I have no means of information other than those open to the public. The Registrar to the Railway and Canal Commissioners has, however, been good enough to tell me, in answer to an in- quiry, that the Commissioners will sit at the Four Courts, Dublin, on Tuesday, the 18th instant, to hear the application of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company in the matter to which the hon. Member refers. He adds that the time for lodging objections expired on the 22nd January, and that among the objections received was one from the Department of Agriculture for Ireland. All objectors will receive formal notice of the place and date of hearing. Under Section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894, the Commissioners have no power to award costs on either side unless they are of opinion that the claim or defence has been frivolous and vexatious. I have no means of estimating the probable amount of the costs which may be incurred by any of the parties in this case.

May I ask whether, as it is not generally known by the persons interested that the period for lodging objections closes on January 22nd, the right hon. Gentleman will extend the time?

I have no power to do so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why, although it has been decided that no female telegraphist should be kept on duty after 10 p.m., female telegraphists are retained at the postal telegraph office at the railway station, Omagh, after 10 p.m., and occasionally till midnight; and will the regulations of the Department in this respect be enforced at the Omagh office.

The Question seems to refer to some few late attendances that were given in exceptional circumstances during June and July last year without the knowledge of the Postmaster General. Inquiry is being made on the subject, and the hon. Member shall be duly informed of the result.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as represent- ing the Postmaster General, whether he can state what steps, if any, have been taken to secure a proper site for the new post office which is to be built in Belturbet, and when building operations are expected to commence.

A good site in The Diamond at Belturbet has been offered, and it is now under consideration whether the site can be acquired and a suitable building erected on it within the limits of expense which the amount of the post office business in the town would justify. The matter will go forward without delay, but it is impossible at present to state when building operations are likely to be commenced.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the number of times that the connections of the mail trains failed at Limerick Junction since the amalgamation of the Waterford, Limerick, and Western Railway Company with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company; and, whether he can state what steps the Postmaster General has taken or will take for a more regular delivery of mails throughout the districts between Limerick and Tralee.

:It is understood that the train for Limerick awaits at Limerick Junction, the arrival of the Day Mail train from Dublin, but that failures of connection sometimes occur at Limerick with the train for Tralee. Inquiry is being made as to the number of such failures recently, and also as to the possibility of improving the service, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

I beg to ask is the hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the failure to connect the mails at Limerick Junction for Tralee, the Dublin daily papers due to arrive at Ruthkeale in the County of Limerick at about eleven o'clock in the forenoon do not get there till seven in the evening. Would that be tolerated in England?

The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to speak with accuracy on those facts I must have notice.

In view of the frequent failures to connect since the amalgamation, will the hon. Gentleman represent to the Postmaster General the desirability of establishing a motor car or cycle service for the delivery of the mails?

:The possibility of improving the service is already being considered by the Postmaster General.

But the service is going from bad to worse.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether postmasters and postal telegraph officers in Ireland are bound by the regulations of the Department to keep in their offices sufficient change to meet public requirements, and if not, whether steps will be immediately taken to provide for this being done.

Postmasters in Ireland are supplied with sufficient cash to meet ordinary requirements. They are not bound to give change, but they should not refuse to do so if they can give it conveniently. If the hon. Member will furnish particulars of any case in which inconvenience has been caused owing to a postmaster not keeping sufficient change in his office, inquiry will be made.

I will forward some cases to the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state what, compared with the Dublin sorting clerks and telegraphists, were the special qualifications of Messrs. Hawkins and O'Donnell, imported from Queenstown and Derry respectively, to fill supervising clerkships in the Dublin sorting office, and whether service in provincial offices like those named is held to make an official more capable of supervising in Dublin than men trained in the Dublin office; whether Messrs. Hawkins and O'Donnell passed a competitive examination; and is he aware that some of the Dublin officials passed over went through either a limited or open competitive examination.

I have already informed the hon. Member that Messrs. Hawkins and O'Donnell were appointed by the Postmaster General to their present positions at the Dublin Sorting Office because they were, in his opinion, better fitted to perform the required duties than any of the officers then in that office. I can add nothing to this answer. Messrs. Hawkins and O'Donnell did not enter the service by competitive examination. The Postmaster General is aware that some of the sorting clerks and telegraphists now in Dublin entered by competitive examination.

:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that both of these gentlemen who were supposed to have such superior knowledge had only been in the service two years, and that they took precedence over men who had served all their lives?

:The mere fact of being in the service does not necessarily show competence to perform certain duties. I have stated the qualifications of these gentlemen.

I suppose they are Unionists.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if the Licensing Bill, introduced by him on Thursday last, will apply to Ireland, if passed into law.

The Bill, as drafted, applies only to England and Wales.

Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to introduce a Temperance Bill for Ireland, considering the strenght of public feeling in favour of it?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can state approximately the date of the introduction of the Education Bill, which has been promised in the King's Speech as the leading measure for the session.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman I have to say that I think he is inaccurate in saying that the Education Bill was promised in the King's Speech as the leading measure of the session, because, as he knows, it is an open secret that the rules of procedure have always been considered by the Government to be the first business with which they ought to deal, although, for reasons known to the hon. Gentleman, that was not mentioned in the King's Speech. As regards the substance of his Question, I am afraid I cannot yet state the date of the introduction of the Bill.

Will it be before Whitsuntide?

I hope so, Sir.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the, Treasury whether, in the discussions of the new rules of procedure, any, and if so what opportunity will be afforded of submitting to the House, by way of Motion, or Amendment, or additional new rules, any proposals for the more effective despatch of public business, such as the carrying over to the next session Bills which have been read a second time and have reached the Committee or some subsequent stage, in lieu of the present dilatory practice of commencing de novo by reintroducing such Bills, such as the allocation, by a Committee of the House, of a specified time to the consideration of particular measures.

I am very loth to deal with this question. It occurs to me that it is more a question for Mr. Speaker, more a question of order, and it is for Mr. Speaker to make a statement on it. My impression is—if the hon. Gentleman insists on my giving an answer—that it would not be possible for hon. Gentlemen to move suggestions for rules of their own, in addition to those which the Government propose; nor do I believe it would be possible for them to suggest Amendments to existing rules unless those Amendments were relevant to Amendments which we propose. That, I believe, is the state of the case. The hon. Gentleman must not take that as being—what I have no right to give—an authoritative decision.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that information. Perhaps he will enable us to form our own judgment by saying, whether he intends that the Second Reading debate on the rules should be preceded by any such Motion as that they be considered.

My Motion is on the Paper.

I wish to ask the First Lord whether there is not in the Foreign Office or the Library of the House, ample material to give us information as to the rules of Foreign Legislatures for the punishment of disorder and obstruction, and if so, would be direct somebody to supply the information to the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisibility of making a précis, not too long, of the rules of procedure of important Foreign Legislatures.

I do not think that we ought to turn ourselves into a Committee for preparing a comparative jurisprudence of all the Assemblies or all the Legislatures who have, more or less, I framed themselves on our model. I quite admit that we have in many respects something to learn from them; but I should not have thought that we have much to learn from them in regard to these par- ticular questions. I cannot say, off-hand, whether the information is in the Library or in the Foreign Office, but the Blue-book which I promised will, I think, be in the hands of Members to-day, and the hon. Member will then be able to see how far it meets his wishes.

:I shall put a Question down for to-morrow. Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the fact that in 1890 Lord Salisbury telegraphs to the agents of the Government in foreign countries to obtain information which the Committee required, and that the Committee was placed at great disadvantage because they only had telegraphic answers?

There seems to be some doubt whether the debate on the procedure rules will be commenced to-morrow or Thursday. Can the right hon. Gentleman clear that up?

:I have made inquiries, and I do not seem to get any further than we were on Friday night. The situation on Friday night was this:—The Government thought, and I am sure, that we ought to finish the Second Reading in the course of the present week. I said that, because I think that two days should be sufficient for a debate which will be repeated, as far as each rule is concerned, when the rules come up in detail. There will then be ample opportunity for discussing each question, though, of course, I grant that a group such as those dealing with the order of the business might be with advantage considered together. If we have a right to begin the discussion of the rules in detail this day week, it follows that, if the House is not satisfied with two days, I must take to-morrow. I have received no assurance from those qualified to give one that two days debate will be sufficient, and in the absence of one I have no course open to me except to begin the discussion to-morrow evening.

Take a Saturday sitting.

I beg to renew the appeal so often made to the right Hon, Gentleman. I understood that in the course of Friday night it was quite arranged, in the usual friendly and confiden- tia way in which such things are arranged, that the debate should not begin until Thursday, and I earnestly hope the right hon. Gentleman will not disappoint hon. Members who have formed their plans upon that supposition. I do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by saying he has a "right" to begin the detailed consideration of these rules on this day week. There is no order or regulation on the subject, and, although it may be desirable and convenient, there is certainly no law to compel it. Apart from that, and without deciding the question whether there ought to be two or three nights debate, I certainly did understand last Friday that it was understood the general discussion should not begin till Thursday.

I will not chicane with the right hon. Gentleman over the word "right." All I meant by it was, that the Government have endeavoured to treat the House fairly, and have not stood upon what is technically their right not to have a Second Reading debate, and they are entitled—[Cries of "Oh, oh."]—I can assure hon. Gentlemen that it is an irregular proceeding.

It was done by the Tory Party.

My point is this. The Government have tried to meet the House fairly, and in return, I think, we have a right to ask that no unnecessary delay shall be interposed between us and the consideration of the rules. When the right hon. Gentleman got up and said that there was a friendly understanding, I hoped he was going to add an assurance that two days debate would be considered sufficient. But I have heard nothing of that, and unless I get the assurance from the right hon. Gentleman and others authorised to speak on this point, I can go no further.

I think the general feeling in the House is, that this debate ought not to commence before Thursday, and that the interval between this and next Thursday may be wel lspent in the further consideration of the rules. I may also express the feeling of hon. Members who sit on these benches that it is unfair to ask us to enter into any agreement to conclude the debate on Friday night. I cannot for the life of me understand the right hon. Gentleman's plea that the Government have a "right" to get the debate closed on Friday night.

I withdraw the word "right."

I submit that they have no reason to expect such a thing. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about the concession he made to the House by allowing a Second Reading debate. But he knows there are precedents for that, which extend over far more than two nights. I would therefore earnestly urge the right hon. Gentleman not to take the debate until Thursday, and not to attempt to force a decision on Friday night. As far as I am concerned, I have no desire, and neither do I think any of my hon. friends desire, to prolong this debate unnecessarily. But it is an unfair thing to ask us in advance to pledge ourselves to consent to the ending of the debate on Friday night, whether we have been able to express our views or not. This is a position which I do not think we ought to be placed in.

I have no right to speak for any one but myself, but may I be permitted to say I thought it was arranged with the right hon. Gentleman on Friday night that the Second Reading debate was to be taken on Thursday. I went from the House under the impression that it was settled in that way, and I earnestly hope and think it will be in the interest of business that the debate may be postponed until Thursday. I have only seen to-day, for the first time, the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has placed on the Paper, and it may be desirable to bring forward an Amendment to that.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept the suggestion which has fallen from one of his own followers, and not begin the debate until Thursday. He knows very well that on Tuesday there is set down for discussion a question vitally affecting the people of Wales.