said he thought it was highly desirable that the House should not give a Second Reading to this Bill without thoroughly understanding the principles and circumstances involved, and therefore he thought it would be better either to move its rejection or to propose some strict Instruction to the Committee with regard to certain matters to which he proposed to draw attention. The object of the Bill was set forth in a long preamble filling eight pages. It was to the effect that from 1886 down to the present time the London School Board had been engaged in endeavouring to set upon its legs a superannuation scheme for its officers and staff. Undoubtedly the matter appeared to have been badly mismanaged by the Board. So far as the teachers were concerned, however, the Board had been relieved by the Teachers' Superannuation Act of 1898, but all the other officers were still dependent on the Board's efforts for a superannuation scheme. Up till now the Board had been unable to establish any substantial scheme, and it now came to Parliament with what was practically a Relief Bill. His contention was firstly that if any provision were enacted to enable clerks and officers of the London School Board to be superannuated, it ought to be not for the London School Board only, but it should be part of a general scheme for the whole country. Any such scheme ought to be of general application. Secondly, it was not right, without due consideration at any rate, that the House should give the London School Board powers to charge the school fund, that was to say, the London rates, with this extra scheme of superannuation. Parliament had already decided that teachers throughout the Kingdom should be superannuated from imperial taxation, and there had been for several years before the House a Local Authorities' Officers Superannuation Bill which also proposed to charge imperial taxaton for superannuation purposes in the case of the various employees. He did not think it was right in a Bill of that kind to make an exception and to give powers to place upon the school fund a charge which was certainly not contemplated when the fund was created in 1870. His third point was that there was no statement in the Bill as to the cost to the rates of the scheme, and, if the House did decide to send the Bill to a Committee, it certainly ought, in his humble opinion, to instruct that Committee to carefully investigate the question of cost. Fourthly, he had some suspicion—perhaps it did not amount to more than suspicion—that the scheme proposed in the Bill was not acceptable to the beneficiaries whom it endeavoured to assist, and he for one would like to be assured, before the Bill was passed, that it would be acceptable. That information might be obtained by another Instruction to Committee. On these grounds he begged to move the rejection of the Bill.

said he desired, in the fewest possible words, to second the Amendment. He would like to assure the House that he had no general objection to the superannuation of the staff of the London School Board, and he voted gladly for the Act of 1898, which provided a superannuation allowance for the teachers. But he objected, as did his hon. friend, most strongly to the Bill, because it proposed to deal with the general question in a partial and local manner, and by a private instead of a public Act. It must be remembered that they could not deal merely with the officers of the London School Board, they must consider the claims of the whole class of Government officers, including those under Poor Law Boards, Sanitary Authorities, and Borough Councils. If School Board officers were entitled to compensation, so also were the officers serving under other public bodies, and it was a very strong order indeed to ask the House to grant, by a private Bill to the London School Board employees, that which should be applicable to a very much wider class. Secondly, there was the question of throwing the expense on the school fund. He ventured to think there was no precedent for that. The Act of 1898 laid it down that, in cases where the teachers made a certain contribution, the Treasury might grant a further sum out of money to be provided by Parliament. But the proposition contained in this Bill was very different. It was most unfair to the ratepayers of London, who already paid very heavily for educational and other matters, that this additional charge should be put upon them, when Parliament had decided that, in the case of the teachers, it should be a national charge. It was becoming more and more recognised that education was of national rather than of local concern, and that the State should pay more towards the cost and the local authorities less. For that reason he thought it was contrary to the general drift of opinion that this additional charge should be thrown on the school fund. He was afraid the fact was that the London School Board, with excellent intentions, had thrown out certain somewhat delusive hopes to their employees which had not been fulfilled. They had been unable to carry out their proposed scheme, and they now came to Parliament to get them out of the difficulty, in a way which he thought Parliament ought not to do. Under these circumstances he had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

said the observations of the hon. Members who had just spoken made it necessary that he should briefly explain why the Bill was brought forward and what it proposed to do. The matter was a very complicated one, but if the House would bear with him for a moment or two he would endeavour to clear it up. In 1886 the London School Board agreed that it was desirable to superannuate all its Officers—the head office staff, teachers, inspectors, superintendents, visitors, and caretakers—and it was decided that they should be subjected to a two per cent. deduction of salary, while the benefit was to be on the Civil Service scale—in other words, a retiring allowance equal to one-sixtieth of the final salary for every year of service up to forty-sixtieths. He admitted at once that that was a reckless and profligate thing to do, but they immediately commenced to pay the full Civil Service benefit, not merely on the years of which there had been a deduction of salary, but also on all the years of back service for which the retiring officers had paid nothing at all. As a consequence the younger members of the staff soon found that they were paying two per cent. of their salaries simply to secure a superannuation allowance for the older members, and before 1893 they asked the Board to let them come out of the fund, and take out their premium payments. In that year the Board resolved that all teachers who desired to leave the fund should be allowed to do so, taking out their premium payment, together with interest, and the result was that of the 7,552 teachers in the fund, 5,875 at once went out, and of the £86,000 invested at the time they carried with them £61,058. The Board was consequently compelled to revolutionise the benefits which he admitted ought never to have been offered, unless rate assistance had been secured. They agreed that the benefits for the time should not be on the Civil Service scale—which was to be suspended until such time as Parliament gave power to supplement the fund out of the rates, but on a scale which actuarial examination made from time to time should prove it was able to bear. The result was that the people who came on the fund after that revolution only got one-seventh of the scale originally promised, and to-day the fund was only able to bear about one-sixth. In 1898 the House passed a general scheme of superannuation for all elementary teachers partly aided out of the Imperial Exchequer fund. A large number of the teachers, therefore, were now compelled to pay to two funds, the Government fund and the School Board fund. A general agreement had been substantially come to that those who desired to come out of the School Board fund, and to take their premium payments, without interest, should be allowed to do so, and that was the first thing that this Bill proposed to do. But they desired to do something more than they were doing at present for their other officers, who were paying into the fund and were only getting in return 17·5 per cent, of the original Scale of Civil Service pension. To-day the Board had 48 officers on the fund and the average superannuation they had been able to pay them was £8 9s. 7d. a year after an average of 20 years and 8 months service. The Board resolved to set up the scheme which was now set up by this Bill, and it was a little remarkable that at all the subsequent stages there had been absolute unanimity with regard to these proposals so far as the School Board for London was concerned. What did the Board desire to do? First of all they desired to carry on the scheme as it now stood and to continue the precise benefits that that fund could bear, both of which desires could be carried out without the aid of Parliament; but they further require to supplement the benefit, by an equivalent amount from the public rates. Beneficiaries under the fund to-day reached 17·5 per cent. of the Civil Service scale; if the Bill were passed they would get 35 per cent. The three last persons to come upon the fund had been in the service of the School Board for 18 years, 28 years and 18 years, respectively, and were in receipt of £6 8s. 4d., £11 13s. 6d. and £6 0s. 9d. a year, respectively. Those amounts were grotesque after so long a service, but if the Bill were passed they could be doubled. But the Bill asked for power to do something else. The Board was precluded from adding to the amount of the superannuation, so as to make the total receivable more than the Civil Service scale. With regard to the aggregate cost to the rates, he pointed out that if they took next year and put upon the fund every person liable to come upon it, and took the basis of 17·5 of the Civil Service scale, the total cost to the rates would be £1,227, whilst that of the year 1914, when the largest charge that was possible would fall upon the fund, the liability of the fund itself, and consequently the cost to the ratepayers, would be £3,290 or 1/50th of a penny in the £on the rateable value of London. But even supposing that the fund by a stroke of good luck could afford to pay 50 per cent. of the Civil Service scale; although that was a prospect he found great difficulty in supposing then the cost next year to the ratepayers would only be £3,505, and in 1914 with the fund at its highest limit, the ultimate maximum charge would be £9,400 or 1/15th of a penny in the £ and if the fund ever paid more than 50 per cent. of the Civil Service scale the public of obligation would of course be reduced accordingly. He appealed to the House therefore, as the Bill was a moderate measure, although in the opinion of the staff it did not go far enough, to give it a Second Reading at any rate.

supported the Second Reading of the Bill for very much the same reasons that were given by the hon. Members who opposed it. In his opinion it was the best scheme that could be desired in the interest of the ratepayers. The hon. Gentleman had said due consideration ought to be given to the Bill, and he doubted whether it could receive the consideration it merited at the present time. That no doubt was so, but to summarily reject a Bill for that reason was a most arbitrary course to adopt, although he could quite understand such a ground being put forward for the Second Reading being adjourned. It was an extremely complicated question which had engaged the attention of the School Board for many years, and one which a few moments debate could not be expected to settle. The Bill was to disentangle a knot into which the School Board finances had got. The fact as to whether the scheme originated with one party or the other ought not to affect the House of Committee in their judgment on the present method of relieving the Board from the scheme. The plain fact was that, so far back as 1886, the School Board for London thought of superannuation for their teachers, and they could not be blamed for having endeavoured to carry the plan out. The hon Member for Tunbridge had rather deprecated dealing in a private Bill of this kind, with a matter relating specially to London, but the London County Council under both private and public Bills had obtained similar powers, and the Poor Law Officers also enjoyed large benefits under the Act of 1896. The claim on the ratepayers would not be a heavy one, and this Bill was the best bargain the ratepayers could make to get them out of the difficulty. The details could be thrashed ont in Committee, as it was manifestly impossible to discuss them fully on a Second Reading debate. He hoped therefore that the House would not, on the very slight grounds alleged by his hon. friend, summarily refuse further progress to this Bill, but that they would give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to a Committee.

said he had served on a Committee on this question some years ago, but could not now enter into actual figures. Since that Committee investigated the question pensions had been given through the action of this House to teachers, and he thought they ought to rest satisfied with that provision, which referred to all teachers, board school as well as voluntary school teachers.

said that as a London Member he was very much interested in the rates, and he should like to draw attention to the extraordinary way in which the finance of small matters before the House seemed to have been managed. No thought had apparently been given as to whether the scheme was sound or not, and the officials concerned were led to believe that they would receive pensions which were impossible under the scheme. If that were a specimen of the way in which the finance of the London School Board was managed, he was not surprised that the opinion generally entertained regarding it was that it was unsatisfactory. It was a very simple matter to calculate the premiums; yet a scheme was estab- lished without any trouble being taken in that direction, and now the unfortunate London ratepayer was called on to make good the amount.

said he would be willing to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that some Instruction such as the following be agreed to—"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power (1) to consider whether it is desirable that the scheme of superannuation contained in the Bill should be extended to the non-teaching staffs of all elementary schools in the Kingdom; and (2) whether the charge involved should fall on the school fund or the Treasury."

Do I understand that the hon. Member is willing to withdraw his Amendment?

Yes. Sir, if an Instruction is agreed to.

said that the scheme before the House contained the nucleus of a fund for London, which did not exist in the rest of the country.

said he could not assent to the proposal of his hon. friend. The Treasury would be intimately concerned in the proposed Instruction, and he could not be a party to any bargain of the kind.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will ascertain in which of the concentration camps the wife of General De Wet is now confined; whether she is compulsorily detained, and, if so, on what grounds; and whether he will undertake that special care shall be taken to secure for her the utmost possible consideration.

Mrs. De Wet is reported by Lord Kitchener to be in a concentration camp in Natal and to be quite comfortable.

Is she at liberty to leave if she desires to do so, or is she a prisoner?

I cannot say she is at liberty to leave, unless she chooses to go out of our lines and return to those who will maintain her.

Is she at liberty to go to Holland, where I am sure she would be well received?

That is not the Question on the Paper—the hon. Gentleman must put it down.

I will put it down for tomorrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether Mr. Marais, who was deported from the Paarl to Beaufort 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 am informed by Lord Kitchener that Marais will now be tried very shortly.

By a Military Court?

I have communicated with Lord Kitchener, but have not yet received any reply.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Merriman is now permitted by the military authorities to freely receive letters from and reply to his friends both in South Africa and England; and whether communications are allowed to pass between him and his legal advisers in this country.

Yes, Sir, subject to the censor regulations obtaining in South Africa.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the compulsory attendance of relatives and neighbours at the execution of persons sentenced to death by military courts was discontinued on the initiative of Lord Kitchener, or in consequence of representations by the Home Government.

Instructions were given to discontinue compulsory attendance at executions by Lord Kitchener on his own initiative, and before attention was called to the instances in which it had taken place.

Were these spectacles discontinued because they were regarded as "methods of barbarism?"

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of Kaffirs and coloured persons at present employed in the military operations in South Africa in connection with the Imperial and Colonial forces respectively and the services on which they are employed.

As I have told the House on several occasions, it is not possible to keep any record of such employments, which are mainly local in their character.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state the minimum to which the number of British troops of the Indian establishment has at any time been reduced during the past three years, with the period and the causes of such reduction.

The minimum to which the number of British troops of the Indian establishment has been reduced during the past three years is about 61,000. This occurred during the period August, 1900, to September, 1901, and was caused by the sudden military emergencies in South Africa and China.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the Censor in South Africa exercises any control over telegrams, letters, and newspapers entering South Africa; and, if so, whether reports of speeches which are alleged to encourage the resistance of the Boers are admitted by him.

The chief Censor in South Africa with his Staff exercises control over telegrams, letters and newspapers entering the country. He stops anything which he considers likely to prejudice the interests of the British forces. Owing to the enormous number of letters delivered by each mail, it is impossible to examine more than a percentage of the matter, and, therefore, everything prejudicial cannot be brought under the Censor's notice.

Is every telegram alleged to be prejudicial examined?

Every single telegram is subject to censorship.

What is the name of the gentleman who succeeded the noble Lord as Censor?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that it is laid down in the War Office Regulations that the Remount Department is a branch of the Department of the Quartermaster General, whose duty it is to advise the Secretary of State for War, and that responsibility for the recent disclosures in connection with the purchase of Remounts in Hungary rests under the regulations with the War Office, whether he will consent to extend the promised inquiry so that the conduct of all concerned may be investigated.

As I have already stated to the House, the Military Court of Inquiry will confine itself to General Truman's personal responsibility for the effective discharge by his Department of the duties which have fallen on it in connection with the war. The present Quartermaster General is ready to accept the fullest responsibility which can properly fall upon him, but the actual working of the Remounts Department is the business of General Truman, and I am not prepared to reduce the value of the inquiry by extending it to others less directly concerned.

May I ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will ensure that the inquiry into the administration of the Remount Department shall have power to take evidence on their behalf and to compel the attendance of witnesses.

I informed the House the other day that the inquiry would be upon oath and a Report would be presented.

Will the evidence be published?

I was going to ask how much of the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry will be published, so as to make it known to the public.

I have no objection to the publication of the whole of the proceedings.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision, and consent to the appointment of a Committee of the House?

I cannot, in any circumstances, consent to an inquiry by a Committee of this House at this stage. The whole of the officers who were engaged on this business are engaged at the present time from morning till night. I cannot call them from the War Office, nor can I put the whole Department, which has very heavy work to do at this moment, on an inquiry which would inevitably entail some failure in the public service.

Why is the Quartermaster General's Department, that is responsible for the conduct of this Remount Department, not to be inquired into?

The branch of the Quartermaster General's Department which is involved is to be inquired into.

It is all involved.

Will the Imperial Yeomanry Committee be subject to inquiry?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, since the outbreak of war in South Africa, any general instructions were issued to our Military Attachés abroad on the subject of the supply and purchase of horses; and, if so, on what date; whether any information or suggestions as to obtaining supplies of horses were voluntarily tendered by any of our Military Attachés abroad to the Foreign Office; and, if so, will he state by whom and when; and, if any such information or suggestions were so received, what action was taken by the Foreign Office on their receipt.

No general instructions have been issued to our Military Attachés abroad on the subject of the supply and purchase of horses. Suggestions as to the obtaining of supplies of horses were voluntarily tendered by certain of our Military Attachés and were at once transmitted to the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he can state whether, towards the end of 1899, the Austrian Government sent unofficially through their military attaché in London, an offer to help in procuring horses in Hungary for our Government; and, if so, upon what grounds this offer was refused.

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the gain to Government from public criticism in Parliament and the need for authentic information on which such criticism maybe based, he will publish the Reports on the working of the remount system in South Africa, the Reports on the working of the transport system, and the particulars of the contracts for the supply of provisions and forage for the use of the Army in South Africa.

I am most anxious to give the House all possible information. I have already undertaken to publish Reports on the remount system in South Africa, and I will see what Reports can be published on the working of the transport system. As regards the contracts for supply of provisions and forage, they are exceedingly numerous, and the preparation of them would involve very great labour on an already heavily burdened Department.

Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the Report before the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill with the Supplementary Estimates?

I will endeavour to do so, but I cannot be certain.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is in accordance with Foreign Office rules, or with precedent or custom, for an officer at the head of a subordinate Branch of a War Office Department, such as the Inspector General of Remounts, to communicate direct with our Military Attachés abroad on Military matters, such as the purchase or supply of horses for Military purposes in South Africa; whether he will explain the procedure by which communications between the War Office and our Military Attachés are conducted, and state whether the Foreign Office or the War Office defines the duties and controls the action of our Military Attachés abroad.

All official communications between the War Office and our Military Attachés abroad are forwarded through the Foreign Office and the head of the Mission to which the officer is attached, but it has been the custom for private and demi-official correspondence to pass between some Departments of the War Office and Military Attachés. The Military Attachés, are by the terms of their appointment, placed under the instructions of the heads of the Missions to which they are respectively attached, and address their reports to His Majesty's representative, by whom they are forwarded to the Secretary of State.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Conditions of Tender of the Meat Contract awarded to Mr. Bergl, with any agreement in writing subsequently given by Mr. Bergl in regard to any assurance that all or any of the meat shall be procured from Australia and New Zealand; whether, in any such assurance, the words if possible are to be understood to mean if the meat can be procured in Australia and New Zealand, or if it can be procured at the same price as elsewhere; whether any estimate has been made by the War Office of the difference of the cost of meat landed in South Africa from Australia and New Zealand, and from Argentina; and, if so, will he state what this difference is estimated to be; whether he can state the exact financial condition of Mr. Bergl in regard to the contract, and whether he is or was himself a partner with the guarantors, or whether he was acting for them or others on an assurance of the payment of some fixed sum, or a commission on the contract; and can he state the price in the contract granted to Mr. Bergl of meat supplied by him.

At the same time, may I ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the Meat Contract for South Africa awarded to Mr. Bergl, whether he can now inform the House as to the result of inquiries into the circumstances attending the conviction and sentence of Mr. Bergl for selling inferior meat; is Mr. Bergl a naturalised British subject; can he state who are the guarantors the list of whose names he has received, or whether, after the War Office received information that the contract was for a company, they awarded it without ascertaining who the company were; and was the contract for the supply of meat at Aldershot from June to December, 1901, awarded to Mr. Bergl, and immediately sub-let by him; and, if so, can he state for what sum it was re-sold; and, whether the Government will cause an inquiry to be made into the antecedents of Mr. Bergl, and the circumstances connected with the Contract in question, either by the appointment of a Departmental Committee, or by some other method, with a view of informing the House on the matter.

Perhaps the House will pardon me if I read an exceptionally long answer. The facts of this Contract are as follows:—The Tenders were considered by a small Committee consisting of the Quartermaster General, the Assistant Under Secretary, the Director of Army Contracts, Colonel Morgan, and myself. After investigating the various tenders, including those which were for landing of meat in South Africa, but not for distribution, and those which included both services, we found that the tenders which did not include distribution could not be worked as economically as the lowest tender which included distribution. There were three tenders for the whole contract of this character—those of Mr. Bergl, Messrs. Weil, and the old contractor, the Cold Storage Company Of these Mr. Bergl's was the lowest. As the terms of his tender have since appeared in the public Press I will give them to the House, although this is not in accordance with the usual practice. They were—for fresh meat, per 100lb., 70s. 6d., at 8·46d. per lb.; for frozen meat, per 100lb., 45s. 8., at 5·48d. per lb.

For distribution; where—beyond the railways?

Yes, for distribution wherever we want them, throughout all South Africa. The sum required for such a business was a large one. Mr. Bergl therefore, gave guarantors' names to show that, if given the contract, he would have sufficient financial support to enable him to carry it out. His guarantors were Messrs. Houlder, shipowners, who are associated with Mr. Bergl in owning meat works in Queensland; the Federal Steamship Company who own the Ocean-beach meat works in New Zealand, and who are associated with Birt and Company, owners of meat works at Brisbane, Queensland and Sydney; and Mr. Crart. Inquiries have been made about each of these firms. Messrs. Houlder's are a firm having a capital of £500,000. They are doing a large business, and their stability was understood to be undoubted. The only point affecting them unfavourably was a charge made against them some time back on a question of underwriting which has not yet been tried, and which did not affect their stability in regard to this contract. The Federal Steamship Company have a capital of £500,000. Mr. Crart was contractor for the supply of meat to the Natal Field force in 1899–1900. Colonel Morgan informed the Committee that he could not speak too highly of his discharge of that contract. He will be the manager of the company in South Africa. The War Office being satisfied of the financial security of the guarantors, the contract was given to Mr Bergl conditionally upon our being satisfied of the ability of the company he intended to form to carry out our contract. He was also required to guarantee that £200,000 should be paid up, and to lodge cash or Consols in the bank to that amount, and an undertaking was given to obtain as far as possible the necessary quantities of both live and dead stock from the various British colonies. The company will be registered at Pretoria, with a board here having full powers to deal with the War Office. Mr. Bergl is one of the shareholders, and is manager in Great Britain. The names given to us in connection with the company are as follows:—Mr. Bergl, Mr Karl Meyer, Messrs Weil, Mr Tymms, representing the De Beers Company, Messrs. Houlder's, Mr Hughes, representing the Federal Steamship Company, Mr. Stroyan, M.P., Messrs. Lewis and Marks, and Mr. Joel. The company as so formed will, in the opinion of the War Office, give ample security for the efficient carrying out of the contract. With regard to the question of Mr. Bergl having been fined, he states that he was fined £10 owing to an assistant at one of his shops selling to an inspector from New Zealand some mutton as New Zealand which was really Australian. (Laughter.) He has been a good contractor for us for five years, and we saw no reason to pass him over, his tender being the lowest, and the contract was signed accordingly. The War Office had only two ends to secure—namely, to obtain the lowest price for the public during the 12 months which the contract had to run, and proper security for its fulfilment. I have now given the fullest possible answer to the Questions which have been asked, and I am not aware of any other facts relevant to the subject.

Did the original conditions of tender provide for distribution? What guarantee did the Government have that any portion of this meat would be sent from Australia, or New Zealand, rather than from the Argentine? That was practically my Question.

I think I have answered that. We have the kind of contract which everybody was asked to tender for. As to obtaining the meat from Australia instead of the Argentine, we have every intention that this contract shall be kept in the spirit as well as the letter, and we have ample confidence in those whom we employ at the Cape—our officers who inspect the meat—that they will ensure that being done.

After the fair and straightforward answer that has been given I am unwilling to put any other Question, but I wish to ask as to two small points, Was Mr. Bergl a naturalized British subject?

Yes,

Was the tender an open one?

Yes.

Is there any guarantee by which the contractor will be obliged to buy any or all of the meat from Australia or New Zealand?

There is a written agreement with them that they will get, as far as possible, all the meat from our British possessions. That was given before we signed the contract.

Is that a guarantee dependent on their being able to get the meat at equal prices? Suppose it costs more to obtain from Australia and New Zealand than from the Argentine is there any guarantee that they will get it from Australia?

I beg to ask the Frst Lord of the Treasury, whether he is aware that in some Continental countries soldiers joining certain branches of the Civil Service are allowed to count the whole of their Naval or Military service towards civil pension. And, having regard to the fact that ex-postmen and other civil servants are allowed to count towards pension two-thirds of their previous service to the State upon joining the Metropolitan Police Foree, whether, with the view of attracting a desirable class of recruits for the Army, he will consider the advisability of measures being taken for extending similar privileges to ex-soldiers.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask him whether he will consider the advisability of like measures in regard to Post Office servants who have served in the Army.

The intention of the hon. Member is to ask whether, if a man transfers himself from one pensioned office to another, the pension which he has earned in the first office shall count towards a general pension. That general rule is observed in the case of those soldiers who have pensioned services; and it would be a violation of the rules to count the services of those soldiers who have not pensioned services?

Is the portion of service given as soldier not service towards a pension?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he has made any calculation as to the cost of the proposed changes in nearly every article of uniform of the officers now serving in the Army, and whether the expense of making these changes is to be met by the public, or to be borne by the individual officer out of his private means.

Yes, Sir. A calculation of the cost has been made. If my hon. and gallant friend will refer to the special army order of 1st February, he will find that the articles of uniform of officers now serving, which have to be changed are very few, and that with a few unimportant exceptions, the more expensive articles are retained until worn out or, in some cases, until the 1st January 1906. Further the immediate cost which will be borne by the officer will be more than counterbalanced by the ultimate considerable saving. As regards the cost of the introduction of the service dress will my hon. and gallant friend kindly refer to the reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for the West Division of Newington on the 27th January.†As regards young officers joining, the saving is considerable.

My Question was as to the amount. I do not quite understand what the cost is expected to be, but perhaps I may say, in reference to the calculation that the cost will be inconsiderable, that I hold in my hand an estimate of £32, which is the lowest I can obtain.

I have answered the Question as far as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will explain why eight Metropolitan Volunteer Infantry Battalions should be brigaded under an organisation adapted for time of peace only, whereas in time of war, according to the scheme for Home defence, they are brigaded entirely differently, viz., as the 23rd and 24th Brigades of the 4th Army Corps under different Brigadiers and with Battalions not brigaded with them in peace training or organisation.

Until the new system has been tested it has been thought well to maintain the existing arrangement for the eight battalions mentioned, except so far as Camp is concerned, when they will train under their Field Army Brigadier.

†See preceding volume, p. 957.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether it is intended to grant honorary Army rank to those Officers of the Volunteer Service Companies on being absorbed into their Volunteer units on return from active service, following the precedent of the rank bestowed upon Officers of the Imperial Yeomanry and City Imperial Volunteers.

Yes Sir. The House was so informed last June.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will explain why sergeant-instructors of Volunteers are never able to rise above the rank of colour-sergeant, and that so-called sergeants-major of Volunteers, some of whom have held the rank of colour-sergeants for over 21 years, cannot be promoted under any circumstances even to the rank of quarter-master-sergeant, though they are not pensioners but serving on Army engagement.

Proposals to raise the rank of these non-commissioned officers have frequently been considered and again recently, but it has not been thought desirable to grant any higher rank. Warrant rank is confined to the Regular Army and Militia, who are liable to be embodied for long periods.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India to what extent, if any, he proposes to apply the surpluses, which there may be, of the Indian Exchequer to the development of Indian industries, and whether he will consider the desirability of their application to the remission of taxation.

The financial arrangements for India for 1902–03 are now being carefully considered, but I cannot anticipate in any way the statement which will be made in India by the Finance Minister in the usual way towards the end of next month.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the advisability of assimilating the law in respect to Indian coal mines to the mining legislation of this country in so far as the different circumstances are applicable, and particularly will he advise the prohibition of the employment of women and young children underground in India.

By the Indian Mines Act of 1901 the law of India in respect of coal and other mines has been assimilated to the law of this country as far as, in my judgment, the different circumstances of India render such assimilation feasible. Under the conditions of labour prevailing in India, the safeguards provided by the Act, in respect of the employment of women and children, are sufficient, and I am not prepared to advise the adoption of further restrictions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Ameer of Cabul still receives an annual subsidy of 18 lakhs of rupees from the Government of India; and, if so, what service he renders in return; whether trade between India and Afghanistan is encouraged; and whether, in view of the threatened famine, the Government of India will withdraw the subsidy, if any, and apply it to the relief of distress.

The subsidy paid to the late Ameer has not been modified. It formed part of a general agreement between the Government of India and H. H. Abdur Rahman, under which various mutual advantages were obtained that cannot be set forth within the limits of an answer to a question; but I may refer the hon. Member to the agreement of 12th November, 1893, which was printed as a Command Paper in 1896. My answer to the last clause of the Question is in the negative, and I should add that there are, quite independent of the subsidy, ample funds for any distress that may occur in any part of India.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken, in accord with the terms of the Convention relating to the settlement of certain claims in Samoa for the submission of these claims to the arbitration of the King of Sweden and Norway; whether the Foreign Office is in possession of any information concerning the approximate date of the issue of the arbitrator's award; and whether the United States and German Governments were willing to include Samoan native claims; and whether His Majesty's Government dissented; and, if so, on what grounds.

The British, German, and American cases are now before the King of Sweden. The counter-cases, which must be handed in before the 1st of March, are in course of preparation. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government are necessarily unable to state at what date the award will be issued. It does not appear that any proposal was made either by the German or by the United States Governments to include in the scope of the arbitration the claims of Samoan natives.

Has the attention of the noble Lord been called to the statement by Count Von Bülow; on this subject?

I will inquire into that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at by the Government in favour of with drawing the troops at present stationed at Wei Hai-Wei; can he state the number of troops at present stationed at that port; and is it intended to proceed with the proposed fortifications.

It has been decided to withdraw the troops at present stationed at Wei-Hai-Wei and not to proceed further with the fortifications. The troops at present stationed at Wei-Hai- Wei consist of the Chinese Regiment and a detachment of Royal Engineers, in all about 1,100.

Has any date been fixed for the withdrawal, and is Wei-Hai-Wei to be retained as a commercial port?

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he can state the total expenditure incurred in respect of the lease and occupation of Wei-Hai-Wei.

I cannot give final figures, but the approximate expenditure to the end of the present financial year is estimated to be as follows:

I beg to ask the Home Secretary, whether his attention has been called to the announcement that some bones of British officers and men, killed while making a stand during the Afghan War of 1842, will be sold by auction at a London saleroom tomorrow; and whether he has power to prevent this indecent sale.

Even assuming that these relics are genuine, which, I think, is a somewhat large assumption to make, I am advised that no breach of the law has been, or will be, committed if they are sold, and that, therefore, it is a matter in which I have no power of interference. But I may say that, if such a sale is to take place, such a course seems to me highly improper.

Will the right hon. Gentleman convey that expression of opinion to the auctioneer, whose name I have privately given to the right hon. Gentleman?

I will take care that a copy of the Question and of my answer goes to the auctioneer.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Admiralty have received any news, in confirmation, or otherwise, of the disaster which is reported to have happened to the "Egeria," which went out to search for the "Condor."

No, Sir, the Admiralty have no reason to suppose in any way that anything has happened to the "Egeria." She has been sent to search for the "Condor" and is not expected to be heard of for two or three weeks.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, seeing the importance of all persons being vaccinated and re-vaccinated with vaccine lymph of guaranteed quality made in this country, and not obtained from abroad or from other sources which are not so guaranteed, he will take steps to provide with the least possible delay an adequate supply of Goverment lymph, so that every qualified medical practitioner shall be able to purchase such Government lymph in such quantities as he may require, and at a price just sufficient to pay the cost of its production.

Having regard to the interest felt in all matters connected with smallpox at the present time, perhaps I may be allowed to make a short statement in answer to this question. The duty undertaken by the Government in 1898 was to provide lymph for primary vaccination by Public Vaccinators, and this duty I may say has been completely fulfilled. It has also been the desire of the Government, as far as possible, to provide Public Vaccinators with lymph for re-vaccinations, and this has been done to the utmost extent practicable. In ordinary times it has been found sufficient to issue from 8,000 to 10,000 charges of lymph weekly. Since, however, the epidemic of smallpox began, this output has been largely increased, and the establishment is now producing some 50,000 charges a week. I may explain that there are several difficulties in connection with the manufacture of glycerinated lymph. In the first place it is not possible to store it to any large extent because the period for which it will keep is uncertain, and I may state that when the demand, in consequence of the outbreak of smallpox, began to increase, there was in reserve the full amount which it was thought practicable to retain. Further, the lymph takes some weeks to mature, especially as it is of importance that all practicable means should be used to test its efficiency and purity before it is issued. Moreover there is great fluctuation in the demand, owing to the habit of so many persons to defer vaccination until smallpox is imminent. Thus in a single fortnight recently the applications for lymph from Public Vaccinators, which had previously risen to four times the normal demand, suddenly more than doubled. From the inquiries which I have caused to be made, I understand that an ample supply of glycerinated calf lymyh can be obtained from unofficial sources, and that there is no reason to doubt that it is satisfactory in quality. It would, I think, be unfortunate at this moment to enter into competition with private enterprise in this matter. Looking to the considerations I have mentioned, I do not see my way at the present time to accede to the suggestion of my hon. friend.

Is there any guarantee of the unofficial lymph, that it is really efficient?

There is no guarantee either of the official or of the unofficial lymph. Two years ago there was an independent inquiry by the Lancet of the lymph generally supplied, and they found considerable fault with the lymph supplied by the Local Government Board, and placed it fifth on the list. It is impossible to guarantee lymph. What the Local Government Board does is to secure that the utmost care is taken in its preparation, in the hope that it will prove efficacious. The lymph provided privately for commercial purposes is of excellent quality, and is at present as good as much of that supplied by ourselves.

asked whether it was the fact that a large quantity of lymph had recently been obtained from the French Government owing to an insufficient supply being obtainable from His Majesty's Government.

No, Sir, certainly not. I am not aware that any lymph was supplied by the French Government. There is a considerable manufacture of lymph in France, and so far as we know it is of a very satisfactory character; but the supply of lymph from France through merchants in this country has nothing to do with the Government having a home supply.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can now say when he will ask the House to appoint the Select Committee to consider certain matters in connection with the Housing of the Working Classes.

I cannot at present state when I shall be in a position to move for the appointment of the Select Committee to inquire into the period for the repayment of loans raised by Local Authorities, but due notice will be given of the Motion. I do not propose that the Committee should be asked to inquire into other matters in connection with the Housing of the Working Classes.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the recent cases of suspected beer poisoning in the borough of Halifax; whether any investigation by his Department, or by any local authority, has taken place; and, if so, with what result.

My attention has been called to the cases referred to in the Question, and I have ascertained that local investigations are now being made by the Assistant Commissioner of the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning as well as by the Medical Officer of Health for the Borough.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware of the fact that, during the assizes just concluded for five counties in South Wales, there was in three of the counties no work for the common jury, and that at least 144 men were summoned to serve on the common jury for those three counties when there was no civil or criminal cases for them to try; whether, seeing that the high sheriff for a county or borough is not empowered, where there is no case to be tried, two days before the date fixed for the holding of the assizes, to give the jurors summoned notice that they need not attend, he will consider the question of amending the law to enable high sheriffs to do so; whether, having regard to the circumstances of the class to which jurors often belong, he will consider the question of introducing legislation to provide for the payment of their expenses.

I have no information with regard to the statements made in the first paragraph. I am aware of the inconvenience sometimes caused to jurors by their being summoned when no occasion arises for their services, and the question of the payment of their expenses has also been under consideration, but I do not see my way to introduce legislation to deal with these matters.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to a series of cases recently tried before the justices at petty sessions at Llangollen for offences against the Sunday Closing Act (Wales), and to the complaints made in court as to the difficulties which surround the enforcement of the bona fide Traveller's Clauses in that Act; and whether he will consider the possibility of including in his Bill of this year some clearer definition of these clauses, and if necessary an extension of the present three-mile radius at present in force.

I have seen reports of several cases of the nature referred to. I find that in spite of the difficulties complained of a number of convictions were obtained. Without saying that the existing law is all that can be desired I cannot but think that any amendment of the bona fide traveller provision contains very grave difficulties, and as regards the extension of the three-mile limit I have reason to doubt whether it would, on the whole, be beneficial.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any complaints with reference to the desecration of a disused burial ground situate in Gibraltar Walk and Princes Court, Bethnal Green; and will he cause inquiry to be made, with a view to the future protection of the ground and of the remains interred therein.

A letter on this subject was received from the Bethnal Green Borough Council just a week ago, and the matter is under consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Lancashire and Yorkshire, the Furness, and Midland Railway Companies are seeking Parliamentary powers to purchase and acquire steam vessels employed in connection with their lines under conditions which will enable them to give preference; whether the Railway Department of the Board of Trade will examine those Bills, and through him report to the House in the public interest.

Yes, Sir, my attention has been directed to this matter, and I replied to a similar Question on Thursday last.†If the hon. Member will refer to Standing Order 156 he will find it bears upon the subject, and is, I think, quite sufficient to meet his point.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if his attention has been called to the Regulations of the Central Welsh Board of intermediate Education in respect to County Exhibition awards; and if he is aware that in a recent examination in Carmarthenshire, A. B. Thomas, who came out third in the list, would have stood first had he failed in Mathematics instead of attaining the honours standard, while he would have remained third if he had had the combined qualifications of the two successful candidates in addition to his own; and, if if is within the scope of his functions, will he call the attention of the Central Board to the effect of these Regulations on the awards.

The Board of Education have no right to interfere with the Regulations of the Central Welsh Board in respect to County Exhibition awards, nor are these binding on any County Governing body which does not wish to make use of them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the

†See preceding volume, p. 528.

There is a certain amount of inconvenience in the fact that the Postal business and Telegraph business at Charing Cross are done in separate buildings, but the inconvenience is probably small as the arrangement is well known. Having regard to the extreme costliness of property in that locality, the Postmaster General is not prepared at present to take steps for the erection of a combined Office; but if a suitable opportunity occurs of obtaining a site at a reasonable cost, he would be ready to consider the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the £40,000 from the Exchequer contribution to Ireland available for labourers' cottages has, during the last financial year, been arpropriated and spent upon such cottages; and, if not, how much of it has been so expended; and can he state where the balance is, and what is to be done with it.

The following payments have been made out of the Exchequer Contribution, in respect of the financial year. 1900–1:—£20,750 2s. 6d. to County Councils, on behalf of Rural Districts, in which cottages have been provided since August, 1891. £4,860 19s. 0d. to the Board of Works in reduction of loans advanced to Rural District Councils, in respect of of cottages. £3,159 6s. 11d. to the six Municipal County Boroughs. The balance, together with any balances remaining after previous distributions, is lying to the credit of the Local Taxation Account for further distribution hereafter, if the money is required for labourers' cottages in districts where the Acts have not yet been put into operation, and if found not to be so required, will be distributable amongst the Counties concerned as Probate Duty Grant.

Is not this money earmarked for labourers' cottages, and can it be applied to any other purpose?

The Regulations under which the money is distributed are dated, 1st December, 1899. I will give a copy to the hon. Member, and if he will study it it may do away with the necessity for further Questions.

Do unions in which no cottages are built still continue to receive a share of the grant?

That is covered by my reply. The balance is kept for an undetermined period, and if it is found that no application is likely to be made for it for cottage schemes, then it will he applied in some other way.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirabillty of transferring such money to unions while he carried out the Labourers Act?

I think all contingencies are met by the existing regulation, but I will consider the point.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Commissioner of Valuation has refused to re-value the line of railway known as the Limerick and Kerry Railway, although the Kerry County Council have asked for this valuation on the grounds of its being undervalued; and whether, considering the rates paid by the ratepayers of Kerry for railway guarantees, he will instruct the Commissioner of Valuation to comply with the demand of the Kerry County Council to re-value this line.

The Limerick and Kerry Railway forms portion of the Great Southern and Western Railway, and cannot be re-valued except as part of, and in connection with, the entire system. The Commissioner of Valuation will be prepared to re-value the whole system at the next annual revision, provided application for a re-valuation be made by the rating bodies interested.

Was the application made and refused?

I am not aware of that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can explain why it is that the Local Government Board for Ireland have delayed the granting of a loan to the Dingle Rural District Council, Co. Kerry, for the making of a road in Glashabeg, especially seeing that the Congested Districts Board are giving one-half of the whole amount required, and that the County Council have sanctioned the work; and whether he will urge on the Local Government Board to consider this matter immediately.

The hon. Member is, no doubt, basing his Question on information now obsolete. The loan was sanctioned by the Local Government Board a month ago.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that some members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, at present stationed in the district of Ballymote, Co. Sligo, are in the habit of purchasing hay and other commodities from the farmers of the locality, ostensibly for their own use, and afterwards reselling the same to persons unconnected with the force; and, whether this action of theirs has the sanction of the police authorities.

The hon. Member has been misinformed. There is no foundation whatever for the statements in this Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the fact that Lord Ely's Estate is in the English Court of Chancery and cannot be sold without the consent of that Court; and, whether he can hold out any hope that the Irish Land Purchase Acts will be so amended as to provide for the sale of Irish estates that are in the English Court of Chancery.

Yes, Sir. But I cannot anticipate discussion on the contents of the forthcoming Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the tenants of Lord Ely's South Wexford estate recently held a meeting for the purpose of considering the advisability of making their landlord an offer for the purchase of their holdings, and that the public advertisement calling the meeting stated that the tenants' solicitor would be present to tender to the tenants any legal assistance they require; whether the police have instructions to watch tenants who meet to discuss the question of purchasing their holdings; and, if not, will he say who was responsible for the attendance of 15 policemen at the meeting, and what was their object.

The police have no instructions to watch tenants who attend meetings for the purpose stated. They were present on this occasion because a large concourse of people was expected, and with the sole object of maintaining the peace. They were sent on the requisition of the Local Authorities responsible for the preservation of the peace.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have refused to allow an evening class for the study of the Irish language to be held in the Ann Street Schools, Newtownards, Co. Down; and will he state on what grounds has this refusal been based.

No application has been made to the Commissioners for permission to hold an evening class for the study of Irish in these Schools.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for a Return giving the names of the urban authorities in Ireland which have erected artisans dwellings under the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, and to state the number of cottages built by each authority and the amount of loans sanctioned in respect of same.

The Hon. Member presumably refers to the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and the similar Acts previously in force. The Commissioners of Public Works at page 31 of their last Annual Report, publish a Table showing the number and amount of loans sanctioned, and the number of families accommodated, each year since 1866. The preparation of a Return in the form indicated in the question would occupy a very considerable time, as it would necessitate correspondence with the local bodies concerned. Perhaps the hon. Member would examine the statistics I have indicated before pressing for the further information desired by him.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can explain why Mr. Conor O'Kelly, M.P. for South Mayo, now a prisoner in Castlebar Gaol, has been obliged to sleep on a plank, and was confined to his cell for 22 hours out of 24 each day: What is the diet supplied to him; in what way does his prison treatment differ, in regard to reading and writing materials and visits, from that of an ordinary convict in the same gaol; and is he allowed to write to his friends and to receive letters from them.

Mr. Conor O'Kelly, who was committed to Castlebar Prison on December 18th 1901, under sentence of two calendar months imprisonment for unlawful assembly, was liable under Rule 24 of Local Prison Rules for the first month of his sentence to sleep on a plank bed. He slept, however, on the plank bed for only three nights after his committal, being then supplied with a mattress by order of the medical officer. He has been confined in his cell for 22 hours out of the 24, getting the usual period of two hours exercise in the open air as required by subsection 9, section 109, of 7 Geo. IV., cap. 74. The medical officer has not ordered him any further period of exercise on the ground of health. The diet prescribed by rule for prisoners sentenced to imprisonment without hard labour for two months is class 2 (b) diet for one month and class 3 (b) diet for the remainder of the sentence. These approved dietaries are prescribed under the General Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877. The medical officer during the first month of Mr. O'Kelly's sentence made the following changes of diet:—Tea in lieu of cocoa for breakfast, 8oz. of bread in lieu of potatoes for dinner, and 8oz. of bread extra daily. During the second month of his sentence the medical officer directed that the class 2 diet should be continued instead of class 3, and that the extras already mentioned should be continued with the addition of one pint of milk extra daily. The governor reports that when Mr. O'Kelly became entitled to third-class diet he requested the medical officer to allow him to continue on second-class diet with the extras, as he said that diet agreed with him, and his request was granted. There are no "convicts"—i.e., prisoners sentenced to penal servitude—in Castlebar Prison. Mr. O'Kelly is subject to the same rules in respect of reading and writing materials, visits, and letters, as other local prisoners. He is entitled to the use of books from the prison library and a slate, but not to newspapers, nor is he entitled to visits or letters during the term of his imprisonment. He has, however, by permission of Government, received one visit from a solicitor on the 6th instant. The governor further reports that, had the prisoner desired to write a letter on business or family affairs of an urgent nature, he would (under the authority vested in him in such cases) have allowed the prisoner to do so, but that the prisoner did not express any such desire. Mr. O'Kelly, a few days after his committal, applied to the Prisons Board for permission to procure certain educational works not in the Castlebar Prison Library, with a view of continuing his University studies. The Board, in order that educated prisoners should not be at a disadvantage by being in a small prison with a limited library, directed that a supply of educational works (mathematics and classics), containing several of the books applied for, should be sent from a larger prison to Castlebar Prison. Mr. O'Kelly has been exempted from the obligation of wearing prison clothing, having been permitted under Rule 28 of the prison rules to wear his own clothing. Mr. O'Kelly, having availed himself of the provisions of section 16 of the Act 19 and 20 Vict., cap. 68, was exempted from labour. Had the prisoner not chosen to avail himself of this exemption he would have been employed five or six hours daily at out-door labour. Mr. O'Kelly, while being treated as the law requires, has applied for and has been accorded every concession allowed by the law.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been directed to the fact that when Major Jameson and his confederates were sentenced—

Order, Order! That has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.

Then I will put it down on the Paper for to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that, although Medical Officers, summoned by subpœna to give evidence in criminal cases, are paid their fees at professional rates, in the cases of dispensary officers absent on such duties the ratepayers are called upon to pay a locum tenens, whether he will consider the advisability of ordering in future that such doctors must provide their own substitute.

The Local Government Board have been advised that a medical officer compelled by subpœna to be absent from his district is temporarily incapacitated from performing his duties within the meaning of the Relief Act and Orders, and the Board of Guardians were bound, therefore, to make provision for the care of the sick poor during his absence by employing and paying a temporary substitute. It is a matter of very rare occurrence for a Board of Guardians to have to incur expenses such as these.

Will the right hon. Gentleman prepare a Return showing how much this has cost to the ratepayers?

I am informed there are very few cases. I will look into the matter and see if the Return is justified.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing that the Chairman of the Board of Works in Ireland is entitled to attend the Irish Railway Clearing House, whether he can obtain the through rates, viâ Dublin, which the Great Southern and Western Company have omitted to furnish.

The Board of Works is not represented on the Committee of the Irish Railway Clearing House by the Chairman, but by one of the Commissioners. The arrangement of through rates is a matter for the companies concerned, and any information obtainable by a member of the Committee is confidential and could not be made public.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he received a Resolution from the Irish Cattle Traders and Stockowners' Association protesting against the terms of the through consignment note enforced by carrying companies in Ireland, and asking the Government to modify those conditions having regard to the decision respecting them by a majority of the King's Bench; and whether the Department of Agriculture in Ireland intend to take measures to protect consignors.

The Resolution has been received. I understand that an appeal against the decision of the King's Bench Division has been, or is about to be lodged. If this be so, it would be premature to discuss the question whether action should be taken by the Department.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can give the total number of blind in Ireland according to the last census, the number of blind of each sex, and the number of blind of each sex in Irish workhouses and other institutions.

The General Report on the recent census has not yet been completed, but so far as can at present be ascertained there were 4,241 persons totally blind in Ireland on the 31st March—2,106 males and 2,135 females—a reduction of 1,100 as compared with the year 1891;320 males and 447 females were inmates of workhouses, and 134 males and 220 females were inmates of institutions for the blind.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will explain why the prospectus issued by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Education in Ireland for 1902 makes no provision for free places in the Albert Institution in Dublin; whether he is aware that the prospectus issued by the Department for 1901 provided for Free Resident Students; whether he has read the Memorandum issued by the President of the Board, in July, 1901, addressed to "The Irish Farmer and his Friends," which states (pages 17 and 18), that for every rural district scholarships or bursaries shall be provided which will enable boys leaving the primary schools to obtain their training in the secondary school free, and for the extension of that system for the education of exceptional boys up to the Royal College of Science and the University. And, having regard to the fact that the prospectus of the Department for this year demands fees amounting to £27 for the Summer and Winter Sessions at the Albert Institute; whether he will provide that boys who have qualified for admission to the Institute trusting to the regulations of the President of the Department shall not be deprived of the priority of their labour by the original prospectus being departed from.

The prospectus for 1902 already issued is a preliminary prospectus only. A supplementary prospectus dealing with the new arrangements as to scholarships is about to be issued. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. The main feature of the new Scheme will be the substitution of County Scholarships aided partly by funds of the Department and of the County Councils, for the 25 free places hitherto provided. The number of places, free so far as the student is concerned, will, it is expected, be considerably larger under the new arrangements than under the old system.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the business now transacted at the Cork Post Office is greater than it was 50 years ago, when the old post office was built. Whether he will grant a Return showing the relative number of transactions in that post office for a given period of three months in the year 1901, as compared with those of a similar period in 1851, in respect to the amount of correspondence, number of telegrams, money orders, and postal orders, and number of savings banks customers. And, whether, in view of the increase in all post office business, the postal authorities adhere to the proposed plans of the new building which show a reduction from 70 feet to 40 feet in the counter space available for public business.

The desired Return of the business at the Cork Post Office for the year 1851 cannot be given; but the present business is of course very much larger. The plans for the enlargement of the building were prepared to meet the increase of business. The difference in the counter space is not really so great as is suggested, for the available space at the present counters is about 60 feet only, and much of that is of little use to the public; while the new office will have 54 feet of counter, including the separate parcels counter, at the whole of which the public can be served, so that it will be possible to attend to more persons at one time than at present,

Does the right hon Gentleman think the smaller counter space will be sufficient for the greater amount of business now done?

The available counter space will be larger, not smaller.

As there is a difference of opinion on this matter between the architect of the Board of Works and the local architects, will the right hon. Gentleman send down an architect from Dublin to confer with the local architects?

I do not think any useful purpose would be served by any further inquiry. A complete inquiry had been made and I have had the advantage of seeing the alternative plans suggested.

I say that local opinion in this matter is being entirely ignored.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the inhabitants of the townlands of Cork, Ballystrang, Lananlea, and part of Kirkneedy, in the Letterkenny, County Donegal, postal district, at present receive only a bi-weekly delivery of letters, whilst those in the neighbouring townlands of the Tann district, and that of Stranorlar, receive a daily delivery; and whether, seeing that there are fifty families residing in the said townlands who have correspondence with relatives at service in different parts of the country, and residing in Scotland and America, steps will be taken to give the townlands named a daily delivery the same as in the neighbouring townlands.

The Postmaster General will have inquiry made on the question of affording a more frequent delivery of letters at the townlands in the Letterkenny district to which the hon. Member refers, and the result shall be communicated to him as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he is aware that the Surveyor of Taxes at Londonderry has assessed the County Council of the county of Donegal with income tax on the tolls received by them from the piers in the county, and has, notwithstanding the protest of the Council, refused to deduct from such assessments the amount of the annual instalments paid by the Council to the Board of Works, in respect of the outstanding loans borrowed for the erection of the piers; and whether, seeing that all the piers in the County Donegal, with one exception, are situate in congested districts, and the revenues derived from them are placed by the Council in aid of the rates of the districts in which the piers are situate, directions will be given to the surveyor to remit the assessments or give credit in the assessments for the amounts of the instalments paid by the Council to the Board of Works.

The facts appear to be as stated, and instructions have been given for the assessment to be reduced by such an amount as represents the interest paid to the Board of Works.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can state when the Final Report of the Treasury Committee, appointed in 1900 to consider the preservation of local records, may be expected, having regard to his answer to a similar inquiry made on the 20th May last.

I can add nothing as far as I know to the answer given by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury on January 30th, which was to the effect that the Report of the Committee is in course of preparation, but it is impossible to say when it will be presented.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, if the new Standing Order, "Priority of Business," is passed, Bills put down for the third and fourth Wednesdays after Whit Sunday will be transferred to the third and fourth Fridays after Whit Sunday, and will receive the same priority as if the said Standing Order had not been passed.

May I also ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, if the new Standing Orders as proposed are brought into effect, any arrangement will be made by which the Public Bills introduced by unofficial Members and placed on the Order Papers for Wednesdays throughout the session will be transferred to Fridays in the same order as now standing on the Order Paper.

Of course, if the House consents, as I hope it will, to substitute Friday for Wednesday, we should take care that no Member with a Bill down for Wednesday should suffer by the change. It will be a change, not only in the day, but in all the business set down for that day.

Do I understand that all the orders set down for Wednesday will be transferred to Friday?

Of course, the change will be en bloc. The whole thing will be transferred from Wednesday to Friday.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether each rule will come into operation immediately after it is passed, or whether all will come into operation together when all have been passed.

I think I answered a question of somewhat similar tenor a few days ago. Every rule as soon as it is passed becomes a Sessional Order, unless the House passes some Resolution suspending its operation. To make it a Standing Order requires in the case of a new rule a separate Motion. I do not propose that any of the rules—I think they are numbered 3 to 10, but I must not be taken as giving the precise figures—that block of rules which deals with the arrangement of our time, should come into operation until all are passed. The other rules, which stand on their own basis, will come into operation, at any rate as Sessional Orders, as soon as they are passed.

How does that effect the case of an already existing Standing Order being amended?

A Standing Order which is amended will remain a Standing Order.

In its amended form?

Yes, it will remain an amended Standing Order. A new Order will remain a Sessional Order until a special Resolution is passed making it a Standing Order.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will explain why the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates have, without notice being given to the House, been again presented in a form which will allow of but one question being put from the Chair, when last session he based the change then for the first time made on the ground that it was an emergency operation, and an emergency operation alone, the circumstances being altogether special. May I explain that I understand the Secretary to the Treasury gave some sort of notice late at night, but not the sort of notice I have in my mind.

The hon. Gentleman complains of the notice. It was public notice given in the ordinary way by my right hon. friend in my absence and at my request. I agreed not to make the change without notice; but the notice has been given in a perfectly public and unexceptionable manner. The reason for the change is simple. It was made last year as an emergency measure, but the Government think that it is the most con- venient way of dealing with Supplementary Estimates. We do not put the Supplementary Estimates, like the Ordinary Estimates of the year, in fixed compartments. As they have to be passed by March 31, it is best to put them in a form which will prevent an emergency arising similar to that from which we suffered last year.

It is an arrangement convenient to the Government, no doubt, but the question is whether it is convenient to the financial control of this House. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not a practice of this kind is not a great encouragement to the increase of Supplementary Estimates, and a discouragement to the Government to place on the Original Estimates the true expenditure.

I will try to answer a somewhat argumentative question. I entirely concur with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government should, as far as possible, restrict putting any of their expenditure in the form of Supplementary Estimates, and, as a matter of fact, the Supplementary Estimates this year are on a much smaller scale than those which it was our duty and misfortune to present last year. Of course, when I used the word convenient, I meant to apply it in its widest sense, and to speak of the convenience not of the Government alone, but of the progress of public business.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether last year, when this practice was adopted for the first time in the whole history of Parliament, the right hon, Gentleman did not defend it on the ground that, it then being the 18th of March, and Supply being in a backward condition, it was essential to take this course to fulfil the law, and whether he did not on that occasion give the House a pledge, repeated two or three times in the course of the debate, that this was not to be taken as a precedent.

I am basing myself now on the convenience of the House. I promised that notice should be given, and it has been given. The fact that a thing has been done once is surely not a reason for not doing it again, though it may be a reason for doing it again.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Did he not last year give a pledge to the House that the adoption of the practice last year was not to be taken as a precedent for the future?

I do not take it as a precedent.

This is a most important matter. If the right hon. Gentleman is, without discussion, allowed to establish this practice, he will have passed a new rule without any discussion at all, at the very time we are debating, the proposed new Rules of Procedure. Under those circumstances I shall ask leave to move the adjournment in order that this matter may be discussed.

The hon. Member must wait till Questions are over.

Will the right Hon. Gentleman undertake, before making any further change in the presentation of the Estimates, to submit any such change to the Public Accounts' Committee?

Order, order! That is an altogether different Question.

, Member for Waterford, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.—"The presentation of a Supplementary Estimate for Civil Service in one sum covering various Departments contrary to the custom of the House"; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen.