moved as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The powers sought under it, he said, were of so extraordinary a nature that he did not think the Board, as at present constituted, was a proper body to possess them. What were the exceptional powers asked for under this Bill? He would take first the power to borrow the enormous sum of £650,000. According to the Engineer's estimate that amount would not be sufficient to properly equip the port. The Engineer, in fact, estimated that £1,258,000 would be required for the work. What had brought about the state of affairs which rendered it necessary in the twentieth century to spend over a million of money in order to bring the port of Dublin into a proper condition? The Port and Docks Board had, from time to time, obtained power from Parliament to borrow money. What had become of this money? He had been member of the Board for the last three years, and his opinion was that the business of the Board had been mismanaged and the money squandered by those who, he was sorry to say, were still members. This mismanagement would go on unless steps were taken to alter the constitution of the Board, and he did not think that that would be done until the citizens of Dublin had a voice in the selection of members. He held that Parliament had no right to give the Board power to borrow such an enormous sum as £650,000, which he honestly believed would be wasted, and then there would be another application to Parliament for further borrowing powers. The Bill also asked for power to levy rates on goods entering and leaving the port. Dublin had had the reputation in the past of being a free port, but he was sorry to say that, owing to the negligence of the Board, it was not a free port in the sense it should be because while all manufactured articles from England and the Continent came into the port free, balks of wood and pieces of marble in a raw state were taxed, and the consequence was that the artisans of Dublin were prevented having the opportunity of manufacturing articles. There had been no desire or effort on the part of the Board to remove that grievance. Last year a Bill for the purpose of repealing that pernicious clause was brought forward, but the measure was dropped. If the revenue of the port required that taxes should be placed on goods coming in he had no objection, but he did assert that it was neither right nor just to impose these taxes without giving the people who had to pay them a voice in the election of the authority which imposes them. Under this Bill it was also proposed to revise the register of electors every three years. That would be all very well if the members of the Board were to be elected every third year, but, under the present system of election, a certain number went out of office each year and consequently in some years the register would tail to contain the names of a large number who had a right to be upon it. He therefore thought that that provision ought to be amended. There was another provision with regard to the leasing and the charging of rates on those who used the Custom House Docks. That was a new idea, and it had been done in direct opposition to the promise given when the Bill was under the consideration of the Board. That promise was that the representations and protests should be taken into consideration when the matter came before the Parliamentary Committee, and in consequence of it a number of Members who would not otherwise have done so voted for the Bill. It had not been done, and this he submitted amounted to a breach of faith. It might be urged that it was not right he should take exception to the constitution of the Board, but he thought he could give good reasons for his present action. His experience of the last three years as a member of the Board was that it did not take into consideration the interests of the general community of Dublin, but rather the private interests of members who managed to get themselves elected, and who occupied the greater part of the time of the Board with matters affecting their business interests. The object of the Bill of 1898 was to secure that persons interested in the commerce and trade of Dublin should have seats on the Board. Had that been attained? He would ask the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who was a voter for the City of Dublin, if he had a voice in the election of the Board.

I have.

said the hon. Gentleman was one of the lucky ones, for he had no hesitation in saying that the majority of the citizens of Dublin had no voice at all in the election of the Board. The representation of the Board consisted of 12 traders, i.e., men engaged in trade or manufacture, and for whom up to six votes could be cast; nine members specially elected to represent the shipping interest, and for whom up to ten votes could be cast; and six chosen by the Corporation. That was in accordance with the provisions of the Bill of 1898 which was brought forward in consequence of the state of public feeling at the time in regard to the scandalous manner in which the business of the Board was being managed. He would like to point out that although the Corporation had six representatives on the Board, they had no real power, because the traders and shippers formed the majority, and therefore the representatives of the people were not in a position to remedy any abuses that might exist. Under the present system of election the trader, who was in a small way of business in the City, and who was as deeply interested in the public welfare as the biggest merchant or manufacturer, had his vote nullified every time he went to the ballot-box, and he would like to know how in the name of common sense it was possib'e to have a popular or properly elected body under present conditions. It was to his mind impossible. The same class of men got appointed year after year, thanks to the plurality system of voting. and they were enabled to keep off the Board persons who were equally interested in the welfare of the port of Dublin. Recently a gentleman sought election who knew more about the work of the Port of Dublin than many members of the Board, and yet, specially qualified as he was, he failed to secure election. Now, he himself had a seat on the Board, as he had already stated. He was a tax-payer of the City and he had to pay poor rates, yet, although he was entitled to sit on the Board, he had no vote and no share in electing it. The Lord Mayor of Dublin also, he believed, had no vote, and he knew for a fact that some of the wealthiest citizens were in a similar position. He did suggest that the House ought not to confer on a Board constituted in this manner the power of raising and expending enormous sums of money, unless it was prepared at the same time to secure to the citizens of Dublin some voice in the management of its affairs. He had no hesitation in asserting that as a result of the present constitution of the Board, its funds would be absolutely squandered. He thought the best evidence of mismanagement was to be found in the fact that, although the Board obtained extensive borrowing powers four years ago, it had had again to come to Parliament for more money. Extensive works were contemplated under this Bill, but he would like to point out that although, in 1887, when powers were asked in another place to borrow money in order to provide a second graving dock and were granted, from that day until this the dock had not been constructed, the shipbuilding industry had been ruined, and hundreds of men had been deprived of employment which would otherwise have been open to them. Complaints had been made to him by Dublin merchants that they were compelled to send their ships out of Dublin for repairs, owing to the manner in which they were treated for graving dock accommodation by this Board. He instanced a case where a large ship put into Dublin for repairs, which would have taken over three months to carry out, and which would have given large numbers of men work, but again the work was sent away because the dock was required by one of those who at that time was a member of the Board for the repair of his companies' vessels. The citizens of Dublin knew him too well to believe that he would be a part, to anything which would prevent money being spent to the advantage of the working-men of Dublin; but he objected to money being spent by a Board which had neglected to carry out their duties. Owing to the mismanagement of the Board this graving dock which could have been built for £50,000 when the money was borrowed would now cost £120,000, and he had little confidence in the Board, which had not the character of dealing generously with the workers. What would be the result if the Bill passed? The Board would obtain the money they required, which would enable them to perpetuate the present system for 20 or 30 years longer; and the citizens of Dublin would not be afforded any opportunity of reforming it. It might be said that he had no right to give the character to the Board which he had given. Personally he believed that the members were the most estimable gentlemen in the City of Dublin. He was not referring to them individually, but was referring to them in their representative capacity. On three different occasions, whole the Bill was under consideration, attempts had been made to alter the existing state of affairs, but without effect. Consequently, if the Bill were lost, the responsibility would be on the gentlemen who ruled the roost, and who wereactuated by narrow-minded ideas. In his opposition to the Bill he was merely discharging his duty and endeavouring to carry out a principle. Charges had been brought against him because of his opposition, but he could afford to pass them by. He maintained that the method of election to the Board was obsolete and ought to be swept away. The voice of the people ought to prevail, but he did not even ask for that to its fullest extent as he had been willing to accept a compromise. One of the arguments used by gentlemen who were canvassing in favour of the Bill was that if the multiple vote was abolished not a single Protestant would be elected to the Board. Such an idea never entered his mind. He would sooner cut his hand off than be a party to depriving his Protestant fellow countrymen of their right to representation. The history of Dublin showed that such a thing was impossible. The Board knew that if multiple voting were abolished the popular party in Dublin would get the management of the affairs of the Board meetings into their own hands, that was not wanted by the Board. It was stated that the object of the Bill was to provide employment for the working classes in Dublin, but he took issue on that statement. He was satisfied that the greater part of the money would not go into the pockets of the working men of Dublin. Many of the contracts would have to be given to Dutch and German firms, who would send over their own men. If he thought that the Bill would be the means of providing employment in Dublin it would modify his opposition, but he did not believe it would. He was satisfied that in order to bring the port of Dublin into a proper state of efficiency money was necessary, but he wanted the citizens to have a voice in the spending of it. If the Corporation members had put their backs to the wall and insisted on their rights, they would have got them; but when the Board found that the Corporation members were not united on one point, they refused every compromise. The Board in the past had driven trade away and that result would continue. What, for instance, was the history of the Customs House Docks. They were losing thousands of pounds every year, but when they were taken over by the Board from a private company, they were making money hand over hand. In that connection, the charge had actually been made at a meeting of the Board by a responsible member; that the reason why that loss continued was that there was a scheme among the members themselves to purchase the Docks in order to turn them into a limited liability company. He gave that statement for what it was worth. What was the history of the Pilotage Board of Dublin. It was £11,000 in debt, and was likely to remain in debt because the merchants would not allow anything to be done. Therefore he thought the Bill should not be read a second time unless the Board were prepared to overhaul their constitution and were made subservient to public opinion, in order that the citizens of Dublin should have a voice in its management.

seconded the Amendment. The Bill proposed to give new and very extensive powers to an authority in which he, as a citizen and merchant of Dublin, and he ventured to say the vast majority of the citizens of Dublin had no confidence. The hon. Member for the College Green Division had enumerated the main features and provisions of the extraordinary franchise by which this Board was elected, but he had omitted to mention one particular class of voters who, at the present time, possessed the power of plural voting up to a maximum of 10 votes. He referred to the owners of shipping trading with the port of Dublin but not registered in Dublin. This class of voters would have their voting power doubled if this Bill were passed into law in its present shape, because their franchise consisted in possessing a vote for every £100 of Port dues paid until a maximum of 10 votes was reached. The numerous steamers doing a limited trade with the port of Dublin at present would possess infinitely more voting power under the new order of things to be created by this Bill than the largest trader in the city of Dublin, and consequently more control over the policy of the Port and Docks Board. There was another grave objection to this Bill in its present shape, namely, that it proposed to impose dues, or, in other words, a tax, on all merchandise manufactured and raw materials and live stock exported or imported after the passing of this Bill into law. He submitted that this very important and drastic change in the law was being promoted, to a very large extent, without taking the citizens of Dublin into the confidence of the pro- moters; for he believed that ninty-nine one-hundredths of the people who were most deeply interested in this change—namely, the citizens of Dublin and those trading with and through the city of Dublin—knew nothing and have no means of knowing up to now how far-reaching and serious the taxes which this Bill sought to impose. The right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer was bitterly opposed last year from that side of the House because of the imposition of an import duty on sugar and an export duty on coals; yet this Bill proposed to follow closely the example set by the right hon. Baronet last year, and, indeed, went much farther than he dared to go, for it imposed an import and export duty on all merchandise. But as he had mentioned sugar he would point out what the Bill proposes to do in dealing with that article. It has just as many rates and sub-heads as were contained in the Finance Act of last year. It said that the rates on sugar of all sorts should be ls, per ton; on sugar-candy, 2s. 6d. per ton; on molasses, treacle, and syrup, 10d. per ton; on glucose, ls. 3d, per ton; and on confectionery, 2s. 6d. per ton. He was curious to know what the agricultural community in the Dublin district would think of this Bill, but, as he had already stated, they were, he believed, absolutely in the dark in regard to its proposals. The Bill proposed to levy a duty of per cwt. on all butter exported through the port of Dublin, and to tax all the agriculture produce, including all classes of live stock, in a similar manner, so that at least a tax of £15,000 per annum will be put upon all Irish agricultural produce exported through the port of Dublin in the future, and this without any real corresponding advantages to the trading community or the general public; for the advantages proposed to be gained would be entirely for the benefit of the shipping and railway companies. In this connection, he could not understand the illogical attitude taken up by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division. He appeared to be in favour of the Bill with all its faults, and would not hesitate to place in the hands of the Port and Docks Board, unfettered by any conditions, the immense powers and privileges which the Bill proposed to confer, while at the same time he knew that popular opinion, including that of the mercantile community of Dublin irrespective of politics, was entirely in favour of a sweeping radical change in the composition of the Board. The hon. Gentleman professed a platonic affection for a popular or at least an extended franchise, but as an old Parliamentary hand he must know that, if this Bill were allowed to pass, any alteration or modification of the present intolerable system must be postponed for another 25 years at least. He (Mr. Cogan) would not say anything of what the members of the live stock trade would think of the President of their Association for in a large measure helping to place a burden upon their already hard-pressed industry. But, forsooth, his argument and defence was that, because he held to the old-fashioned, out-of-date old Tory policy of protection, he would not hesitate to tax exports, in order that he might thereby be enabled to place an embargo on imports. There was another aspect of the case to which he might direct attention. The Board's engineer reported that £1,258,000 would be required to carry out all the improvement schemes which he recommended, but that a selection of work to be undertaken might be made to the extent of £1,000,000. How was this enormous sum proposed to be raised? By borrowing £650,000, and employing £350,000 of revenue for new work. Who in of our time ever heard of such a proposition? Yet the Committee adopted this recommendation. Surely it was not the policy of public Boards nor of Parliament that capital expenditure should be made out of rates! All this showed the utterly careless abandonment of this fossilised Board, and such a thing ought not to be permitted. He submitted that this monstrosity of other days ought to be abolished out of existence; that this House, in dealing with this matter, should bear in mind what the policy of both sides of the House in this Question of the franchise had been; that the whole policy of Parliament had been and was in the direction of the widest and fullest franchise, the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, being the latest example. Surely if the people of Ireland were worthy of having such a full franchise conferred upon them for county government, the citizens of the metropolis of Ireland ought to be—and they were—capable of bearing the responsibility through a similar franchise for the management and improvement of their port.

contended that the criticisms which had been brought against the Bill were such as might very well be considered in Committee, but they had nothing to do with the general principles of the Bill, or with the question of whether or not it should be read a second time. The hon. Member for the College Green and the St. Patrick Divisions could not claim to be the exclusive exponents of the public opinion in Dublin. From his long connection with the city, his official position, and the fact that he represented the Harbour Division, he claimed to have some right to speak on behalf both of the Port and of the City of Dublin. The system of voting, of which he was not in favour, had been described as practically obsolete or unheard of, but, as a matter of fact, it obtained in the ports of London, Swansea, Belfast, and other places. One of the grievances against the Board was that the only dues placed on goods were on raw material coming in. The remedy for that was contained in the Bill, and yet it was sought to reject the measure. But it was monstrously unfair for the hon. Member to accuse his own colleagues on the Board of being responsible for that state of things, seeing that it was the outcome of a provision made'by the old Irish Parliament, and had therefore been in existence for over a century. The Board itself tried to amend that provision last year, but the hon. Member blocked the Bill. As to the pilotage dues, the Board had applied to the Board of Trade in Dublin for an Amendment in regard to the manner in which pilotage certificates were issued; the Board of Trade had not given a satisfactory settlement. but they had given the same as existed in any other port in the United Kingdom. The Bill actually provided to charge 12½ per cent. on the past revenue of these companies, but again the hon. Member proposed to reject the Bill. The present composition of the Board was the result of a compromise between the Corporation of Dublin, the Port and Docks Board, and the Chamber of Commerce, there being 28 members, of whom 12 were traders' representatives, nine were shipping members (all elected on the general franchise), six were nominated by the Corporation, with the Lord Mayor ex officio. Quite recently three members representing various sides in the present controversy vacated their seats, but not a single person opposed their re-election. If the franchise was so bad, how did the hon. Member account for the fact that the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division, who was second on the list at the General Election, was returned unopposed the other day? It could not be said that the hon. Member was a persona grata with all classes in Dublin, or that the people had more faith in him than in any other of the Irish representatives. The fact was that all parties in Dublin were anxious to make the Board a working body, not for politics, or for any particular section of the community, but to bring it up to the level of other ports for the benefit of the city at large. What was the reason for the promotion of the Bill? Dublin had been a free port. The seconder of the Amendment had spoken of the iniquity of imposing dues on goods. But how was it an outrage on public morality to do in Dublin what was done in Cork, London, Liverpool, and practically every port in the United Kingdom? Was it not trifling with the House of Commons and belieing the intelligence of the people of Dublin to say that what was necessary for the working equipment of the Port of Dublin, and to bring it up to the condition of other ports was a shameful outrage on popular feeling in Ireland? The result of the endeavour to maintain Dublin as a free port had been practically to ruin its revenues. Any port that attempted to derive its dues from shipping alone, and not as revenue from goods, had been seriously hit by the modern system of registration, as many companies paid only one-twentieth of the amount they would have to pay if charged on the goods they brought in. Last year the surplus revenue of the Board was only £500. It was true they had unexhausted borrowing powers, but if they attempted to issue their stock they would be laughed at unless they could give some security that the revenue would be increased in order to pay the interest and sinking fund charges. He appealed to the House to save the hon. Memher from the consequences of his own action, and, as was usual in such cases, to send the Bill to a Committee where the various points which had been raised could be dealt with.

The matters dealt with in this Bill are of such importance that I will ask the House to allow me to intervene at this stage. I do not rise to discuss the merits of this Bill, but to advance one argument which, I think, hon. Members ought to hear as to the present constitution of the authority which manages this port. The constitution of the authority received the sanction of this House less than four years ago. This House at that time affixed its sanction to a Bill which embodied a compromise, and in that compromise the body presiding over the port had its constitution altered. The franchise qualification was reduced, the representation of the city was increased from three to seven members, and other great concessions were made. As a set-off to these concessions, and as a portion of the same bargain, this plural voting was retained. I think that the House should not take such an exceptional course as to reject this Bill, because they are asked to reverse a decision so recently arrived at.

said that although he happened to be a member of the Port and Docks Board he was a supporter of this Bill. The reason they wanted this Bill was because they wished to be able to provide accommodation for shipping, which they had hitherto been unable to do, because their funds were very limited owing to the manner in which they were collected. The tendency nowadays was to build ships larger and larger, and they required greater and more expensive accommodation, In Dublin the ancient port and old quays required improvement, and they wanted accommodation for the ocean trade and to extend the North Wall. This Bill represented mutual concessions on all sides. They had had great difficulty in arriving at the settlement contained in the Bill, which had been agreed upon after the interests of traders, merchants, shippers, Corporations, and the Chambers of Commerce had been duly considered. The result of this ventilation of views was that, after two years discussion, a mutual arrangement was arrived at to come to the House to ask for these increased powers. He would never have supported this Bill unless import dues were put upon goods. Dublin Port was called a free port, but it was no such thing, for it could not be expected that they could provide dock facilities without they were paid for. They might just as well talk about a free railway. It was absurd for an hon. Member to stand up in this House and state that the merchant paid the dues, because they were, as a matter of fact, paid by the consumer. He could not understand why the Port of Dublin should be supposed to be the property of traders and merchants, for it was the property of the City of Dublin. If he had his way lie would have the Parliamentary franchise for this Board. The hon. Member for East Wicklow animadverted upon the import dues, but in every port in the three kingdoms, or in the civilised world, there were export and import dues. Did the hon. Member for Wicklow wish Dublin to be the only exception? Why should it be an exception to all other ports in the world? He hoped the Port of Dublin would be exceptional in its progress in the future. Surely the hon. Member for College Green did not belong to the system of economists who maintained that the free import system was an advantage to any port. He was not a Protectionist by any means, but he did not see why everything should be dumped down free of duty with the result that labour was discouraged. That was an extraordinary argument.

said he had no objection to a tax on goods provided the franchise was extended to the consumer so that he could elect those who imposed the tax.

said that the Port and Docks Board had, during the past few years, done a great deal for the port. The reformed Board [was intent upon doing its duty to the public in the future. Referring to the rules of the Board of Trade with regard to the measurement of ships, the hon. Member said he could not understand why the present system was allowed to prevail. There were two vessels which came into the port at present minus tonnage dues, altogether on account of the system of measurement. He believed it would be in the interest of the City of Dublin that the Bill now before the House should be passed. If it was not passed undoubtedly a large number of men who were at present engaged by the Port and Docks Board would be cast out of employment. This was not a mere pious opinion. He consulted the engineer before he left Dublin, and he knew as a matter of fact that it would have this effect. Dublin had a scheme on hand for the revival of shipbuilding there, and it was important that the facilities of the port should be increased. He hoped the majority of the Members of the House would support the Bill in the interests of trade and labour.

said he found himself in the very doubtful position of the gentleman who had two ladies in love with him—

"How happy could I be with either, Were t'other dear charmer away."

He sympathised with the hon. Member for College Green until he heard the very able argument brought forward from the other side. He thought it would be wise on the part of the hon. Member for College Green to withdraw his opposition at present and allow the Bill to go through, leaving the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division to endeavour to get his Amendment with regard to plurality of votes inserted in the Bill.

A notice of Motion in the name of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin is on the Paper. It relates to franchise, but as it is not within the scope of the Bill the Motion is not in order.

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Orders Nos. 62 and 66 have been complied with, viz.:—

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, he has certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following case, viz.:—

laid upon the Table Re-part from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received, or has the prospect of receiving, a claim from the Chartered Company of South Africa for expenses incurred in connection with the defence of a part of the border of the Transvaal; and, if so, what action he intends to take.

I have not received, and I do not look forward to receiving, any such claim.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can state what is being done with the cattle taken from the Boers in South Africa; and, having regard to the importance of having acclimatised animals to restock the farms, whether suitable animals for this purpose among those taken are reserved for this object.

The majority of these cattle are in the hands of the military, but a certain number are being kept on Government farms. I know that the importance of having a sufficient suitable supply of animals to restock the country is engaging Lord Milner's attention,

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the amount claimed by the Crowu Agents of the Colonies as commission during the years 1899, 1900, and 1901, and the amount paid them; also the amount claimed by, and paid to, the Colonial Governments as commission for work done by them in respect of the South African War; and, whether the Crown Agents of the Colonies are a company with a charter, or under what powers they are able to claim their commission.

The total sum received by the Crown Agents for the Colonies from the Colonial Governments for which they act were for—

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the. Colonies whether he can explain why the price paid for 20,000 Basuto ponies was officially assessed at £262,990, on an average of over £13 each, while the average value in the Leribe district of Basutoland was £20, in the Berea district £16 10s., in the Maseru district £20, in the Mafeteng district £16, in the Mohalo district £22 10s., in the Quthing district £16, and in the Quacha's Nek district £20, according to the official report on Basutoland issued in December 1901.

If the hon. Member will look at page 11 of the Report he is quoting he will see that the number of horses assessed at £262,000 was 15,684, and not 20,000, making an average price of over £16, not £13. I have no reason to question the accuracy of this estimate.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will now issue a further Return of buildings burned in each month in South Africa, from January 1901 to January 1902, with statement of reasons for such burning (in continuation of Command Paper, No. 524, of Session 1901).

I have requested Lord Kitchener to furnish a further Return, which will be published in continuation of the Command Paper mentioned.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state when the Return of farms burned by the Boers in Cape Colony, which he stated was being printed on 16th April, 1901, will be issued.

I explained to the hon. Member for East Mayo on May 24th last year that the question had been misunderstood and that I replied under a misapprehension. I received a telegram from Lord Kitchener on June 17th to the following effect—

"Have received the following reports of farms in Cape Colony destroyed by Boers: Aberdeen, one farm destroyed; Barkley East, no farms destroyed, but farms looted and damaged by local rebels; Barkley West, no farms destroyed, a few damaged, but doubtful whether by the enemy or by natives; Colesberg, no farms destroyed, but considerable number looted; Graaf Reinet, one homestead burnt; five houses either damaged or furniture de- stroyed; Jansenville, one homestead burnt; Mafeking, 14 farms destroyed, four trading stations and railway buildings, also native hut number unknown; Prince Albert, no farms destroyed, 18 farms looted; Taungs, no farms known to have been destroyed, but three trading shops gutted and walls only standing, and properties of nearly all local farmers looted; Somerset East, one large and valuable farmhouse with furniture destroyed; Vryburg, no homesteads actually destroyed, 10 homesteads damaged, estimated loss at £900; Wodehouse, no homesteads destroyed, but some looted."

The following applies to Natal—

"As regards damage done by the Boers to farm buildings in Natal, Compensation Committee report that there are 236 European claimants, assessed value of damage ¢:27,470, and 218 native claimants, value of damage £4,685."

Further information has been promised, but owing to the nature of the operations in Cape Colony statistics are very difficult to obtain.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a Return?

I have given as many Returns as I can, but it is very difficult to get accurate statistics on a point of such importance, and having regard to such large distances overrun in a short period.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to whether the farms were derelict or were looted by Kaffirs when they were deserted?

I cannot say. That is just the point on which information is wanted in regard to each particular farm.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now state under what circumstances the wife of General De Wet was placed in a concentration camp, and what were the grounds for treating her as a prisoner; whether she is now free to proceed to Cape Colony or to Europe; and, if not, whether she has been informed that she is at liberty to join her husband or any of the Boer forces in the field.

Mrs. De Wet was sent to Maritzburg some months ago from Johannesburg, where her presence was undesirable, and she has since been detained in Natal. As regards her treatment she only has to contorm to certain local regulations which render permission necessary before leaving bounds. There is no objection to her leaving South Africa and proceeding whither she likes, but she will not be permitted to proceed to Cape Colony.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an undertaking that the death sentence, if pronounced against Commandant Kritzinger, will not be carried into effect until the House has had an opportunity of considering the full reports of the trials in his case and in those of Commandant Scheepers and others in which the death sentence has been carried into effect.

No, Sir. I cannot give any pledge which would interfere with the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief of the forces in South Africa in these matters.

Is it not the case that the trial of Commandant Kritzinger is over?

I have no reason for supposing that it has yet begun; but I have had no information for the last few days.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of troops engaged in the recent attempt to capture General De Wet and the forces under his his command.

At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for War whether he canstate how many columns and what number of troops were engaged in the recent combined movements to capture General De Wet.

No information has been forwarded as to the numbers engaged.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether General Truman, Inspector-General of Remounts, has tendered his resignation or has been called upon to tender his resignation by the Secretary of State or the Commander-in-Chief.

I told the House that General Truman, in consequence of the observations made upon him in connection with these remount questions, asked for a Court of Inquiry into his conduct. That Court will shortly assemble, and no further action has been taken in the matter pending that inquiry, either by General Truman or the Commander-in-Chief.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. It was, whether General Truman had tendered his resignation or had been called upon to tender his resignation by the Secretary of State or the Commander-in-Chief.

The Question is answered by saying that General Truman asked for a Court of Inquiry.

I must press for an answer. Has General Truman tendered his resignation or been asked to tender his resignation by the Secretary of State or the Commander-in Chief?

Communications passed between General Truman and the Commander-in-Chief, the result of which was that General Truman asked for a Court of Inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the facts recently brought to light with reference to the purchase of remounts, he will reconsider his decision as to the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry.

No, Sir. Nothing has transpired to alter the decision which I conveyed to the House on the 6th instant.

† See preceding Volumn, page 519.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that almost all the persons connected with the Hungarian Horse Contracts, whose action has been impugned, are at present in England, he will agree to a Select Committee to inquire into these contracts and report thereon.

No, Sir. The circumstances have already been brought out by the Departmental Committee, and have been fully discussed in both Houses of Parliament. I see no advantage in appointing a further Committee.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return setting forth all the contracts that have been entered into by the War Office for requirements connected with the South African War, with the names of the contractors, the nature of the contract, and the amount that has been paid in respect to those which have already been closed, and the amount that it is estimated will have to be paid in regard to those which are still running.

I am afraid that I cannot undertake to consider the grant of a return on so enormous a scale and involving such immense labour until the war is over.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the war shipping contracts, and to report thereon.

This will form one of the subjects for inquiry at the end of the war.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many general officers, substantive and acting, are now attached to the Field Force in South Africa, and if, having regard to the main employment of the troops either in blockhouses or in small columns under regimental Field Officers, effort will be made not to increase Staff expenses in default of direct application by Lord Kitchener for the services of a particular officer.

Eighteen general officers are at present employed in South Africa. There are also 11 officers with local rank of Major-General and 12 with local rank of Brigadier-General. The Commander-in-Chief is responsible for the number of generals employed, and he is in constant communication with Lord Kitchener.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to the fact that officers of the Imperial Yeomanry who were appointed to commissions from the ranks as a reward for service in the field have not been allowed the grant of £35 for outfit; although that grant was allowed to officers of the new Imperial Yeomanry proceeding from England; and will he take into consideration the case of the men promoted from the ranks.

At the same time may I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the allowance sanctioned by the War Office to officers going out to South Africa in the Imperial Yeomanry is £35, but in November last a new order was issued, stating that all officers in the Imperial Yeomanry commissioned from the ranks in South Africa would only be allowed £5 for the purpose of assisting them to adopt their existing kits to officer's outfit; and, whether, considering the qualifications for promotion of men who have served in South Africa, he will consider the desirability of making them the same allowance as men sent out fresh from England.

In answer to these two Questions, the amounts actually expended in these cases will be granted up to a limit of £35.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Army Medical Corps have been sent from England to South Africa during the last seven months; and how many of these have had actual training in hospitals in nursing the sick.

Since 1st July, 1901, 1,160 non-commissioned officers and men, Royal Army Medical Corps, have embarked for South Africa. Of these, 626 were enlisted in the usual way and had had actual training in military hospitals in nursing the sick. The remainder were enlisted under a special Army Order of 11th March, 1901, engaging men who had been trained in civil life. These all had good certificates of proficiency in first aid, ambulance drill, &c., but it is not possible to say exactly what actual nursing experience they had. On arrival in South Africa the drafts are detailed by the Principal Medical Officer according to their qualifications.

; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of cases of typhoid, fever and the number of deaths from that disease which have occurred among the troops serving in South Africa since May, 1901, giving, if possible, the numbers of cases and deaths for each month.

:The figures arefollows:—

	Admissions.	Deaths.
June	885	170
July	324	68
August	328	73
September	257	47
October	451	43
November	1091	160

making a total for 26 weeks of 3.336 admissions and 561 deaths. No further Returns have reached the War Office.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can inform the House which of the Militia Regiments now serving in South Africa are to be relieved by the nine Militia Battalions recently despatched to that country.

I am not yet in a position to say which of the Militia battalions now in South Africa will be relieved.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that a period of 12 months has expired since the Volunteer Service Company of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers enlisted, and that some of the men have left situations which have been kept open for 12 months only, that being the alternative period for which they enlisted, he will favourably consider the applications of men so circumstanced to be allowed to return home.

As I explained to the House a few clays ago, I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a contract for the supply of mules was made in September 1899 with Mr. Weil, of South Africa, at the price of £35 each; and whether documentary evidence from responsible officers of the Remount Department with the Natal Field Force can be produced, showing that their market price at that time was £25, and their value about £15.

There is no information on this subject at the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that soldier reservists in Section D), who were enlisted for home service only, have been sent on active service in South Africa, and that the Military authorities in South Africa are, notwithstanding protests, compelling these men to continue in the service for a year beyond the termination of the period of their re-engagement; and, whether, having regard to the effect of this action on the soldier reservists belonging to Section D who are thus detained from their homes, he will take steps to see that the provisions of the agreement under which these men re-engaged in the service will be strictly observed.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. These men undertake to serve in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for a period of four years, or for a further period of 12 months or less, if so directed by the competent Military authority.

Are these men protesting against being kept on active service? Are they not anxious to return home?

I don't know.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will lay upon the Table the Minutes in the Public Paper, War Office, File No.74705/4, dated respectively 17th and 20th April, 1899; also the complete set of Minutes in the War Office, File 74706/15; and the Minutes and Statement in the War Office, File 74706/16,with which the then Secretary of State for War, on 28th March, 1900, expressed his concurrence.

These Papers are strictly confidential, and I cannot consent to lay them on the Table. Their contents were improperly made public.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is the number of regular troops at present quartered within the limits of the Scottish Army Corps, and where each unit is quartered; what is the number of officers now on the Staff of that Army Corps; and what is the establishment in that Army Corps of regular troops and of staff officers.

Will the hon. Member kindly refer to a reply to a Question put yesterday by the hon. Member for the South Molton Division of Devonshire, in which my right hon. friend explained that this Army Corps will not be established till after the conclusion of the war.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state when and by what order a man named Dalton was dismissed from the position of contractor for repairs to the barracks of Boyle, County Roscommon; is he aware that a, successor was appointed three days before Dalton's Contract expired; and will he cause an inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case.

Will the hon. Member kindly refer to the replies which I gave to questions put on this subject by the hon. Member for the South Division of Leitrim last July and August,† and to which I have nothing to add?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of making an arrangement whereby the sons of officers (who retire on pension or gratuity after 18 years service) entering the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, should be taken at a reduced scale from that for the son of a private gentleman, viz. £150.

It was decided many years ago that 20 years service was required to qualify for such advantages. In any changes which may be made at Sandhurst I will consider my hon. friend's suggestion.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to give certain executive officers a mechanical training with a view to their taking charge of the hydraulic gun machinery on board ships of war; and, if so, how is it proposed to carry out the mechanical training of the said Officers.

It has been decided to give certain Executive Officers a mechanical training with a view to their taking charge of the hydraulic gun machinery on board ships for war; and a Committee has been directed to consider and report upon the most effective means of giving effect to this decision.

† See (4) Debates, xcviii, 238, 406, 848.

was understood to ask if these Executive Officers were to be gunnery lieutenants.

Yes, Sir, they will he lieutenants.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the troops which revolted quite lately are a portion of the Pathan Levies under the orders of the Simla Political Department stationed in the Khost Valley; will he state whether the Malukhund and Bundir districts, where the agitation has occurred, and which were at one time far beyond the Indian border, are now districts contained within the area of the new province, and can any recent correspondence relating to these trans-frontier affairs be placed before Parliament at an early date.

I think that this Question has been put under a misapprehension. No troops under British authority have revolted.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to make any statement concerning a meeting of Ambassadors at the British Embassy in Washington in April 1898.

The meeting which took place on the 14th April, 1898, was convened by Lord Pauncefote as Doyen of the Ambassadors at the verbal suggestion of some of his colleagues. Whatever opinions were expressed by Lord Paunce fote during the discussion, which was of an informal character, were personal to himself and not in pursuance of any instructions from Her Majesty's Government. The discussion resulted in an agreement by the Ambassadors to forward an identical telegram to their respective Governments suggesting a further communication to the Government of the United States. On the receipt of this message Her Majesty's Government at once replied objecting to the terms of the proposed communication as injudicious. Two days later Lord Pauncefote was informed that Her Majesty's Government had resolved to take no action. We had at the time no information of the attitude of the German Government.

Is the noble Lord prepared to state whether the official German statement as to what has taken place is correct or incorrect?

I have nothing to add to the answer I have just given to the House.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether China is included under the term other Powers, in Articles 2 and 3 of the Agreement between Great Britain and Japan; whether the granting by China of any special commercial privileges or railway concessions, after the date of the Agreement, in any portion of her territory to any other Power is a matter that contravenes the Agreement; and whether the recognition by China of spheres of influence of other Powers contravenes it.

The interpretation of any words in an Agreement is not usually made the subject of an official statement until the circumstances have arisen which require such a statement. But as to the first part of the Question, I may say that the other Powers referred to are the countries having political or commercial relations with China or Korea.

Will the noble Lord answer the second and third Questions?

I have explained that it is contrary to what is customary in relation to these Agreements to do so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been directed to the complaints concerning the administration of the resident Commissioner of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands; and can he state what inquiries have been made thereon, where held, and on what dates and also into the case of Mr. Goodge, who was imprisoned and deported.

An exhaustive inquiry into the complaints referred to was made by a Commission consisting of the Commander, the Navigating Lieutenant, and the Surgeon of His Majesty's Ship "Phoebe" at Tarawa in the Gilbert Group on the 18th and 19th of September last. The Commission reported that of the numerous charges made, some were easily explained, some were absolutely untrue and were withdrawn, and that not a single case of harshness or oppression was satisfactorily established. The Report of the Commission, which is a somewhat lengthy document, is at the hon. Member's service if he desires to peruse it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can explain why the services of Mr. Potts, Registrar of the Court in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, were summarily dispensed with by the High Commissioner without giving to the said Mr. Potts any opportunity of being heard in his own defence.

Mr. Potts had been more than once reprimanded for insubordination, and at an interview with the High Commissioner, in June 1899, was informed that his conduct justified his dismissal, but that he would be allowed to return to his post on the assurance that he would comply with the orders of the Resident Commissioner and carry on his duties in a proper spirit of subordination. In May 1900, in consequence of repeated disregard of instructions, he was suspended by the Resident Commissioner and ordered to proceed to Suva to report himself to the High Commissioner. Mr. Potts had an interview with the High Commissioner at Suva in August 1900, at which he was informed that the High Commissioner was convinced that it was not in the public interests to retain his services, which were accordingly dispensed with.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to expedite in the present year the issue of the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories.

I have consulted the Chief Inspector on this matter, and I hope that by dividing his Report and reserving all the statistical matter for the second part, it will be possible for the first portion to be ready for publication much earlier than last year.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case recently before the magistrates at the City Police Courts, Manchester, when Henry Mills and Co., Tomlinson Street, Hulme, Manchester, were summoned at the instance of His Majesty's Inspector of Factories for failing to fence a driving shaft, by which neglect Sydney Drew, 13 years of age, was caught by his apron and one of his arms was fractured; is he aware that the Bench inflicted only 5s. fine, and seeing that the inspector expressed his regret at a nominal fine only being inflicted, as it would tend to weaken his hands in getting dangerous machinery fenced, will he state what he proposes to do in the case?

My attention has been called to the case mentioned by the hon. Member, and the facts are as stated. I am informed that the Magistrates stated that their reason for inflicting so small a fine was that the shaft had been fenced after the accident. There is no appeal from the Magistrates' decision as to the amount of the fine, or I certainly would have ordered an appeal to be lodged.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the advisability of holding that a certain number of convictions should entitle a criminal to the perpetual protection of the State from his tendencies to crime, and whether he has further considered the opinion expressed by Sir It. Anderson, late Chief of Scotland Yard, with regard to the small number of criminals who form the high-class organising body of criminals in the metropolitan area, and the desirability of preventing them from prosecuting their nefarious schemes; and whether, in both cases, he proposes by legislation or otherwise, to act in the direction indicated.

I have made inquiries, and I am not prepared to accept the opinion referred to in the question as well founded, or as affording a basis for legislative or other action. The general question as to the best mode of dealing with habitual criminals has, for some time, been under the anxious consideration of the Home Office, and I am in communication with His Majesty's Judges on the subject. The question is one of extreme difficulty, but I am in hopes that I may see my way to deal with it, by legislation if necessary.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a recent vacancy in the office of Vaccination Officer in the Wellingborough district lasted from 18th October, 1901, till 30th January, 1902; what was the reason for the delay in approving of the appointment made by the Guardians; was any person appointed to act temporarily during the vacancy; and, has he any information to show whether the Vaccination Laws are now effectually enforced within the limits of the Wellinghorough, Kettering, and Thrapston Unions.

In the case of Thrapston, I understand that the Vaccination Officer is performing his duties satisfactorily, and that prosecutions in cases of default are taking place. I regret, however, to say that the information in my possession shows that the Vaccination Laws are not being effectually enforced in the other two unions to which my hon. and gallant friend refers, and I am considering what steps should be taken in these and similar cases. With regard to Wellingborough, in consequence of a report which I received from one of my Medical Inspectors, I caused letters to be addressed to the Vaccination Officers of that union calling attention to the unsatisfactory way in which they were performing their duties, and stating that they would not be allowed to retain office unless they were prepared to carry out their duties in accordance with the Vaccination Acts. As a result, one of the Vaccination Officers resigned. The Guardians appointed another person in his place in October last, but in view of the unsatisfactory replies received from the other two Vaccination Officers I felt much difficulty as to sanctioning the new appointment. Sanction was eventually given last month in the case of this officer. I have felt it necessary to call on the other Vaccination Officers to resign.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has taken any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Preservative Committee to standardise the percentage of preservatives allowable in other articles besides butter and milk.

Legislation would be necessary to give effect to the recommendations referred to, but I have not at present arrived at a decision as to the course to be taken in the matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can arrange to give prompt replies to Town Councils and District Councils applying to the Board for power to accept and hold gifts of property, real or personal, for the benefit of the inhabitants, a power similar to that now enjoyed by all Parish Councils.

When an Urban District Council ask for the particu- lar power referred to, they usually also apply for other powers of a Parish Council, some of which can only be given after an investigation, which necessarily takes time. It has been the practice of the Local Government Board so far as possible to dispose of the whole application by means of one Order; but I have now arranged that any application for this particular power shall be dealt with separately, and there will be no difficulty in the necessary Order being issued forth-with.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state if he has considered the advisability of making some special arrangement as to the Committee stage of the several Underground Tubular Railway Bills introduced this session, so as to ensure these Bills being considered as part of a comprehensive scheme of Metropolitan locomotion; also whether, with that object in view, he proposes to grant the London County Council a locus standi before these Committees.

Yes, Sir, I have carefully considered this subject and conferred with the authorities of both Houses. I must remind my hon. friend that the Bills have been introduced in the House of Lords. I understand that it is proposed to send the Bills, if read a second time, to one or more Private Bill Committees, and to give the London County Council and the Corporation of the City; if they desire it, a special locus.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the fact that the Income Tax Collector at Cupar has issued notices stating that, unless income tax for the current year is paid within 48 hours, the sheriff's officer will proceed to recover; whether he will take such action as will allow to income tax payers in Scotland the same latitude as that allowed in England.

Though I have no official information as to the particular proceedings taken in Cupar, complaints of a similar kind have reached me within the last 24 hours from many hon. Members representing Scotch constituencies. The practice for long past in Scotland has been to issue the third notice, which threatens the intervention of the sheriff's officer, about the middle of February. In England the issue begins at the same time of third notices, which warn that, if not paid, the tax will be recovered by distraint. I should add that the notices to which reference has been made do not amount to more than an intimation that unless the tax be paid within 48 hours the matter will he placed in the hands of the sheriff's officer for recovery. Some time is always allowed to elapse before the matter is placed in the hands of the sheriff's officer, and after it has been so placed, he never proceeds to levy without a further warning. It must, however, he remembered that the tax is due on or before 1st January, and that the machinery of collection in Scotland is different from that in England. Some differences of practice are therefore more or less inevitable, but the whole question is being further examined by the Board of Inland Revenue with a view to approximating the proceedings in the two countries as closely as possible. I have to express my regret that, owing to an unfortunate misunderstanding, this question was not fully considered, as was our intention, in time to allow of any change of practice this year. But I hope that the explanations which I have now given will remove the anxiety which has arisen in the minds of hon. Members.

Then I understand that the notices which have been issued will not be acted on immediately?

No, they will not.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state how many letters were carried per P. and O. steamers to Hong Kong, how many viâ Canada, and What was the average number of days by each route.

At the same time I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state what is the approximate time occupied in transit of letters posted in London addressed to Hong Kong and Shanghai respectively, viâ Brindisi and via Vancouver; and upon what dates would the mails which left London on 9th January last, viâ Vancouver, and the mails which left London on 17th January last, via Brindisi, arrive at Hong Kong and Shanghai respectively.

It will be convenient to answer both these Questions together. The approximate time occupied in the transit of letters from London to Hong Kong is 29 or 30 days, according to the season, viâ Brindisi, and 40 days viâ Vancouver, and from London to Shanghai 33 or 34 days viâ Brindisi, and 37 days viâ Vancouver. The mails despatched from London on the 9th of January last, viâ Vancouver, are due at Shanghai on the 15th of February, and Hong Hong on the 18th, while those sent on the 17th of January, viâ Brindisi, should reach Hong Kong on the 16th of February, and Shanghai on the 21st. The hon. Member for South Kilkenny does not specify any period in his Question; but on the assumption that the figures for one year will answer his purpose it may be stated that about 230,000 letters from the United Kingdom were carried to Hong Kong by P. and O. Packet during the year 1901. The Canadian route, by which only specially addressed letters are sent to Hong Kong, was employed for something under 50 such letters.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state the amount paid for the year ending 31st December last, in respect of the conveyance between this country and Canada of the mails which joined the Canadian Pacific route in the terms of the mail contract which received the assent of the House of Commons on 16th August, 1889.

The payment made for the conveyance by Canadian Packet across the Atlantic of mails intended for onward transmission from Vancouver by the Canadian Pacific Service is about £500 a year.

And the charge from Halifax to the destination is £45,000 a year?

That is the subsidy in respect of which the Service is run.

How many letters are carried by this route?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish Church body have refused to sell the Hickson Estate in the barony of Corcaguiny, County Kerry, though the tenants are willing to purchase and the landlord to sell; and whether he will take steps to secure that, when landlord and tenant agree as to sale of land, no third party shall have the power to prevent it.

I am unable to say whether the facts are as stated, but in any case the Government cannot intervene administratively to impair the exercise of any legal right which may exist.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in connection with evictions on the Tottenham Estate in Leitrim, three young men were prosecuted on a charge of having taken part in an unlawful assembly at Armagh on 19th July, 1901; that they were tried by two stipendiary magistrates under the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, and sentenced to a month's imprisonment each; and that these sentences were reversed and the cases dismissed on appeal to County Court Judge Waters; is he aware that the County Court Judge, in delivering judgment, censured the con- duct of Police Constables Moffit and Murphy, on whose evidence the charges were brought; can he explain why a court under the Act mentioned was set up in these cases; and has the conduct of these constables been since considered by their superiors; and if so, with what result.

Proceedings were instituted against 10 persons; six were convicted. The County Court Judge affirmed the convictions in three cases. The Judge passed some words of criticism upon the judgment displayed by the two constables named. The matter has been carefully investigated by the constabulary authorities, who see no reason for taking any action. The proceedings were under Section 2, Sub-section 3 (a) of the Crimes Act, as it was considered that this procedure was the most appropriate to the offence with which the accused were charged.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an order for the sale of the Tottenham Estate, County Leitrim, was made by the Land Court on 31st July. 1899; can he state what steps have been, taken to carry out the order, and is he aware of the evictions taking place on this estate; and, having regard to the fact that the tenants desire to purchase, and with a view to the peace of the district, will he take steps to expedite a sale to the tenants.

A request for inspection of this estate has been issued by the Land Judge under the 40th Section of the Act of 1896. The inspection, which, I understand, will occupy a. considerable time, is now in progress. The Government cannot take any steps with a view to expedite the proceedings.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the inspection will last?

It is not in the power of the Government to fix the time.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Nationalist Band of Boho, Derrygonnelly, county Fermanagh, have had a weekly practice and parade on the public road in that locality for many years past; that recently, when so engaged in one of those weekly exercises, the police of the district met the band, and warned them not to parade again on the county road, and that, on the evening before going out for the next week's practice, the police surrounded the band room and threatened that should the band go out to play on the public road that night they would disperse them by force. And will he state by what authority the police prevented the band from playing and parading on the county road, and whether, considering the character of the district, he will take such steps as will prevent similar police interference in future.

The police had reason to believe that this band intended to participate in efforts which have been made to intimidate the tenant of a farm in the locality. They accordingly warned the members that no such demonstration would be permitted in the vicinity of the farm. The police acted in the discharge of their primary duty of affording protection and preserving peace.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police constable who is married to the postmistress at Wood Lawn, County Galway, is assisting at evictions carried out by the landlord of the post office; and whether he will consider the advisability of having this police constable removed from the district.

This constable has not, as a matter of fact, been detailed for duty at the evictions referred to. There is, however, no reason for exempting him from discharging this or any other duty incumbent on the Force, nor would the assumption mentioned in the question, even if true, render him liable to removal from the district.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the county Inspector is a frequent guest at the house of this landlord's evictor?

I am not aware of that, neither do I think it relevant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the statement made by the resident magistrate at Woodford Petty Sessions on the 10th instant that he would recommend that Mulivehill should receive back his gun, whether he will now direct it should be returned.

Applications for the restoration of firearms seized by the police in circumstances such as these should be addressed by the owners to the Lord Lieutenant.

I beg P ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a farmer, named Thomas Reynolds, of Kilcummin, Cloonacool, County Sligo, has been refused a gun licence by Mr. Crotty, R.M., although the applicant was recommended by two county magistrates; and will he state the grounds on which the refusal of this licence was based.

The discretion of granting or withholding an arms licence is vested by law in the resident Magistrate as the licensing officer of the district. It would be contrary to practice to disclose the reasons which influence the resident Magistrate in the exercise of that discretion.

Then how is this most respectable farmer to procure a licence?

Order, order

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a weir known as the Alen Leech Factory Weir, nine feet high across the river Nore, near Abbeyleix, forms an obstruction to the flow of the water, which is thrown back thereby a distance of five miles up the river causing flooding; and whether, as the factory is now idle and has not been working for the past five years, he can state what objection there is to the removal of the weir.

The weir is not within an arterial drainage district, and the river Nore is not under the control of any local Body constituted under the Arterial Drainage Acts. The Commissioners of Public Works have no power, therefore, to take action as suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, of the 21 members of which the County Court Bench in -Ireland now consists, there are only seven Roman Catholics; and whether, as the opportunity arises, steps will be taken to redress this inequality, three-fourths at least of the population of Ireland being Roman Catholics.

There are no official records of the religious persuasions of County Court Judges, but assuming the proportion stated to be correct, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the Lord Lieutenant, who appoints to the office, proceeds upon the principle of selecting the men best qualified by knowledge and experience without regard to religious convictions. I may mention that of the eight County Court Judges appointed during the past ten years, four of them, so far as I can ascertain from unofficial sources of information, are Roman Catholics, three Episcopalians, and one is a Presbyterian.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number and extent of the holdings on the Kilclooney (County Galway) Estate recently purchased by the Congested Districts Board; also what steps have been taken by the Board to take over holdings which have been used by graziers who are willing to give them up for the purposes of the Board; and whether he will have such steps taken in all cases as will secure that the lands will be available for distribution amongst deserving persons during the coming season.

Three lots comprising 495 acres. No other lots remain to be sold and no offers to sell to the Board have been made by recent purchasers. No time will be lost in redistributing the lands in relief of congestion in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1891 and Amending Acts. In reply to a Question by Mr. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.)

said: I am well aware of the facts connected with this estate, but I think the hon. Member will agree with me that to discuss in advance property which may or may not be bought is not a very good way of securing it at a reasonable price.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the invariable custom of the Land Sub-Commission in Connemara of cessing the tenants for seaweed facilities as if the foreshore were the property of-the landlord, the Government would issue instructions to the Sub-Commission in dealing with such cases in future to require proof of the landlord's claim to foreshore, and in the absence of such proof not to cess the tenants for an advantage which they enjoy only by a permissible trespass on Crown property.

This legal point was, I understand, the subject of an appeal recently heard before the Land Commission Court, in which the decision has not yet been. announced. In any case the Executive has no jurisdiction over Sub-Commissions and no authority to issue instructions as suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at an inquiry recently held in Wexford regarding the proposed erection of labourers' cottages by the Wexford Rural District Council, 15 representations were rejected by the Local Government Inspector; and, having regard to the condition of the 15 labourers for whom the cottages were intended, will he state on what grounds the 15 representations were rejected.

They were rejected either on the ground that the sites were unsuitable, or that insufficient evidence was given of the necessity for the cottages. It is open to the Council to include these applications in a fresh scheme, and if there are no objections on the ground of site or evidence they would be approved.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether all the officers including the doctors, the apothecaries (who in most cases are also the treasurers), matrons, nurses, and porters to the different county infirmaries in Ireland, who on the passing of the Local Government Act of 1898 were transferred to the County Councils, are entitled to pensions under the existing regulations.

Officers of county infirmaries were not officers of the Grand Juries and were not transferred to the County Councils by the Local Government Act, 1898. The rights of existing officers of these institutions are preserved by section 15, sub-section 8, of the Act, but apparently no right to pension on retirement existed prior to the Act and no such right is conferred by it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office could arrange with the Donegal Railway Company to carry the mails on Sunday for South and West Donegal by train, and thus not only secure greater punctuality in the delivery but also provide railway accommodation on Sunday in that district.

Inquiry is being made as regards the Mail Service on Sunday to South and West Donegal, and an answer shall be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that religious beliefs, passionately held by millions of His Majesty's subjects, are denounced in the declaration required of His Majesty on his accession to the throne by the Bill of Rights, the Government propose to take any steps towards the modification of the declaration before the Coronation; and, if not, why not?