On behalf of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the names of the newspapers, periodicals, and books whose circulation in South Africa under martial law has been prohibited or interfered with.

The hon. Member wrote to me that he did not intend to put the Question. Still, I have no objection to answering it. No such list is available.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the three Dutch subjects of His Majesty, Messrs. Botha, De Wet, and Du Plessis, who came here in 1900 to urge a peaceable settlement of the conflict in South Africa, have since their return to Cape Colony been arrested; and, if so, when and for what offence or offences; whether they or any of them are now under arrest, and whether they have been brought to trial.

I have no information on this subject.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will impress Lord Kitchener with the importance of securing to General Kritzinger ample facilities for producing his witnesses at his trial; and, in the event of that being impossible, owing to the witnesses being engaged in the field with the Boer Army, to have the trial postponed until the conclusion of hostilities.

I should like to refer to a Question addressed to me on Friday last — whether General Kritzinger's trial had begun. I said I did not know whether it had. On Saturday I received a telegram stating that the trial had begun. Lord Kitchener will certainly take care that General Kritzinger has ample facilities for producing witnesses at his trial, and that justice is secured to him. All such trials are carefully conducted and the sentences and evidence submitted to Sir Richard Solomon before confirmation. It is not necessary to give any special instructions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether certain gratuities were paid last year to the Natal Volunteers, and to the relatives of such of them as had died, which the War Office afterwards declared to have been improperly paid; whether instructions were given to the chief paymaster in Natal in September last to insist that such sums paid to the widows and orphans of deceased Volunteers should be refunded by them; whether the War Office has persevered in this demand; and who is the official responsible for the original blunder, if any, and for the demand for repayment.

No instructions were given by the War Office to the chief paymaster in Natal to recover issues of war gratuity. This officer, on his own interpretation of the regulations, which was not sustained by the Secretary of State for War, had issued the sum of £662 10s. to the Master of the Supreme Court, Pietermaritzburg, and of his own accord he recovered from that Court the sum of £417 10s. So far as is known at the War Office, no recovery was effected from any widow or orphan who had actually received the money, and the remaining unrecovered £245 has been charged against Army Funds. The matter has been under my consideration and the Commander-in-Chief, South Africa, has discretion as to pay a war gratuity in the case of Colonial corps specially employed.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War office whether he will lay a Copy of the meat contract with the Imperial Meat Company upon the Table of the House; if not, is the undertaking to obtain as far as possible the live and dead stock from the Colonies defined, and what is the definition attached to the words as far as possible; and whether failure to fulfil this undertaking would invalidate the contract.

I will lay a copy of the contract on the Table. We shall closely watch the observance of this clause in the contract to which we shall hold the contractors as to any other provision of the contract.

Is there a contract now in existence with the Imperial Meat Company?

Yes.

When will the copy of the contract be in the hands of Member?

I cannot tell, but there will be no unnecessary delay.

Can we have copies of the conditions of tender?

I will consider that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state the exact nature of the terms of reference or instructions that will be given to the Court of Inquiry on the management of the Remount Department; if not, whether he can give assurance that they will define the nature and scope of the Court's inquiry into the conduct of General Truman during the whole time he has been at the head of that Department; into the sufficiency of the staff allowed him when war broke out to deal with exceptional pressure; and into the responsibility of Inspectors-General of Remounts for collecting and tabulating in peace time information as to possible purchasing of horses in our Colonies, and in Foreign Countries in the event of war.

I cannot give the precise terms, but they will be definite and will cover General Truman's responsibility for collecting information.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the officers or any of the officers sent by the War Office to Argentina, in regard to the supply of horses from that country to the Cape, were members of the Remount Department, and what are the names of the officers sent; whether he is aware that the distance from the Plate to London is 6,500 miles, or about 32 days' steaming, and that the average price before the war for cattle shipped from the Plate to London was £4 10s., or including the disbursements by the persons sending cattle for fodder and attendance £5 10s. per head, and that the distance of the Plate to the Cape is 3,700 miles, or about 18 days steaming; whether he can state what was the number of horses shipped to the Cape from Argentina under the first contract made between the War Office and Messrs. Houlder, and the number of horses shipped by that firm under subsequent contracts, and the price paid per head under each contract entered into; and whether, on making these contracts, the price paid for the transport of cattle from the Plate to London before the war, and the respective distance of Argentina from the Cape and from London, were borne in mind.

In 1897 three officers of the Remount Department were sent to Argentina to buy horses —viz., Colonel Truman, Major Wood, and Captain Peters; and again in 1898, Colonel Truman, Major Peters, and Captain Ferrar. In 1899 no officers of the Department were available, and Majors Aspinwall and Kennedy were employed. The horses were landed in Natal, which is 4,900 miles from Buenos Ayres, and not at the Cape. As regards prices, no comparison can be made with cattle boats, as for horses, ships have to be specially fitted. The numbers shipped under the first contract, 1897, with Messrs. Houlder were 1,361, and the freight per head £9. Under subsequent contracts the numbers were 27,258; the rates under the various contracts being £11, £18 10s., £15, £14 10s., £11, £12 10s., and £12 respectively, inclusive of fittings, fodder, attendance, utensils, &c., on the voyage. The difference in prices is due to the enormous rise in freights generally and the price of coal.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say what action was taken by the War Office on receiving from the Foreign Office information and suggestions from Military Attachés Abroad as to obtaining supplies of horses for South Africa; through what departments, sub departments, or branches of the War Office did the information pass, and what period of time elapsed between their reaching the War Office and their receipt by the Remount Officers charged with the duty of obtaining such horses in the countries concerned.

It is not customary to give details of action taken on information received from Military Attachés abroad.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what percentage of all the horses which were registered by payment of an annual fee to the owners in the United Kingdom, as available for remounts in case of war at the time of the outbreak of the war in South Africa, have since been purchased by Government; and whether the system of registration has continued in force during the war and is still in force.

The general Return includes draft horses as well as remounts. I am afraid the figures would take some time to make out. The reply to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

Will the Secretary for War give orders to discontinue the payment of these registration fees, inasmuch as the Remount Department have taken all the available horses they can?

No, Sir, I cannot give any pledge of that kind.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state for what amount of army boots the War Office has given contracts to the Cawnpore or other factories in India; for what period, and on what conditions and terms; whether the tests applied to these boots are identical with those insisted on for Army boots supplied by contractors in Great Britain; whether these Indian factories are allowed to supply boots made on the combination principle, while contractors in Great Britain are not allowed to supply boots made on that principle; and, if so, on what grounds these advantages are given to the Indian factories and refused to British manufacturers.

Arrangements have been made with the Indian Government to supply 100,000 ankle boots per annum for the next three years. They will be inspected by the military authorities in India with the same rigidity as is employed for supplies passed for the use of the British troops in India. They are to be of the hand-sewn pattern supplied to British troops there.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, of the 400,000 pairs of Army boots for which tenders have been invited in the past few weeks, only a small proportion of the tenders have been accepted; and whether the average contract price for the screwed Army boot last year was 11s. 6d., whereas this year the War Office is refusing all tenders at over 9s. 9d. Whether contractors have offered to supply 40,000 pairs of boots a year for three years, similar in pattern to the Indian Combination boot, but of stronger and less brittle leather and of stronger workmanship, at practically the Indian price, and have had this offer refused. Whether the hand-sewn boot contracts formerly given to Northamptonshire villages are now being transferred to India, with the result that numbers of hand-sewn workers in Northamptonshire are out of employment. And, whether the policy as to Army boot contracts will be re-considered with a view to equality of treatment of British manufacturers and workmen and those in India.

The whole of the boots in the recent tenders have been ordered for production in this country. The average price paid for the screwed boots showed a considerable reduction, but it is not the case that tenders over 9s. 9d. have all been declined. Contractors have offered to supply a combination boot. The pattern is now under consideration, and a certain number of such boots have been ordered from various British manufacturers for trial. The Northamptonshire villages delivered only 117,000 last year. 162,000 boots have been ordered for the coming financial year, and further orders will be placed with them as these approach completion. The surplus beyond the number which it is in the power of Northamptonshire to produce has been ordered from India.

Will Northamptonshire villages have a chance of competing?

They have had.

I thought the noble Lord said the residue of the contract was going to India.

They supplied 117,000 pairs last year, and are to supply 162,000 this year.

Were any Irish manufacturers invited to compete?

That does not arise out of the Question.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the Cawnpore boot factory is carried on wholly as a private industrial undertaking for private profit, or includes among its directors or managers or shareholders British and Indian Military Officials interested in the securing of contracts; and whether this factory has any direct or indirect subsidy or guarantee from the Imperial or Indian Government.

The Cawnpore Boot Factory is carried on by a private firm. No British or Indian Military Official is included in the Directorate. As regards managers or shareholders there is no information in this country. The firm receives no direct or indirect subsidy either from the Indian Government or from the Imperial Government, but there is a guarantee that, on certain, terms expressed in the contract, the Government of India will purchase not less than 120,000 pairs of boots per annum for 10 years.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the continued retention since October, 1899, of the south arm of the harbour works at Table Bay for the exclusive use of the military authorities, together with up wards of 4,000 feet of quay space and warehouses, is an inconvenience to the Harbour Board of Capetown and the shipping and mercantile community; and whether he will instruct the general officers and commandants at base ports to consider the advisability of erecting Government warehouses on the sites offered by the Government Railways, and in any case to occupy the harbour piers, sheds, and quays at Capetown, Port Elizabeth, East London, and Durban as little as possible.

The points raised in this Question had already been referred to the General Officer commanding at Capetown. He has replied as follows: "The sheds at Capetown are not used for storage of supplies. Hay is stacked in the open, pending trucks being available for up country. I now propose to stack forage at Maitland as soon as rolling stock is available for conveyance from the docks. I am making every effort to meet local requirements at the docks"

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of Yeomanry at Aldershot and the number of commissioned officers with that force prepared to proceed with them to South Africa; also, what inquiry, if any, has been made into the merits of these officers.

The numbers of Yeomanry at Aldershot are: Officers, 181; other ranks, 5,010. The military antecedents of these officers are known before they are granted commissions. The General Officer Commanding, 1st Army Corps, is responsible for seeing that all ranks of the corps are fully efficient before they are sent on service.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of the reservists who have been recently called out again after being allowed to return to their avocations on working furlough; whether he is aware of the loss inflicted on many of these men in having to break up their homes a second time within two years; and whether, seeing that in many such cases employers who had after the first calling out been in a position to reinstate the reservists in their employ are now declining to keep their posts open for them, the special exemption granted to these men when in the employ of the Post Office can be extended to other cases.

I am afraid that it is not possible to accede to the hon. Member's request. The exigencies of the war must necessarily override other considerations, and while admitting the desirability of meeting the needs of the employers and men where possible, I cannot see my way to permit any further extension of the furlough. This is one of the hardships which are unfortunately inseparable from war. All consideration which can be shown to the reservists has been shown. The case of the Post Office employees is quite exceptional, they have been re-transferred to the reserve.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will take into consideration the cases of re-employed Reserve Officers who have been serving for months on a low rate of pay, and who by regulation are placed lowest in the rank in which they formerly served, being thus superseded by officers formerly their juniors, and who have been refused promotion except in certain cases; and will he take into consideration the conditions thus imposed upon these officers, inasmuch as any who have become entitled by further service to an increase of pension are compelled by regulation either to refund the gratuity granted by the Royal Warrant, or else to forego the increase of pension.

If Reserve Officers become senior of their rank in the unit with which they have been employed, they would on the occurrence of a vacancy receive promotion, taking up the next senior with them. In cases where promotion is given after a definite period of service, Reserve Officers receive the benefit of such promotion. Officers who have been employed in higher rank than they hold in the reserve, have been granted a step on reverting to the reserve, and in many cases where special circumstances existed, promotion has been given to Reserve Officers while serving. Several officers have been promoted for services in South Africa. The cases of others are under consideration. As regards the last part of the Question, a Reserve Officer is given the option of electing the gratuity allowed by Article 601 B of the Pay Warrant, or the increase to pension or gratuity allowed by Article 601 A; he cannot be granted both.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the additional cost of establishing the first, second, and third Army Corps; and when he will be in a position to announce the composition and numbers of these three Army Corps.

It is impossible to work out these figures with any accuracy while the troops are mainly in South Africa. The only expense so far incurred is in the Staff, and this could not be definitely stated as the Staff is largely employed in superintending the training of troops for South Africa. I replied to the concluding paragraph of the Question on Thursday last.

The right hon. Gentleman did not say when he will be in a position to announce the composition of the three Army Corps?

I cannot do that until the troops return from South Africa.

Will the right hon. Gentleman suspend the Army Corps Scheme till the troops return?

Certainly not, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of recognising the merit and services of the Sergeants Major of Volunteers by granting them the rank of Warrant Officers.

^* See preceding Volume, page 1244.

Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question put on the 10th instant by the hon. Member for East Norfolk †

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he can state the number of commissioned officers deficient both at home and abroad; also, how the number of commissioned officers with the troops in South Africa compares with the number which any of the great Continental powers would employ for field service; and what steps, if any, are being taken to make good any deficiency which may exist.

There are 31 vacancies in the Cavalry, and 43 in the Loyal Artillery. None in the Engineers or Infantry. In the Army Service Corps there is a surplus of 248 due to the number of attached officers. The numbers would compare favourably with those of the Continental Armies.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether when a boy under eighteen years of age enlists in the Army, and his parents at his request apply to the Commanding Officer of his Regiment for his discharge in accordance with the War Office regulations, he is entitled to his discharge.

Will the hon. Member kindly refer to paragraph 1805, King's Regulations, which will give him full information on the point, and which, is too long to repeat in answer to a Question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the decision of His Majesty's Government not to use Wei-Hai-Wei as a Military and Naval station is due to a general strategic or financial policy, to international considerations, or to the unsuitability of the place for a Naval base.

Wei-Hai-Wei will still be

See preceding Volume, page 851.

used as a Naval Station for many purposes. The decision to discontinue the fortifications was arrived at on strategic grounds only, and was not due to any of the other considerations referred to in the question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the reports received by His Majesty's Government regarding the value for naval or other purposes of the harbour of Wei-Hai-Wei, or some of such reports, will be presented to the House.

Wei-Hai-Wei is of great value for many naval purposes—the decision to discontinue the fortification of the place was arrived at on purely strategic grounds, and was not the result of any special reports. There are consequently no such documents to be presented to the House.

No documents whatever, showing the grounds on which the decision of His Majesty's Government was arrived at?

No, Sir. The decision of the Government, so far as the Admiralty was concerned, was based on general knowledge of the position and capabilities of the place for the purposes for which it was required.

had on the paper the following Question:—"To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he can say when he proposes to bring on the Navy Estimates, and when the Navy Estimates will be circulated. "On being called upon to put it, he said the Estimates had been circulated, but he would like to know when they were to be taken.

I believe they will be put down on Friday. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address a Question to the First Lord.

With Mr. Speaker in the Chair?

Yes, I think so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he will state the number of engineer officers, engine room artificers, and stokers borne on the books at the present time, what number of these officers joined from Keyham and what number from outside sources, and what have been the additions to and subtraction from these grades in the present financial year.

The numbers at present borne are:—

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that the triennial reports on the Labour Immigration into Assam are now in arrears, none having been presented to Parliament for years, he can say when he will distribute to Members of the House the reports in arrear.

There are no such triennial reports as the hon. Member seems to suppose upon labour immigration into Assam: but I am now prepared, if the hon. Member will move for it, to lay on the Table the special report which I received in March, 1897, together with the correspondence relating to it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the prospect of a further reduction to 2s. per word in the telegraphic rate to and from India is contemplated, contingent on a certain standard of earnings being maintained; and, if so, will he state to the House the standard so prescribed.

The understanding with the Eastern and Indo-European Telegraph Companies is that if a any time after the introduction of the 2s. 6d. rate the average revenue of the Cis-Indian Joint Purse of the three preceding years, whether wholly at 2s. 6d., or partly at 4s. and partly at 2s. 6d. a word, shall amount to £360,000, a rate of 2s. a word will be at once introduced, provided that the necessary arrangements can be made with the Foreign Administrations interested.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that in 1853–54 the British Minister in Bolivia took part in a political agitation in that country, using the Embassy to shelter one of the contending parties; that, in consequence, this Minister's papers were handed to him, and that since that time no diplomatic relations have existed between England and Bolivia; and, in view of the desire of that country for a Minister accredited to her from England, will he consider the advisability of sending out a Minister.

There has been no British Diplomatic Representative accredited to the Bolivian Government since 1853. Diplomatic relations were broken off by Her Majesty's Government not, so far as I am aware, for the reason stated, but in consequence of the President's disregard of all representations for the redress of injuries inflicted upon British subjects by certain arbitrary acts of the Bolivian Authorities. There is, however, a Bolivian Minister accredited to this Court. The suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the Question is receiving consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can afford the House any information respecting the circumstances under which a vessel, formerly known as the "Ban Righ," and now on the seas under the name of the "Libertador," and which was detained by the British Government, was allowed to depart; and whether he has any official information showing that this vessel has been declared a pirate by the Venezuelan Government.

With regard to the first part of the Question, I may refer him to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire on the 20th of January.† As to the second part, His Majesty's Minister at Caracas has sent home a copy of a decree issued by the Venezuelan Government on the 30th of December last, declaring the "Ban Righ" or "Libertador" to be a pirate.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the care of the interests of the Welsh residents in Patagonia comes within the scope of the functions of the Foreign or Colonial Departments; whether he is now aware that the Canadian Government is willing to reserve a complete township at a place to be chosen by the Colonists or their representatives for the purposes of the proposed Welsh colony, and to appoint a special staff to accompany and assist the emigrants, and to provide house accommodation for two or three months while the emigrants are putting up houses, and give a bonus of £1 per head to the 500 Welsh settlers who have expressed their wish to leave Patagonia for Canada; whether he will take steps to enable these emigrants to avail themselves of this offer; and whether Mr. Scott, of His Majesty's Legation at Buenos Ayres, during his recent visit to Patagonia, ascertained if any of the settlers desired to return to Wales.

The care of the interests of all British subjects in

† See (4) Debates ci., 308.

foreign countries is the business of the Foreign Office. In answer to the second paragraph of the Question, I am informed by the High Commissioner for Canada that the statement is correct. There is no mention in Mr. Scott's Report of any wish on the part of the Welsh Colonists referred to, to proceed to Wales.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to a memorial of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, to the Government of India, regarding the legislation now before the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, under which no postal contract is to be given except on condition that white labour only be employed on the mail steamers; if he is aware that such legislation will inflict injury on a number of British Indian subjects of the Crown who pursue a seafaring life; and if the Australian Government has any control over the methods by which owners of British steamers may desire to man or otherwise work their vessels.

I have not seen the memorial in question. We cannot prescribe to the Commonwealth Parliament the conditions which it should require in its mail contracts. It does not attempt to control the manning of British steamers except in the case of steamers seeking to enter into contract with the Government of Australia for the carriage of mails.

Have they any right to control these steamers?

They have a right to control the conditions of their own contracts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of Government to lay before Parliament Papers relating to the condition of Bornu, the mission to Fadel Allah, and the death of Fadel Allah.

My information is not yet sufficient to enable me to lay any Papers, but as soon as the inquiries I am making into all the circumstances are completed, I will consider whether I can lay the results on the Table.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case at the Norwich Shirehall Police Court, on Saturday, the 8th instant, when the Bench decided that they would, only grant a certificate of exemption from vaccination on the production of a medical certificate that the vaccination was likely to be prejudicial to the health of the child; and whether, having regard to the provisions of the Act with respect to exemptions, he will state what steps he proposes to take.

I have made inquiries, and am informed that the Justices for the Taverham Division of Norfolk were not satisfied in the particular case referred to that the applicant's objection applied to the child in question, and suggested that further evidence such as that of a medical certificate might be more satisfactory. I do not find that they have decided that the production of any such collateral evidence is in all cases a necessary condition of granting a certificate. There are no steps for me to take in the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to the report the clerk to the Magistrates gave it out officially as the requirement of the Justices?

I have communicated with the Magistrates, and the result I have given the hon. Gentleman. I know no more.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can arrange with the carrying companies to have the Colonial system of free passes to the Members of the Legislature extended to the Members of this House.

I am not prepared to take any action in the direction suggested.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is prepared to insert in the London Water Bill a clause protecting the consumers of water in the area of the Metropolis supplied by the Middlesex Water Company, from the loss of the discount on their water rates to which by law they are now entitled.

Under clause 35 of the Bill the scale of water charges enforceable by the West Middlesex Company will continue in force until repealed, altered or superseded. The powers of the Water Board in this matter will be precisely similar to those of the Company at the present time, and I do not propose to insert any special provision in the Bill on the subject. I do not express any opinion as to the legal right of consumers, but no such right which now exists would be taken away by the Bill.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the Report of the public analyst for the borough of Paddington for the quarter ending 24th June 1901, in which it is stated that, on a conviction for adulteration of milk by adding 22 per cent. of water, the magistrate inflicted a fine of 5s.; and, in view of other similar prosecutions by local authorities for adulteration of milk and butter, which have either failed in consequence of the terms of the contract or other such reasons, or have resulted in either only the imposition of costs or modified fines, whether he can, by legislation or by other means, enable the local authorities to enforce the law against adulteration, especially of those articles in constant demand among the humbler classes.

I have not yet received the Report referred to in the Question. I have no authority to intervene in the manner suggested nor does it appear to me that I can undertake to promote legislation on the subject. I may especially point out that it must remain in the discretion of the Magistrates whether a fine should be inflicted in any particular case, and if so what the amount should be.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state the number of successful primary vaccinations in 1898, 1899, and 1900, and the first six months of 1901, respectively; and also the number of conscientious objections which have been made to vaccination under the Act of 1898 during the same period.

The Parliamentary Return already issued gives the number of successful primary vaccinations for 1898 as 500,314, and for 1899 as 669,349. According to Returns which I have since received, the number for for 1900 is 677,655. I have not at present received Returns from all the Unions for 1901. The number of certificates of conscientious objection received by Vaccination Officers is as follows:—

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General. whether he will discontinue the demand for payment of double postage from the recipient of a letter when stamps are affixed which have been cut from spoiled envelopes and postcards, whether he is aware that in Victoria, Australia, such stamps are allowed to be used for postage; and will he state what objections there are to the use of these stamps on letters.

The prepayment of postage by cut out embossed or impressed stamps is prohibited by law in this country; and the Postmaster General is therefore obliged to treat as unpaid letters bearing such stamps only. Probably no such prohibition exists in the Colony of Victoria.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the complaint as to the question of fixed wages for rural postmen; and whether he will consider the advisability of recommending the immediate abolition of the practice of appointing rural postmen on a fixed wage.

The wages of rural postmen are fixed according to the work performed and the rate of wages current in the district, the minimum being 16s. a week in Great Britain and 15s. a week in Ireland. The Postmaster General sees no reason for substituting wages on a scale for fixed wages where the latter method of payment has been adopted.

May I ask if the rural postmen have no chance of getting more than 15s. a week in Ireland and 16s. in Great Britain?

I had better have notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if the attention of the Government has been directed to the letting by the Crown of the sea trout fishings on the shores of Orkney to individual proprietors; and whether, in view of the conditions under which these fishing rights have been hitherto exercised by the public, the present temporary arrangements will be reconsidered.

I will, with permission, answer this Question. There have been two cases in Orkney in which the Crown right to fish for fish of the salmon kind includ- ing sea trout has been let, one in 1900, and one in 1901. In one case the lessee is to be allowed to purchase the right on completion at his own expense, of extensive works for the improvement of the fishings and subject to definite obligations as to allowing fishing by the public on reasonable terms to be sanctioned by the Secretary for Scotland. In the other case the letting is also subject to a condition as regards permission to the public to fish and is terminable at short notice should occasion arise.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been directed to the advertisement by which the lessee claims the absolute ownership of the fishings, ex adverso the estate of Melsetter; and whether, seeing that the lessee is bound to give the public right of fair fishing with rod and line, he will state what steps he proposes to take.

The advertisement dated 19th March, 1901, states that the salmon and trout fishings in the sea ex adverso of the Estate of Melsetter have been granted on lease to Mr. Middlemore and warns people against fishing in those waters or in the burns and lochs of the estate. The lease referred to was granted by the Commissioners of Woods, and under it Mr. Middlemore was bound to execute certain extensive works to improve the Burns as spawning grounds, which works have now been completed, and to permit fishing in the sea by the public for salmon and sea trout under such bye-laws and regulations as to licences as may ultimately be made by any District Fishery Board which may be constituted, and meanwhile under such regulations as may be sanctioned by the Secretary for Scotland. Steps are now being taken to have regulations prepared and approved by the Secretary for Scotland and to point out to the lessee that any further advertisements or notices should be so framed as to show that authority to fish in compliance with these regulations may be obtained on application to the lessee or his agent.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post master General, if he can give a definite date when the Government Telephone Service will be in working order and subscribers able to avail themselves of the new system; and whether the exchanges will be opened simultaneously both in the City and other parts of London.

The junction lines between the Post Office Central Exchange and the trunk wire system have already been completed, and those connecting the same exchange with most of the chief exchanges with the National Telephone Company will, it is hoped, be ready for use in the course of the present week. It will then be possible to give an exchange service to those subscribers whose lines have already been completed, and to others as their lines are completed day by day.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of recent decisions withholding the grant of compassionate gratuities to unestablished postmen on retirement from the service, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Minute, No. 12, 262/01, embodying the results of an inquiry as to the retention in the employment of the department of unestablished officers over 60 years of age.

The Postmaster General cannot undertake to lay on the Table a copy of the Minute referred to, which is a confidential document, and related to many persons other than unestablished postmen; but the unestablished and auxiliary postmen who were retired were all considered to have reached an age when their retention was no longer desirable in the interests of the service. Their ages varied from 66 to 84. Gratuities were granted to all those who were qualified to receive them.

I wish to ask the First Commissioner of Works what provision is being made for the residence of the new Clerk of the House of Commons; whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons Accommodation, which in 1894 reported that the officials in the Houses of Parliament had the exclusive use of 283 rooms in the building; that, out of the number so occupied, the Clerk of the House of Commons had 28 rooms for his exclusive use, including 12 bedrooms, and whether the new Clerk is to be allowed the use of the same number of apartments, or whether the recommendation of the Committee will be adopted—"That, on the occasion of the next appointment to the Clerkship of the House of Commons, the question of giving additional accommodation to Members and the Press should receive attention."

The new Clerk of the House will occupy the house used by his predecessor, the late Sir Archibald Milman. The change recommended by the Select Committee of 1894 was carried out on the retirement of Sir Reginald Palgrave from the Clerkship of the House two years ago.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an extra force of police, ten in number, has lately been drafted into the district of Dorra and Clare Castle, county Clare; and can he explain the reason for this action, the expense of which is thrown on the district.

The normal police force of this district has been increased by seven (not ten) men in order to afford adequate protection to certain individuals who have been subjected to intimidation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that in June, 1900, the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, issued a memorandum for the purpose of explaining the new Rules, which had come into operation on 1st April, 1900, and which memorandum stated in paragraph four that the teachers would receive the equivalent for a full years results fees for the results year 1900–1901, and having regard to the fact that when the number of pupils qualified for examination had increased in that period, no increase in the equivalent for results fees was given, and that in some such instances the so-called equivalent was less in amount than the previous year's results fees, whether he will take steps to have the payment of the increased equivalent assured to the teachers.

The memorandum of June 1900, dealt with provisional payments, and explained that the payment of consolidated incomes, based on the average incomes of teachers from all State sources for the three preceding financial years, was deferred until after the last day of the month of what had previously been known as the Results period. With this consolidated payment there was to be remitted the equivalent of a full year's results fees. The equivalent was based, as was the total consolidated income, on the average receipts of the teachers in results fees, etc., for the three years ended on the 31st March, 1900, and was not increased or decreased in accordance with the fluctuations of the average attendance during the year 1900–1. All these provisional payments, however, were subject to revision, and in many cases substantial increases have been given on the sums originally voted. The revision of payments is not yet completed. The special circumstances connected with each case, that in equity might be considered as warranting an increase in the amount of the provisional income, are always reviewed before the income is finally fixed by the Commissioners.

Will the equivalent be paid under the new scheme?

This is not a matter that can be discussed by way of Question and answer across the floor of the House. If the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will consider the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the Local Government Board in February, 1900, expressed an opinion that steps should be taken by the Rural District Council of Dungannon to provide the district of Castlecaulfield with a supply of wholesome water; whether a complaint has been made under section 15 of The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896; and whether any steps have been taken in the matter.

The facts are as stated. The delay has been caused by the consideration of the question of area of charge. The Rural District Council desire a small local area, whereas the Local Government Board would not be prepared to depart from the principle of rural or dispensary district rating underlying the Order of l5th May, 1899, the population of Castlecaulfield being only 170. The general question of areas of charge for minor sanitary expenses is at present under consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the question will be definitely settled?

I am doing my best to settle that, but there are great differences of opinion to be dealt with.

Are we to expect any definite reply this year?

I am prepared to make a proposal which I think should commend itself to hon Gentlemen opposite.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at a Local Government Board Inquiry, held at Armagh on 28th December, 1901, concerning the application of trustees for power to acquire lands at Ballymacawley, County Armagh, as site for a national school and teacher's residence, the inspector of the Local Government Board allowed evidence to be tendered as to the necessity for a school in that place, though a school already exists which is largely attended, sanctioned by the Board of National Education, supported by their grants, and under the management of the local Presbyterian clergyman; and whether, in any further proceedings in this case, the above facts will be taken into consideration.

It was shown at the inquiry that the site is required for the erection of new premises for the school at present under local Presbyterian management. The Local Government Board on Friday last issued a Provisional Order authorising the acquisition of the land. The Order will become absolute in a month from the date of publication, unless petitioned against, in which event it will require to be confirmed by an Order in Council.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of lunatics, chargeable to the County Wicklow, confined in Richmond Asylum during the years 1890 to 1902.

I have communicated the figures to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of delay in the carrying out of the scheme for the building of labourers' cottages in the Rathkeale Union, in the County of Limerick.

The Local Government Board, on the 25th January, sanctioned a loan for the provision of 109 cottages and 169 additional allotments. The remaining portion of the approved scheme, which includes 11 cottages and 17 allotments, is before the Privy Council for confirmation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when arranging for the extension of the subsidised tourist service from Tarbert to Glin, he will take into consideration the fact that the tourist steamer, which runs from Kilrush to Tarbert daily from the 1st June to the 30th September, arrived at Tarbert Pier at 10 a.m. and remains there until 3·45 p.m., and that it would be a boon to the public if, instead of this steamer remaining at Tarbert Island 5¾ hours, it proceeded, after landing her passengers at Tarbert, to Glin Pier, and thence to Foynes, to meet the train which arrives from Limerick at Foynes about 11·45 a.m., thus making it possible on the return journey to bring passengers arriving by the Limerick train to Glin, Tarbert, and Kilrush, and would be in time to meet the coach at Tarbert Pier at 3·45 p.m.

I have undertaken to look into this matter, and pending investigation, the hon. Member must not assume that the extension will be authorised. He has, I think, been misinformed on some points upon which I will communicate with him.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Mr. Owen Maguire, principal teacher of Derryoober National School, County Galway, applied recently for a licence to carry a gun; and will he explain why this application was refused.

I have not yet completed my inquiry into the facts of this case. Perhaps the hon. Member will, repeat the question on Monday next.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can assign any reason for the presence, of some hundred or more fully armed police at Glanworth Railway Station last Sunday, when Mrs. Alice Nagle was met and welcomed on her release from Cork County Prison by a number of her friends and neighbours, when, notwithstanding the orderly conduct and demeanour of the people on this occasion, the police persisted in accompanying the people, marching in the middle of the procession from Glanworth to Kildorrery, a distance of over four miles; and if such unusual action on the part of the police on occasions of a similar kind will be discontinued.

The police had reason to believe that the procession would pass the house of an individual who has been subjected to intimidation, and the County Inspector with 40, not 100, men attended in order to preserve the peace. Upon the information before me it appears that some thirteen men only of this additional force were stationed at Glanworth, the remainder being concentrated at the residence of the individual referred to.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Peter Corr, of Drumhowna, County Cavan, entered the C Division of the Dublin Metropolitan Police in January, 1892, and that this policeman was injured whilst arresting a prisoner in Great Britain Street on 27th June, 1894, and confined to hospital for a period of 18 months; is he aware that a Board of three medical doctors examined this man on 12th September, 1896, and can he say what report these doctors made to the Government. And, seeing that this policeman was dismissed from the police on 24th October, 1897, without any cause being given, will he say whether it is usual for a policeman who is injured in the discharge of his duties to be discharged from the service without compensation or pension, and will he take this policeman's case into consideration.

This constable was examined on the 14th September in Cavan by the principal medical officer of the Force, and his own medical attendant. As a result, he was moved to a hospital in Dublin for closer observation. After treatment and prolonged observation in hospital the medical officers of the Force expressed the opinion that he did not suffer from any organic disease and had systematically simulated symptoms from which he did not suffer. He was dismissed from the Force as a malinger in October 1897. There are no grounds for reopening the case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state on what authority the police blocked the road between Barna and Barnane, in the county of Tipperary, on Sunday 26th January, and endeavoured to prevent the people who attended a meeting at Barna from passing along the public road; and, is he aware that on this occasion the police drew their batons and used them on the people end struck the horses under the cars. At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state on what authority the police prevented the people of Drom and Templemore from walking on the public road leading from Drom to Templemore on the 21st January last, when they were accompanying a member of the United Irish League home on his return from addressing a meeting at Drom under the auspices of the United Irish League.

The action of the police on this occasion, as also on the 21st January, to which reference is made in the next question of the hon. Member, will, no doubt, be fully investigated before the magistrates at the hearing of charges for riot and unlawful assembly, arising out of both events, which will be brought before them at Templemore Petty Sessions on Wednesday next. Under the circumstances I am debarred from discussing the matter further.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of extra police drafted into the district of Templemore, in the county of Tipperary; can he explain the reason for this action, having regard to the condition of the said district; and will he state in what districts is this charge to be made.

An extra force of one head constable and thirty men, under the command of a District Inspector, has been drafted into Templemore for the protection of individuals who have been subjected to intimidation, and for the preservation of the public peace. The question of the area of the district to be charged with a moiety of the expense of this force is at present under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the application of James Kinnane for the erection of a dwelling-house, came before the inspector of the Local Government Board at the recent inquiry under the Labourers' Acts held for Thurles Rural District; that the inspector reported that the applicant was a tailor, and therefore not entitled to have the house erected for him; is he aware that Kinnane gave evidence at the inquiry that he had given up working as a tailor, and had been working as an agricultural labourer for years past; has the Local Government Board received a memorial from a number of ratepapers, stating that this man has regularly worked at agricultural labour for the past twelve years; and will the Local Government Board recommend the inclusion of the House for this applicant in the scheme.

The Local Government Board informed the District Council it was prepared to include the application of Kinnane in the Provisional Order, provided the consent of the occupying owner of the site was obtained. This consent was not forthcoming, and the case cannot now be included in the Order, which has been made absolute. The Council may, however, include the application in its next scheme, and if there be no objections on the ground of evidence or site, it will be sanctioned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Lord Lieutenant has received a Resolution passed by the magistrates of the county of Donegal, in quarter sessions at Lifford in the month of January last, as provided by the Ballot Act, requiring the establishment of polling stations for Parliamentary elections at Malin Head and Cabry in the North Donegal division of said county; and whether those responsible will take immediate steps for the confirmation of said Resolution by the Irish Privy Council, in order that effect may be given thereto in the next register of voters for said division.

This matter will be brought before the Privy Council at an early meeting of that Body.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the speech for delivery of which to his constituents the hon. Member for South Ros-common (Mr. Hayden) is now imprisoned in Castlebar Gaol.

The speech of the hon. Member formed only part of the evidence in the case. There is no precedent for adopting such a course and I am not prepared to create one.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is the case that Mr. Hayden, a Member of this House, has been in Castlebar Gaol since Saturday afternoon?

I have had no notice and have no information, but I anticipate it is so.

Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any formal notice of the commitment of Mr. Hayden to gaol?

I have received no information.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of the Thompson tenants in Clonfin, Co. Longford, who in the year 1897 entered into agreements for purchasing their holdings with a Mr. J. A. O'Sullivan, 27, Chancery Lane, London, acting on behalf of the landlords; whether he is aware that, at Mr. O'Sullivan's request, the tenants transmitted to him several payments on account of alleged legal expenses; whether he is aware that on 12th May, 1898, the Scottish Union and National Insurance Company issued a circular to the tenants, stating that Mr. O'Sullivan had no right to enter into any agreements for said sale, and such agreements would not be sanctioned by them; whether any of these agreements were ever lodged with the Land Commission; and, if so, can he explain the delay in proceeding with the sale; whether, seeing that this solicitor was subsequently adjudicated bankrupt, will he take steps to bring the solicitor's conduct to the notice of the proper authorities.

No proceedings for the purchase of this estate have been taken in this matter to the Land Commission. If Mr. O'Sullivan has been guilty of any professional misconduct, the parties aggrieved should communicate with the Incorporated Law Society of England if he be an English solicitor, and with the corresponding Society of Ireland if he be an Irish solicitor. If they allege that he has been guilty of any crime, they should communicate with the police, and make information before a magistrate. I have no further information on the matter mentioned, nor power to interfere in them at the present stage.

Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired into this case at all? He has not answered one single part of the Question on the Paper.

The hon. Member fails to understand that this is a matter affecting a private individual with whom the law officers of the Crown have at present no right to interfere.

But surely the tenants have a right to complain of the action of the Department?

It is not the action of the Department. No proceedings have been taken by the Department whatever.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state about what time the building of the Royal College of Science will be commenced in Merrian Street, Dublin; whether he is aware of the scarcity of employment in Dublin; and whether the plans are prepared, and by whom.

I am unable to give any date for the commencement of the building. The plans arc not yet prepared and cannot be begun until Parliament has made provision for the building.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that inconvenience is caused to the inhabitants of Tulla, County Clare, by the non-delivery until the following day of the letters which reach Limerick at 10 a.m. every morning, and whether arrangements could be made whereby a midday delivery would be effected, seeing that this advantage is enjoyed by the residents in the neighbouring town of Quin.

The Postmaster General is aware that there is no second post to Tulla, County Clare, and he has considered the question of establishing such a service. He regrets, however, that in view of the relatively high cost of the existing service he would not be justified in incurring the expense involved in providing additional facilities.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a meeting of postal servants held in Dublin recently, and to the resolutions which were then passed, and whether, in view of the feeling existing, he will grant an inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the recent Corcoran defalcations out of which the alleged imputations on the staff by the Controller were made; and whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence which took place in that investigation.

The Postmaster General's attention has been called to the meeting referred to. In view of the fact that all the circumstances connected with the Corcoran defalcations were very fully and carefully investigated at the time, the Postmaster General does not consider that any further inquiry is necessary. The Papers connected with the case contain confidential reports, and the Postmaster General cannot lay them on the Table.

I shall put another Question on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in reference to the Cork General Post Office, whether the female telegraphists in that office who entered in 1893, and who hold Civil Service Certificates since 1897, and who are doing appointed clerks' duty but not appointed themselves, will be entitled to the privileges of appointed clerks such as full pay when on sick leave; and whether the number of years of unappointed service will be counted in the case of pension or marriage portion.

The hon. Member is understood to refer to two women learners at Cork; so long as they are unestablished they will not be entitled to more than two-thirds pay when on sick leave; the only portion of their unappointed service which could be counted in the case of pension would be the period of full time service immediately previous to and continuous with their appointed service. Marriage gratuities are calculated on established service only, but the periods of full time unappointed service would be allowed to count towards the qualifying period of six years necessary to entitle an officer to be awarded such a gratuity.

What is the cause of the long delay in the appointment?

I think I have already answered a Question as to this. If not I must ask for notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, owing to the present arrangements for the delivery of mails in the Kilfree, Co. Sligo, postal district, letters cannot be replied to on day of delivery; whether a petition bearing on this matter has been received by the Dublin postal authorities; and whether, in the interests of public convenience, the Postmaster General will consider the advisability of having the present delivery arrangements altered.

The Postmaster General is aware that there is no evening collection of letters at Kilfree, Co. Sligo. A petition for such a collection was received by the Dublin postal authorities some time ago, but on inquiry it was found that, in view of the high cost of the existing service as compared with the amount of correspondence, the expense of affording an evening collection at Kilfree was not warranted. A collection is made at about 5.30. p.m. from a letter box at Tansey Cross, some two miles from Kilfree.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to a meeting of the Limerick Chamber of Commerce in which it was stated that the accommodation at the General Post Office, Limerick, was both bad and unhealthy; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made in order to remedy any defects that may exist.

A newpaper report only of the meeting referred to has been seen. The Limerick Post Office is small, and is about to be enlarged; but there is no reason to suppose that it is unhealthy. Further inquiry will he made on the subject.

When may we expect the enlargement to commence?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the parcel post despatches from Rosscarbery during the months of October, November and December of last year were in excess of the parcel post despatches from every other town in Ireland of equal population; whether, seeing that there is a large correspondence between it and the different centres in England and elsewhere, steps will be taken to establish a second daily delivery of letters in that town.

The Postmaster General is aware that the parcel post business at Rosscarbery is considerable, but as regards the question of establishing a second post to that place he is unable at present to add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 30th of January.†

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that an application, largely signed by the ratepayers of Ramsgrange and the surrounding

† See (4) Debates, ci., 1346.

neighbourhood, was made for a telegraph office at Ramsgrange; and whether, seeing that the usual guarantee, as required by the Postmaster General, was offered, he can state on what grounds the telegraph office was refused.

The Postmaster General is aware of the application for a telegraph office at Ramsgrange to which the hon. Member refers, and he has also received a copy of a resolution passed by the Wexford County Council on the same subject. The grounds on which he has been unable to accede to the application are that there is already a telegraph office at Arthurstown, only a mile and a half distant, and that the telegraph business of the locality is not at present sufficient to justify two offices. The Returns which have been taken show that only about two telegrams a week are now sent which would be handed in at Ramsgrange instead of at Arthurstown.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the people of Ramsgrange and Hook parishes are inconvenienced in the matter of the delivery of letters owing to the fact that they are at present in the Waterford postal district; and whether he will consider the advisability of amalgamating said parishes with the Wexford postal system, as suggested by the Wexford County Council at their last meeting.

The Postmaster General has repeatedly considered the question of transferring Ramsgrange and other places in the neighbourhood from the Waterford postal area to the Wexford postal area, and has explained to the Wexford County Council that it would not be practicable, if the transfer were made, to afford so good a service as that at present provided. He can hold out no hope that the suggestion of the County Council will be adopted, but he has directed some further inquiry to be made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in settling the terms of reference to the Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, he will consider the desirability of including the practicability of extending the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to other parts of the United Kingdom.

The plan which my hon. friend suggests, and other plans for the re-arrangement of Private Bill Legislation, may properly engage the attention of any Committee appointed to investigate the subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the continuance among a section of the clergy of certain doctrines and practices, he will, in accordance with the terms of the Government Amendment of 10th May, 1899,† either himself introduce legislation without further delay, in order to maintain the observance of the laws of Church and Realm, or give full and early facilities for the discussion of the Bill to make further provision for enforcing discipline in case of offences committed by clergymen, which was read a first time on 28th January last.

I have no official information bearing out the allegation which forms the premiss of the hon. Member's Question. As far as I know, this House has never dealt with the question of doctrine. It has always concerned itself with the practice of the clergy, and not with doctrine. The hon. Member would hardly suggest that I should add to the already heavy load of work which we have to get through this session by introducing so controversial a measure.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will cause information to be collected

† See (4) Debates lxxi, 243.

and published as to the practice of Foreign Parliaments in dealing with Estimates; and whether he will initiate a system whereby the Estimates of the public departments should be examined by a Committee or Committees of the House before presentation to Parliament, approximating as far as possible to the procedure of the Public Accounts Committee after the money has been spent.

The hon. Member proposes that I should initiate a system whereby the Estimates of the Public Departments should be examined by a Committee of the House. The propriety or possibility of that plan is one of the things, and indeed, probably the main thing, which the Committee that the Government intend to appoint will have to consider. Therefore it would be absurd to suggest that the Government should themselves initiate, such a system until they have the Report of the Committee before them. If that Committee should desire any information with regard to the practice of foreign Parliaments, the Government will do their best to obtain it; but, speaking for myself, I doubt whether our conditions are sufficiently analogous to systems in foreign countries to make such information of much value.

They to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will assent to the Return relating to Bills committed to a Standing Committee, which appears on the Paper.

There is no objection to the Return desired by my noble friend.

What class of Supply will be taken on Friday?

We propose to take the Navy Votes—that is to say, to move the Speaker out of the Chair.

Will that be before the Naval Supplementary Estimates?

Yes, Sir.

I was, I need hardly say, an attentive listener to the debate which took place upon the Question put last Friday night, "that the words in the existing Standing Order stand part of the Question." That debate turned almost entirely—not quite, but almost entirely—upon the subject of the apology to be given by a Member before resuming his seat after having disobeyed the order of the Chair. I have heard all the arguments urged, not entirely from one side of the House, but from both sides of the House I quite admit, against the proposals of the Government. I heard it argued that it was a humiliation to which Members ought not to be exposed, but I confess, though it might be so, I am unable to see how an apology for disregarding Mr. Speaker's ruling can be regarded as a humiliation by any hon. Member of this House. I have heard it described by a small section of the House as an attack by the majority upon the minority. I can only say that that was not the intention with which the Rule was framed, and, if any Member on this side of the House or above the gangway on the other side, were guilty of disregarding the ruling of Mr. Speaker, I should rejoice to see him excluded from our deliberations until he apologised. I have heard a great many arguments of undue subtlety on the morality or immorality of the various declarations connected with an apology—a discussion which really reduces the House almost to the level of the 17th century casuists. I have heard it stated also that the Rule and its application would disfranchise the constituency whose Member refused to apologise. That argument also leaves me quite cold. I believe the whole feeling of the House and of the country to be that if a Member disgraces us and his constituency, and if the Member then will not apologise and is excluded from our deliberations, he has brought that exclusion on himself. Therefore, I am not at all influenced by the general tenour of the arguments which we have heard in the debate which concluded last week, but I have, nevertheless, to announce to the House to-day that we propose to make an alteration, an important alteration, in the Standing Order. That alteration is in the nature of limita- tion; in the nature of a limit to the time during which a Member can exclude himself from the deliberations of this House, and I will explain to the House how we have come to that opinion, and the character of the alteration which we suggest for the acceptance of the House. I venture to lay down two principles which ought to govern the House in dealing with questions of this kind. In the first place, any Standing Order we adopt—in order to work, when once it is adopted, smoothly and automatically—ought not to be allowed, when it is put in force, unfortunately put in force, to lead to controversial or prolonged debate on difficult or embarassing questions. That is my first proposition; my second proposition is, that under no Standing Order of this House ought it to be possible for the decision of this House, come to under the Standing Order, to be rejected, or in any way affected by the action of any outside body or authority whatsoever. If this House decides that a Member of this House ought not to take part in its deliberations under certain circumstances, we ought not to tolerate the constituency which he represents, or any other body, saving, "You have indeed decided that this Member shall not take part in your deliberations until he apologises, but we think otherwise, and we have the power to send him back among you, purged, not indeed of his offence, but of any penalty which that offence might carry with it." This proposition will, I think, be probably accepted by both sides of the House; by those most opposed to the apology, and those agreeing with us like the hon and gallant Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire, the hon. Member for North Islington, the hon. Member for Durham, and others, who have spoken powerfully and ably in defence of the principles which animated, and still animate, our policy. Now I want to explain to the House as clearly as I can how these two governing principles would be violated if we were to keep the Rule precisely in the form in which it is on the Paper, and in order to make it perfectly clear to the House I must explain two points which, taken in combination, have introduced a difficulty which necessitated some change in the framing of the Rule. Let me first remind the House what is the Practice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds. The Chiltern Hundreds is, perhaps, the most curious of the many curious survivals in our Parliamentary constitution and Parliamentary practice. As every Member is aware, no Parliamentary representative has it in his power, on his own initiative, to resign. The acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds is a dodge which was discovered in the middle of the 18th century, by which the immemorial Rule of Parliament, that a man could not resign, was evaded, and which gave the necessary elasticity and alleviation of the Rules; and ever since that date, although the Rule that a Member may not resign has remained in undiminished force, it has always been got out of by this curious practice of taking an office of emolument under the Crown, an office which carries with it no emolument, and which is not, except in any but the most technical sense, under the Crown at all. Gradually the practice has grown up that the Chiltern Hundreds cannot be refused on Party or political grounds. An hon. Member, to whichever side he belongs, can apply with equal facility to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Chiltern Hundreds, and with equal certainty of his request being granted But there is one exception which has always been in operation, and that is this: If the House desires to retain its control over a Member, then the Chiltern Hundreds can be, and, in my opinion, ought to be, refused. All of us have seen examples in which that refusal has been made, and the Member has been compelled, against his will, to remain a Member of this Assembly. That is the first point; the second point is this: a Member who has received the Chiltern Hundreds, and who is, therefore, not a Member of this House, has a right to seek re-election in his own constituency or in any other, and after re-election has a right to come to the House, and—I do not say with absolute certainty, but probably—to present himself at the Table to be sworn. That is a question upon which I do not pronounce myself with absolute security. The House is aware of the great controversy all through the prolonged debates it had with regard to Mr. Brad- laugh. The law of Parliament has probably been correctly laid down by Speaker Peel, that every man, duly elected, has a statutory right to present himself at the Table to be sworn, and it was under that ruling that Mr. Bradlaugh, in the new Parliament of, I think it was 1886—[A Voice: "1885"]—of 1885, presented himself at this Table to be sworn. Then, Sir, having reminded the House of those two sets of circumstances, I ask them to consider how they work in combination. Let us, for example, take an extreme case, as it is by extreme cases that Rules are best tested. Let us suppose a Member has been suspended under this Standing Order for 20 days; that the 20 days elapse, and the Member announces that he does not see fit to apologise to the House because he has disregarded the ruling of Mr. Speaker. The Standing Order, no doubt, says in general terms that he shall not resume his seat until he has apologised; but my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds the view which will probably recommend itself to most of those who hear me, that this is somewhat too indefinite in its character to justify the refusal to a Member of the Chiltern Hundreds, because the exclusion might run not only for a session, but the succeeding session, and the session after that, until seven sessions had been reached. Personally, I should have no objection to an exclusion for that length of time, if a man was deliberately bent on excluding himself by refusing to apologise. If he chose to exclude himself, I see no particular reason against his not being allowed to carry out his own wishes. But under the principles which guide the bestowal of the Chiltern Hundreds, there is no definite limit fixed, and my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer holds that the Chiltern Hundreds might be granted, and the result might be that, while this House might say, "The hon. Member for So-and-so is not to take part in the deliberations of this House until he has apologised," the Gentleman might resign and be re-elected. If he sat for a loyal seat, I do not think he would have much chance of being returned.

What is a "loyal seat," I should like to know? We are loyal to our country.

I was alluding in this case to a seat which has returned an avowed traitor.

It did not return a Government hack.

If a Member sat for a scat of that character he might resign and come back a week afterwards, not having apologised, but, having been re-elected, he might take part in the proceedings of the House. I do not think that would be a proper position to put Parliament in. I do not think it would be right. There is another point I wish the House to remember. There is no doubt that under Mr. Speaker Peel's ruling the Member could take the oath. It is not absolutely certain what the Member does under this Rule after he takes the oath. It certainly would be competent for a Member to rise in his place and suggest that as the hon. Member had not yet obeyed the Standing Order he should be excluded again, and thus raise the long and controversial debates which many of us remember to have been raised in Mr. Bradlaugh's case. Therefore, there are two reasons why I do not think it right to allow a Gentleman who has refused to apologise to this House for having disregarded the ruling of Mr. Speaker, to go to his constituents and ask them to reverse the decision of this House. I hope I have now made quite clear to Gentlemen in all parts of the House exactly where the difficulty lies in connection with this Standing Order— a difficulty which all must feel, whatever their views may be on the question of the apology. The way to meet it appears not difficult to my mind, though it necessitates a limitation of the Rule. If the period during which a Member could be excluded from this House were definitely laid down in the Standing Order, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give the Member the Chiltern Hundreds even if asked to do so until that period had expired, and there would be no chance whatever of any collision between the constituency and the House, or any difficulty such as I have suggested either in connection with the Member re-taking his seat, or with the debates that might be consequent thereupon. What, then, is the period it would be desirable to lay down in the Standing Order as that beyond which a Member should not be allowed to exclude himself from the service of the House by refusing to apologise? [Laughter.] Well, I cannot imagine a much more accurate way of putting it. The old methods by which the House dealt with its recalcitrant Members were, of course, much harsher and more summary than anything which would be tolerated nowadays. We do not imprison Members; we do not ask them to apologise on their knees; we do not endeavour to injure them either in purse or in person, or to subject them to any humiliation whatever. But we have, of course, to deal with recalcitrant Members. The severest sentence the House has power to pass on a Member is that laid down by the Standing Orders of last session, under which a Member who forcibly resists the ruling of the Chair is excluded for the period of a whole session—or possibly for the period of a whole session—from the service of the House. I do not think that that length of time ought to be exceeded in the Standing Order now proposed. As the House knows, in the form of the Standing Order we have placed on the Paper we do not go by sessions; we go by the number of days, which are irrespective of adjournments, holidays, or prorogations. Taking a session as averaging about 120 days, we propose to lay down that the time during which a Member might be unable to serve in this House through refusing to apologise, should under no circumstances exceed 120 days. The result of that would be, of course, that there could be no collision with constituencies, no long debates, no friction in the working of this Rule. I think, if it were ever called into effect—which I trust it would not be—it would work perfectly smoothly, though I may perhaps be allowed here to express my conviction that when the Rule is actually in force there is not a Member sitting in any quarter of this House, or belonging to any Party, who would feel that either his interest, or his dignity, was injured by having to express through Mr. Speaker his regret at having refused to obey the ruling of the Chair. I hope I have now made clear both the main modification we propose to the Rule and the reasons which have induced us to adopt it. The subject is rather complicated, and requires two or three different lines of argument, but, if I have succeeded in making clear what those lines of argument are, both the modification and the reasons for it will have made themselves evident to every Member. Before I sit down, may I also say that we think we can meet some of the minor objections to the Rule, and, by certain emendations which I will explain to the House, make it more acceptable to those who accept its general principle. It has been suggested that, though this apology has always been defended by the Government and its supporters on the ground that the apology was for disregarding the ruling of the Chair, it was possible that a Member might be suspended for something which did not involve disregard of the ruling of the Chair. That has never happened. I do not believe there is a single case in our Parliamentary history in which that has occurred, and I do not think it ever would or could happen. But, in order to make it quite clear that it never shall happen, we propose to make the paragraph read—

"If a Member is suspended under this Order for disregarding the authority of the Chair."

Those last words are new, and they make perfectly clear what has always, been the intention of the Government. Then there is one other change which we have introduced. It has been suggested that while, under the Standing Order as it stands Mr. Speaker would have no doubt in informing the House when an adequate apology or an obviously derisive apology had been made, there might be a middle state in which he would have to submit the question to the House. That would, I suppose, lend itself to debate, and I cannot imagine a more unprofitable subject of discussion. We, therefore, propose that Mr. Speaker should be the sole judge of whether or not the apology to the House is sufficient. There has also been taken an objection with which I confess I do not greatly sympathise—to the words "sincere regret." Some Members dislike the word "regret"; some dislike the word "sincere"; and others object to both "sincere" and "regret." We propose, therefore, to substitute for "sincere regret," the words "adequate apology." [Nationalist laughter.] I quite understand that that will give no satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it may ease some tender consciences on this side of the House. Then—it is a mere matter of drafting—the words at the end of the first paragraph we propose to put at the end of the second paragraph. The House will see, when I read the whole of the two paragraphs, how they run—

"If a Member be suspended under this Order his suspension on the first occasion in any session shall continue until the expiration of the next 20 days on which the House sits; on the second occasion until the expiration of the next 40 days on which the House sits; and on the third or any subsequent occasion, until the expiration of the next 80 days on which the House sits.

"If a Member is suspended under this Order, for disregarding the authority of the Chair, his suspension shall, notwithstanding the expiration of the aforesaid days, continue until the Speaker certifies to the House that he has received from him, in writing, an adequate apology to the House; provided that the total period of suspension shall in no case exceed 120 days. The number of days of suspension shall be reckoned irrespectively of any prorogation or adjournment."

I hope the House will forgive me for what is a rather long and perhaps somewhat complicated statement, but I trust that at all events I have made it perfectly clear what it is we propose to do and why it is we propose to do it.

I do not know whether the Question is before the House.

The Question is, "That these words be there inserted."

We have listened to a speech which I think is almost the most remarkable we have heard during recent times. The first observation I would make upon it is that it is an absolute and entire justification of the prolonged and full debate that we have had of this proposal. Besides what I may call a preliminary canter, we have had two full nights of debate, with a large number of Members on each side offering themselves whenever there was an opportunity, and at the end of the second night the debate was closured by the Government. If it had been allowed to go on for another night, Heaven only knows what further concessions would have been made. The right hon. Gentleman expresses himself as having not been in the least degree affected by all the speeches that were made. He is as fond of the apology as before, he sees in it no harm or degradation to anyone, he thinks it absolutely necessary for the dignity and honour of the House. In giving a sort of retrospect of the debate, he admitted—I think this will have been observed by the House—that there were strong opinions expressed on both sides against the proposal of the Government, but he said there were his hon. friends—and he named three Members—and others who supported it. Who were the others? Those whom—with great precision of memory—he named as having supported the proposal of the Government, happen to have been, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the only Members on that side of the House who did support it. The whole of that process leaves the right hon. Gentleman entirely unmoved, but on looking into the question he comes upon a fact which really lies on the surface—viz., the position of the offending Member with his constituency and the relation of this House with that constituency; and he drew a picture of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, unable to decide whether or not an hon. Member ought to receive the Ghiltern Hundreds if he applies for them. Now it appears that the solution of the difficulty is to be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should defer granting the Chiltern Hundreds until a certain period has elapsed; then he is to give this office to the Member, and enable him to stand again. Thereupon, owing to the term having elapsed, this terribly contumacious offender, who has committed a crime which the right hon. Gentleman appears to think ought to exclude him altogether from the society of Members of the House, is to be allowed to come back again, after all, without having purged himself of the offence which we were told was so heinous as to be absolutely intolerable—he is to come back, sit with us, and take his part among the Members of the House. Why, Sir, the proposal originally brought forward had not, as the debate showed, a leg to stand upon, but the right hon. Gentleman has compromised even the leg that he thought it had to stand upon. The whole argument goes with this so-called concession of allowing the Member to come back at all.

It is not a concession.

This disqualification, if it ever existed, must remain as a permanent disqualification until the hon. Member removes it by his own action, that is to say, by submitting himself and making an apology; and this disqualification the right hon. Gentleman proposes to remove after 120 days. It is difficult on the first blush of a thing to realise what the result of the thing will be. But the right hon. Gentleman does not stop there. He admits—and here again we have evidence of the good effect of a lengthened debate upon the mind even of a pertinacious Minister—that he has discovered that there are two things that may provoke the suspension of a Member, the disregarding of the authority of the Chair, and the abusing of the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House or otherwise. We have pointed out again and again, although it was always personal disregard of the Chair that was put forward, that that did not exhaust the matter, for it went much further. There are other matters which are offences, although they have not the same personal significance that may be attached to disregarding the authority of the Chair, but which are more important almost from a Parliamentary point of view than the others. There is to be no apology for these offences. An hon. Member may abuse the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business, and there is to be no apology; he is only to have the punishment of suspension; and it is only in the case of disregarding the Speaker's orders that he is to be subject to this indignity of having to make a public apology. I have said that it is difficult to realise what the exact bearing of these proposals may be. If they are to immediately come before us, they would almost justify the moving of the adjournment of the House. [Opposition cries of "Hear, hear!"] I do not know whether that is the view of hon. Members behind me as to what ought to be done. [Opposition cheers and cries of "Yes."] I think safety will probably be found in having an opportunity for the calm consideration of this change, and therefore I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.

I do ask the House of Commons to pause before they enter upon this matter. It is perfectly plain from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there is in this proposal a most important constitutional question involved. The right hon. Gentleman has, by his speech, made this a reproduction of the contest in the case of Wilkes against the House of Commons. It is the very same case. It is the claim of the House of Commons to refuse to a constituency for a certain period the right to choose its Member, and I may venture to say that as long as this sort of thing goes on that contest will be continued. As to the question of the Chiltern Hundreds, why, Sir, in the earlier part of this debate I addressed that consideration to the right hon. Gentleman. However, he took no notice of it. Is it worth while in dealing with this question of procedure that we should open this great constitutional problem? Let me put this case to the House—