I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why the Rev. Mr. Weich, a British subject, and the Dutch Reformed minister of Bethesda, in Cape Colony, who was deported many months ago to Port Alfred, and has never been charged with or tried for any offence, is still detained; and will he state whether it is intended either to try or to liberate the Rev. Mr. Radloff, a British subject, and the Dutch Reformed minister of Pearston, in Cape Colony, who was arrested in March of last year, and kept for three months in gaol at Graaff Reinet, and finally, there being no evidence of any offence againt him, was deported to Port Alfred, where he is still detained.

I have no information on the points raised in the Question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire in South Africa, or are we to understand that this House has no control whatever over treatment under military law in that country?

The House has complete control, but in these cases the military authorities are the best judges as to what course to take.

Then the House has no control.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that two British subjects, who have recently come to this country from Cape Colony with the full permission of the base commandant at Cape Town, were, on coining on board the ship "Persic," taken into the captain's cabin by a military officer and stripped naked, on the ground that they must be searched, and whether he will take steps to prevent any such treatment in the future of British subjects against whom there is no charge.

I have no information as to the incident referred to in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state when the promised Return, including information as to the proceedings of the court-martial which condemned Commandant Scheepers, will be issued to Members, and if such Return will state the circumstances attending the execution of Commandant Scheepers and his condition of health at that time.

The Return will, I hope, shortly be ready. The reply to the second sentence is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will request Lord Kitchener to furnish a statement of the circumstances attending the execution of Commandant Scheepers on the 18th January.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member yesterday.†

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any despatch of Lord Kitchener, previous to that of Saturday, contained a suggestion or request that its publication should be delayed or the contents modified.

No, Sir; but I have received requests at different times from Lord Kitchener that caution should be exercised as regards the publication of despatches in any case in which there is doubt.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the success of the Boers announced yesterday, he can state what measures are being taken, or contemplated to he taken, to send Lord Kitchener further large reinforcements,

† See page 868.

Reinforcements are continually reaching Lord Kitchener, and some 6,000 Yeomanry will be embarked in the course of next month. A large number of drafts, both cavalry and infantry are also ready. A full supply of horses is being kept up. Lord Kitchener will have all assistance for which he may ask.

Are any special reinforcements going out on account of the disaster announced yesterday?

I do not think that any special reinforcements are required beyond the very large ones already arranged for.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what provision was made between July and December, 1900, to give shelter and food to the numbers of women and children turned out by the burning or destruction of their homes during those months, and in what places and in what way this provision was made; whether any correspondence passed between Lord Kitchener and Her late Majesty's Government during these months as to the provision to be made for such persons turned out in clearing the country; and, if so, at what dates were such communications made.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on Friday last on this subject.†

Will the right hon. Gentleman not publish the correspondence asked for in the second part of the Question.

No, Sir; I have explained repeatedly that what was done was a matter of military necessity, and that Lord Kitchener made such arrangements as were possible.

† See page 711.

I think information ought to be obtained on this point.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Yeomanry regiments which, through their headquarters, furnished contingents to the Imperial Yeomanry for service in South Africa, will he permitted to bear upon their crests and regimental badges the names of battle clasps won by their respective contingents.

The privilege of hearing upon the crests and regimental badges the names of battle clasps is only conferred upon units whose headquarters were present at the action concerned. I am afraid it would not be feasible to extend this privilege in the direction suggested.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in March,1884, Mr. Isaac Joel, of the firm of Barnato & Co., was arrested in Kimberley on a charge of illicit diamond buying, but was released on bail and then fled from South Africa; that his bail of £4,000 was estreated in the Kimberley Special Court on 27th May, 1884; that the Metropolitan Police, in July and August, 1884, circulated a woodcut portrait of this gentleman in the Police Gazette; also that Chief Justice Sir H. De Villiers, on 5th May, 1885, in the case of Barnato v. Editor of the Cape Argus, stated that it was quite clear that by one Isaac Joel an offence was committed, referring to the above charge; and whether this gentleman, or his brother Solomon, the other partner in the firm of Barnato Brothers, has been accepted by His Majesty's Government as a guarantor for the new meat contract in South Africa.

As regards Mr. Isaac Joel I have no information in these matters. Mr. S. Joel is a director of the Imperial Supply and Cold Storage Company.

Is it not the case that this person was not arrested because the warrant for his arrest was withdrawn at the instance of his partner, Mr. Rhodes?

I know nothing of that.

Is it not the fact that Mr. Joel is one of those whose names were given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman as a guarantor of the meat contract on behalf of one of the companies concerned, and why was not this statement given to the House at the time?

was understood to reply that the name was given to the House.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the company which is to carry out the Bergl contract has yet been registered; and, if so, when and where; and whether the incorporators are the persons who originally undertook that such a company should be formed.

The company has been registered at Pretoria. I am not aware whether the persons who originally undertook to form the company, as shown in the paper presented to Parliament, were technically the "Incorporators," but the persons whose names I mentioned to the House are carrying through the company.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that in May, 1900, a Maxim gun was presented to, His Majesty's Government by Mr. Logan, a member of the Cape Legislative Council, and that Mr. Logan, on 23rd May, 1900, sent a telegram to Colonel Spence Douglas stating that he would pay the men using such gun a bonus of £1 for every rebel shot, but that he should deduct 25 per cent. for all prisoners taken, he has information whether this offer was communicated to the men working this gun.

As stated to the House in 1900, Mr. Logan presented a Maxim gun to the corps (the Duke of Edinburgh's Volunteer Rifles) commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Spence, who was killed at Douglas. I have no information as to the telegram mentioned.

May I ask whether, as the proceedings mentioned in this Question were conducted under the guise of loyalism, the noble Lord will endeavour to unmask them.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Colonel of the 3rd West Riding Regiment, in September, 1901, gave orders that a dry canteen should be established at Victoria West Road, because of the rates for provisions charged to soldiers by the only store keeper in that district, one Shaw, and that a dry canteen was established, when provisions were sold to the soldiers at prices 200 per cent. less than charged by Shaw; that shortly afterwards the Commandant of Victoria West Road received a telegram from a Mr. Logan, a Member of the Cape Legislative Council, claiming damages at the rate of £500 per month by reason of such store having been opened on his land; whether Mr. Logan has any contract with His Majesty's Government for provisions for the troops; and if he will ascertain if the store at Victoria West Road was in point of fact the property of Mr. Logan.

I have no information on this matter, but it is believed that Mr. Logan has secured from the Cape Government a monopoly of the supply of refreshments at all railway stations in Cape Colony.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will inform the House what are the terms of reference on which the Court of Inquiry into the administration of the Remount Department are conducting their inquiry.

had a similar Question on the Paper.

The terms of reference were as follow—

"The court will take evidence on oath, and carefully consider the following matters, and will record their opinion on the various questions raised.

"The court will consider the administration of the Remounts Department since the appointment of Major General Truman as Inspector General of Remounts, January, 1899, and report—

"1. Whether the purchase of horses at home and abroad has been conducted on the best system for the public service;

"2. Whether the officers selected for purchasing remounts at home and abroad were suitable and competent;

"3. Whether the arrangements for shipments of the remounts as they arrived at the ports of embarkation were satisfactory;

"4. Whether the arrangements for the care of the animals during the voyage were in all respects complete, and whether the conducting officers, veterinary surgeons, and attendants accompanying the ships were competent and satisfactory;

"5. Whether, in cases where the condition of the animals on landing was found to be unsatisfactory, prompt and sufficient measures were taken to prevent the recurrence of the evils reported;

"6. Whether a regular system of reports, detailing whether the proper stamp of animals had been provided for the particular services required of them, was called for as a guidance to the relative value of the various sources of supply;

"7. Whether, in cases of alleged fraud or negligence, effective measures were recommended for dealing with those concerned;

"8. Whether, in view of the large demand on the Department, proper care was taken to obtain all available information as to sources of supply;

"9. Whether, allowing for the great strain on the Department, due care and ability were shown in dealing with the demand for remounts."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Agent General of New South Wales offered the Remount Department or the War Office from 1,000 to 3,000 suitable horses at about sixteen guineas for a cavalry horse, thirty guineas for an artillery horse, and twelve guineas for a horse for mounted infantry; and, if so, what reply was sent to him, and how many horses purchased.

The offer was made as stated in the Question in August, 1900, and on the 17th of that month a reply was sent to the effect that only a small number of animals were being purchased in Australia at that time, and those for the Indian Government; but the offer was communicated to the Remount Officer in Australia, who was directed to put himself in communication with Mr. Willis in view of the further supply which might be required.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what districts in England have been visited during February for the purchase of horses for Africa, and what quantities have been purchased, and why no horses were bought in the Spalding district when recently visited by the War Office buyers.

Forty-seven places in England were visited by purchasing officers in February, and 1,906 horses were purchased. An officer visited Spalding, but found the horses shown there to be unsuitable for Army purposes in South Africa.

Were they not better than the wretched animals sent from Hungary?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the supply of horses being always equal to the demand from South Africa, can he state who was responsible for the monthly average demand of 10,000 horses being allowed to fall to 2,000 during October and November, 1900; were the orders to purchase remounts also reduced or stopped at that date; if so, can he state what orders were issued to the Remount Department at that time, and the dates of such orders.

Will the right hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a similar question put by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen on Thursday, 27th February.†

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether boots made in India for the use of the British Army are subject to the same standard of examination as British-made boots undergo at the Government Clothing Stores at Pimlico; and if so, will he say where that examination takes place.

The inspection is as rigid as that at Pimlico, and takes, place in India.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, on or after 1st April, 1902, all non-commissioned officers and men of every branch of the service will, if qualified as stipulated, receive an addition of 2d. to their present daily pay; and whether, on and after 1st April, 1904, all non-commissioned officers, and men of every branch of the service will, if permitted to re-engage to complete eight years with the colours and four years with the reserve, receive a further addition of 6d. to their then daily pay.

The reply to both Questions is the affirmative. The last paragraph is subject to the conditions as to deduction for shooting or bad conduct, which I named to the House on Tuesday last. My hon. friend will understand that the expression "every branch of the service" means every branch of the regular service.

Are the Militiamen to get the extra 2d.?

was understood to reply that this hardly applied to their case. The object of the new arrangement was to induce soldiers to prolong their service with the colours.

† See preceding volume, p. 1273

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state if the extra 6d. a day will be given during embodiment to Militiamen of two years or more service.

The extra 6d. is intended to encourage mea to extend their service, in order to maintain a constant supply of drafts to the regiments abroad. This argument would hardly apply to the Militia, even when embodied.

Is it intended to give the extra 2d. a day to the Militia?

I should not like to answer that Question without notice.

I Leg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the enlistment of the Imperial Yeomanly was carried out by officers of the Medical Army Department or by local private practitioners necessarily unfamiliar with the details of the standard required for Regulars; whether he is aware that in the printed instructions issued there was a paragraph which stated that there was no need to reject men for minor defects and deformities, as the standard need not be so high as for Regulars and whether these instructions were seen and sanctioned by the Director General of the Army Medical Department before being issued.

In consequence of the absence of a large proportion of the officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps in South Africa, the bulk of the men were examined by local practitioners. Instructions were issued that the conditions required of a recruit enlisting for the full term of service in the Army might be modified. Instructions were issued to the effect that if the recruit was free from organic disease or other serious defect likely to prevent him from working during the continuance of the campaign, he might be accepted. I have not been able to trace whether the late Director General was consulted, but the question was rather military than medical.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recent vaccination prosecutions at Hinckley, in Leicestershire, where, notwithstanding the protests of the defendants as to the legal sufficiency of the summonses, fines were imposed on the advice of the magistrate's clerk, under section 29 of The Vaccination Act, 1867, and, in default of payment by the defendants, their houses were entered and their goods seized, while in other cases the defendants paid the fines under duress; whether he is aware that subsequently the clerk of the magistrates discovered that the defence was a good one, that the cases did not come within the said Act, and that the convictions were illegal, and that the Chairman of the Bench, on a later day, announced in Court that this was the case, but although he was empowered to do so under section 31 of the same Act, refused to give any of the defendants their costs, or the fair compensation provided for under this section; whether, having regard to the hardship inflicted on these defendants, he can see his way to indemnify or reimburse them for the expenses they have been put to, and for the damage they have sustained by the seizure of their goods, and what other steps he proposes to take in the matter.

I have inquired into this case, and have received a very full explanation, which is too long to embody in an answer to a Question. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that I am quite satisfied that there is no reason for any action on my part.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any official information showing the number of men in England and Wales employed in manufacturing trades carried on day and night, who work seven days a week; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiry to be made.

The Board of Trade have no official information which would enable me to give the figures asked for, and an inquiry such as is suggested would involve much time and labour, and would probably not yield satisfactory results. If, however, the hon. Member will communicate with the Board of Trade, they will endeavour to see how it is possible to institute an inquiry of more limited scope which may perhaps serve the purpose which he has in view.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Solicitor General, as a member of the Committee appointed on 20th May, 1900, by the Board of Trade to inquire into the working of the Patent Acts, presented a Minority Report, which Report, owing to his illness, was not appended to the printed Report of the Committee dated 10th January, 1901; and whether there is any objection to such Minority Report of the Solicitor General being now printed and laid upon the Table of the House.

My right hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, as stated in the Report of the Committee, was prevented by indisposition from signing the Report and from appending any note to it. Subsequent to the publication of the Report he communicated to me the note (I cannot call it a Minority Report) which he had intended should be appended to the Report itself, and which, he informs me, he had previously submitted to the Committee. I shall be happy to lay the note upon the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a recent judgment in the High Court on the subject of blended butter, by which it was decided that butter containing the utmost quantity of water which it can be made to hold can be still sold as a genuine article if an announcement, which may never catch his eye, is made to the purchaser of the percentage of water contained in it; whether he will consider the propriety of making a regulation, under section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, which shall define the proportion of water in butter which shall raise the presumption that the article is not genuine, and protect ignorant purchasers from an inferior article.

I do not think that the decision went quite so far as my right hon. friend's question supposes. But the decision appears to imply that, on due notice being given, almost any mixture of butter can be sold under that name. I shall fix a butter standard as soon as those most concerned have had an opportunity of seeing the evidence submitted to the Butter Committee, which evidence I hope will be issued in a few days.

Will the opinion of the Cork butter merchants be taken into consideration?

Everything given in the evidence will be taken into consideration. I have not seen the evidence myself yet.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will consider the advisability of preventing, by legislation or otherwise, the practice of putting pickle into butter at the time of manufacture to preserve it, from being classed with the fraudulent practice of forcing new milk by machinery into butter already manufactured in order to give the appearance of freshly-made butter; and, having regard to the fact that milk becomes dangerous to health when so incorporated with butter, whether he will take steps to prevent foreign or Colonial butters into which milk has been forced from being publicly advertised as butter made in Great Britain as has been recently done by a certain firm.

Until I have had the opportunity of reading the evidence given before the Butter Regulation Committee I could not properly express any definite opinion on the important point raised in the hon. Member's question.

I did not refer in my question to the evidence given before the Departmental Committee. That is a different question altogether. I want to know as to forcing new milk into butter by machinery.

The two things are so closely bound up together that I do not feel justified in expressing an opinion until I have seen the evidence collected on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when he expects to be able to introduce a Bill dealing with sheep-worrying in Scotland.

I am considering such a Bill—but I cannot at present say when it can be introduced.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board of Agriculture will direct the local inspector, in all cases where he is doubtful as to the existence of swine fever, to await a visit to the premises by a veterinary inspector of the Board, and his report on the case, before serving on the occupier a declaration making the premises a swine fever infected place; and in view of the fact that it is the practice of the Board, when their veterinary inspector has reported to the Board that the suspected outbreak of swine fever is a false alarm, not to send either such inspector or the local inspector to visit the premises again before declaring them free from swine fever, whether he can state how the Board knows when the premises may with reasonable safety be declared free; and will he explain what advantage or protection is gained by having a period of probation after the veterinary inspector has reported the non-existence of the disease.

The first suggestion by my hon. friend would, I fear, it carried into practice, cause mischievous delay in isolating the premises and in taking the other necessary measures of precaution. The veterinary inspector mentioned in the question is often the local veterinary surgeon, and the external symptoms of the disease are so uncertain that it is quite possible that the animals actually slaughtered and examined may not be those most affected by the disease, or may even not be affected at all. The fortnight's probation is necessary to guard against this danger.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the outbreak of swine fever in the Eastern Counties, and whether he proposes to take any steps with reference to abolition of compensation or otherwise in the matter.

As regards the Eastern Counties as a whole, namely, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, the outbreaks of swine fever for the first ten weeks are considerably less than in any of the preceding three years. But in Essex itself there have been eighteen cases, as against sixteen last year. We have already put in force two Infected Areas Orders in Essex, and the question of extending them is under consideration.

Is it not easy to produce swine fever by feeding the animals on maize and keeping them short of water?

I have heard that there is a belief among farmers to that effect.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that, under Articles 50 and 51 of the Continuation Class Code, the grant is so regulated that the managers of some of the continuation schools in the poorer districts of the Highland Crofting Counties have declared it to be impossible to keep the schools open owing to their inability to raise the requisite local contribution. And, in view of the amount to which the rates in these districts have already risen, will he state whether the Secretary for Scotland will reconsider the Code at an early date, with a view to its being so modified as to admit: of these continuation schools being maintained.

I am afraid it is not possible to add anything to the reply which I gave to the Member for Orkney and Shetland on 3rd February last,† a copy of which was sent for the information of the hon. Member in reply to an application by his Secretary. The Revised Continuation Class Code is not placed before Parliament until May in each year.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any action has yet been taken by the Secretary for Scotland or the Congested Districts Board with a view to provide land for the landless cottars and fishermen of Bernera, Island of Lewis.

I have nothing very material to add to the full answer which I gave to a similar Question put to me by the hon. Member on 7th June last.† On the 1st October last the Congested Districts Board wrote fully to the County Council of Ross and Cromarty in regard to the application of the Bernera cottars, and the County Council communicated the substance of the letter to the cottars themselves. Since that date, no further application has been made.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the recent Departmental Committee on the Geological Survey; and if he will further consider the advisability of publishing in future colour-printed six-inch geological maps.

The Report of the Committee is a confidential document, and it is not proposed to lay it on the Table. The question as to the form in which the results of the survey can be made available to the public on the six-inch geological maps is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the

† See (4) Debates cii., 186.

† See (4) Debates xciv., 1327.

This matter is in the discretion of the War Office. Orders in Council of 15th August, 1890, and 29th November, 1898, empower the head of any Department to retire any officer of that Department at the age of sixty, on such pension as, by the length of his service, he is qualified to receive. The power given to the Treasury by Section 2 of the Act of 1859 is limited to deciding whether an officer has a claim to superannuation. It does not touch the power of retirement given to heads of Departments by the two Orders mentioned above.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the solicitors for the guardians of the poor of the Londonderry Union applied to the Local Government Board, requesting to be furnished with a copy of any memorial or other document received by the Board in regard to the inquiry on oath directed to be held into the proposal to transfer certain portions of the Londonderry Union to unions situated in the County of Donegal, and that the Local Government Board refused to furnish the same; and whether he will consider the advisability of this information being given, in view of the fact that the Poor Law Guardians intend, in the interest of the union which they represent, to oppose the proposed transfer; and whether, having regard to the amount of the sum which will be expended by the various bodies concerned in this inquiry, the Local Government Board will reconsider the matter whether a prima facie case has been made to justify an inquiry sufficient to satisfy the Local Government Act, Section 68, sub-section (3).

The documents were such as, in the opinion of the Board, established a prima facie case for inquiry, and were, when asked for, in the possession of the Inspector. In all such eases the decision of the Board is based upon the evidence taken at the in Inquiry, and not on anything in the Resolutions or applications asking for the inquiry. The usual course adopted, and which it is proposed to follow in this instance, is to open the Inquiry, hear all the evidence in favour of the proposal, and then adjourn for two or three weeks, to enable the opponents of the scheme to prepare their case. It would only involve the opponents of the scheme in unnecessary expense if they were to frame their case on what may turn out to be the irrelevant matters contained in the documents in question. The Board see no sufficient reason for reconsidering their decision to hold an inquiry.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Article 14 of the Local Government (Transitory Provisions) No. 2 Order, 1898, applies to the coming elections as well as to the first elections; and, seeing that there are a number of contracts made by the Grand Juries for periods of five and seven years which are still unexpired, whether the sureties for the contractors on such contracts will he eligible for election again as at the first elections.

This is an abstract question on the construction of the Order which I must decline to answer. The matter is one to be determined in a court of law, and any opinion given by me would not hind the parties interested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Committee of Technical Instruction for the County of Cork have prepared a scheme of technical instruction for the said county; and seeing that this scheme was discussed with, and approved by, the officials of the Department of Technical Instruction in Dublin, whether he can explain the delay in giving effect to it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the correspondence between the Cork County Council and the Department of Agriculture, and to the proceedings at the last meeting of the County Council; is he aware that the County Council protested against the action of the Department in retarding the adoption of the scheme of technical instruction, which was prepared with care and deliberation; and, whether he can state what reasons, if any, are put forward by the Department to account for the delay in putting the Technical Instruction Act into force in Cork County.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the action of the Department of Agriculture in connection with the proposed scheme of technical instruction for the County of Cork has been condemned by the Cork County Council; and what steps it is proposed to take in the matter.

My right hon. friend has received from the County Council a copy of the correspondence that has taken place between the County Council and the Department of Technical Instruction. Inquiry is being made in the matter, and perhaps the hon. Gentlemen will postpone their Questions until Thursday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in several parts of Ireland police are stationed at the doors and windows of rooms where branches of the United Irish League meet while such meetings are in progress; will he state the object of such action; and see that this conduct is not continued.

Where a branch of the United Irish League has, instigated acts of boycotting and intimidation, the police have instructions to attend in close proximity to the place of meeting with the twofold object of inspiring confidence in the victims of the intimidation, and of collecting evidence in the event of attempts being made to renew it. The police will continue to pursue this course of action where necessary.

I am sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman identify himself with that policy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first Lord of the Treasury, when Chief Secretary, in introducing his Coercion Bill, promised that there should be no interference with indoor meetings?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution adopted by the Waterford County Council with reference to the present system of supporting lunatic asylums; and whether it is the intention of the Government to do anything in the direction of meeting the views of the Members of the County Council in this matter.

The question to which the resolution refers was embraced, with many others, in the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. The Report of the Commission in respect of England has been presented to Parliament. Pending the publication of the Report in respect of Ireland, the Government are debarred from expressing an opinion on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are several Irish estates in the English Court of Chancery, and if a Return will be granted giving the names of the owners, receivers, and mortgagees, also the area and rental of each estate, with the date on which it was placed in Court.

The Irish Government have no information on, or control over, the matters referred to.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Slade Pier affords only an unsafe refuge for fishing boats; and, seeing that the Wexford County Council recommended that a protecting wall should be built which would cost only £200, will he order inquiries to be made with a view to giving the necessary grant.

The question is now being considered by the Department of Agriculture.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Inchigeela Branch of the Gaelic League protesting against the appointment by the Intermediate Education Commissioners of a foreigner as examiner in Irish; and, seeing that this appointment has been received with dissatisfaction in all parts of Ireland, will he state what steps it is proposed to take in future to appoint an examiner in the Irish language other than a foreigner.

My right hon. friend has already stated that the appointment of examiners in Irish, as in other subjects, is a matter which must be left to the Board of Intermediate Education. They are experts in educational matters and fully capable of judging of the fitness of the gentlemen appointed by them to this position. Any intervention on the part of the Government would be uncalled for and unwarranted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a Resolution passed by a convention of delegates from branches of the Irish Land and Labour Association in the Macroom district, appealing to the Department of Agriculture to extend a portion of its time and attention to the condition of the labouring classes, requesting it to appoint a qualified and responsible officer whose sole duty would be to look after their interests, and pointing out other directions in which the Department could with advantage encourage and assist the rural labourers; and, will he state what concessions will be made by the Department of Agriculture to the representations it has received in this connection.

The resolution has not been received by the Department of Agriculture. If, however, a copy be forwarded to the Department the suggestions will be considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the charge of the right hon. Mr. Justice Johnston to the Grand Jury of the County Limerick, at the spring assizes in Limerick, on Friday last, in which his Lordship, referring to the statistics of crime and observations on the state of the county furnished to him by the constabulary, said that the Grand Jury knew the state of the county better than he, and that it would be impertinent in him to give them second-hand information which, if inaccurate, they would treat with contempt; and whether, having regard to the recent reprobation of the system by the Irish Lord Chief Baron in his charge to the Grand Jury at Mullingar, he will consider the advisability of putting an end to the practice of presenting Judges of Assize before their charges to Grand Juries with constabulary reports and comments on the state of the country, and providing some other means for the communications of the information contained in these reports to the public.

My attention has been drawn to the newspaper report of Mr. Justice Johnson's charge. I have already stated in reply to a Question of the hon. Member, that the report of the charge of the Lord Chief Baron which I have seen does not bear the construction he has put upon it, and contains no reprobation of the system whatever. The answer to the last query is in the negative.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Wexford steamers doing a weekly cross channel trade pay 50 per cent. and that sailing vessels pay 75 per cent. on their gross registered tonnage; and whether he will order a thorough inquiry with a view to granting a Provisional Order to compel tramp steamers that now contribute only a few shillings to the expenses of the port to pay 50 per cent. on the gross registered tonnage.

I am not aware of the proportionate dues paid by steamers and sailing vessels respectively at the Port of Wexford. The Board of Trade have before them at the present time an application from the Wexford Harbour Commissioners for a Provisional Order authorising them to charge dues on the gross tonnage of steamships and steam-tugs instead of on the net register tonnage. Before coming to a decision in the matter, the Board will give an opportunity to the promoters of the order and to those who have sent in objections, of being heard.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the chief clerk, assistant chief clerk, and two sorting clerks and telegraphists, attached to the Limerick Post Office, have been performing duties in excess of their ordinary official hours without payment for Sundays and week days for a considerable time past; whether in the case of the two sorting clerks and tele- graphists, the duty is compulsory; and, if not, can he explain why it is done voluntarily; and, whether, if the extra attendance is necessary, provision will be made in the usual way. At the same time I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the present duties in the Limerick Post Office are in accordance with the latest revision; and, if so, can he state what facilities have been given to the duly qualified members of the staff to obtain employment on the telegraph side with a view to their continued efficiency.

The circumstances are as stated by the hon. Member in his first Question. They are due to exceptional causes, and it is hoped that in the course of a few weeks the need for any unusual attendance will cease. The extra duty performed has been voluntary. In reply to the second Question, it is true that the duties of the Limerick Post Office generally are not yet fully in accordance with the revision as recently sanctioned, and there are still some officers who have not been able to become proficient in telegraphy, but steps are being taken for placing all the arrangements on a satisfactory footing.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that, under the minute of the Board of Education of 3rd July last, it will be impossible for School Boards to draw upon the School Board rates after 31st July next, on account of the instruction in public elementary night schools of any pupils over fifteen years of age; whether, seeing that on the official figures for the night school session, 1899–1900, this would have meant that 68 per cent. of the 332,042 pupils then enrolled in School Board night schools, would have been shut out from rate-aided night school instruction; and, whether, seeing that the current figures would involve pupils in somewhat similar proportions, it is the intention of the Government to take steps to remove this disability before the 31st July next.

The point referred to in the Question has not escaped the attention of the Government. I can assure the hon. Member that the assurance given by the President of the Council in another place has not been lost sight of, and, of course. we shall have to provide for the contingency.

Do I gather that the right hon. Gentleman gives a similar assurance to the House here today?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state if the promised Irish Land Bill will be introduced before Easter.

I also beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the desirability of having the proposed Irish Land Bill printed and in the hands of Members during the recess, he will name a day for its introduction before Easter.

I cannot give a positive pledge, but I hope that the promised Irish Land Bill will he introduced sometime before the Easter holidays.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will consider the desirability of an inquiry by a Select Committee of the House or otherwise into the work of the administrative department with a view to a redistribution or re-arrangement of the work between the Government offices, and more particularly with a view to placing matters relating especially to industry and commerce under the supervision and control of the Board of Trade.

I do not pretend that the present distribution of the work of the Government Department is perfect, but I cannot promise at the present time such an inquiry as the hon. Member suggests.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the Vote on Account involves an Estimate of £4,500,000 for the Board of Education, any opportunity will be afforded for a discussion on the administration of the Board before the Vote is disposed of.

The Irish Members have by arrangement the first place on the Report of the Vote on Account. I do not know how long the discussion they propose to initiate will last, but I cannot hold out much hope to the hon. Gentleman that time will also be found for a discussion on Education.

If the Irish discussion takes the whole of Thursday, then there will be no opportunity for discussing this Estimate of four and a half millions!

The hon. Gentleman talks as if the four and a half millions were an exceptional matter: I do not think so. I certainly consider that the discussion on Report of the Vote on Account should finish on the evening it is taken.

reported from the Committee of Selection; that they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and ManufacturesߞMr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. Black, and Sir Robert Penrose-FitzGerald; and had appointed in substitution: The Lord Advocate, Mr. John Dewar, and Mr. Charles M'Arthur.

further reported from the Committee of Selection; that they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure (during the consideration of the Midwives Bill):—Mr. Secretary Ritchie; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Jesse Collings.