Order, order! The hon. Member will not be in order in arguing against the propriety of the decision the House came to. The House has ordered the Second Reading of the Bill and has referred it to a Select Committee. The only question is whether that or another Committee should deal with the Bill, and the hon. Member cannot argue that the Bill ought not to have been read a second time.

said he had not intended to put his argument in that form. He was simply trying to find a reason why he should ask the House to grant the relief for which he prayed. He suggested that that reason was to be found in the inconsistency of the House itself. Those for whom he spoke would have lodged petitions against the Bill had they had any idea that parliament would have reversed its decision, which it did without a single argument or fresh fact being adduced. He thought he could show that no new facts were brought forward.

I have already informed the hon. Member that he cannot argue against the decision of the House. I hope he will observe my ruling.

regretted that he was precluded from bringing forward what he believed to be a serious grievance.

The hon. Member does not quite understand my ruling. He is at liberty to say that certain persons were not prepared to deal with the question in Committee because they had taken it for granted that the Bill would not be read a second time, and had consequently not petitioned against it. He can ask for the appointment of a hybrid Committee, but he is not at liberty to argue against the decision which the House came to on the Second Reading.

said he was trying to suggest reasons why public bodies affected should he put into a position to lay their allegations against the Bill before a Committee. Otherwise he feared it would go through as an unopposed measure. He confidently asked the House to grant this relief.

seconded, and said his constituents were taken entirely by surprise by the action of the House. They were most vitally interested, and greatly desired to appear before the Committee. He, therefore, hoped the House would meet them in a fair spirit.

submitted that the Motion was most unusual and irregular, and in the case of an ordinary Bill involving no new principle it was unprecedented. He had no desire to stand in the way of any legitimate discussion. Two petitions had been presented against the Bill, and if, according to the practice of the House, they were entitled to any locus standi to be heard before a Select Committee, he was quite satisfied. It would establish a very unfortunate and pernicious precedent if parties, being in doubt as to whether they had a locun standi before a Select Committee, were able to obtain the reference of the measure which they opposed to a hybrid Committee. Such a course would put the promoters to very considerable expense when there was no locus standi whatever.

supported the Motion on the ground that the interests of his constituents were seriously compromised. He failed to see what possible objection there could be to allow all persons interested an opportunity of opposing the Bill in a legal manner.

said that hon. Members did not realise how far they were asking the House to depart from its usual practice. There were definite Standing Orders which laid down the manner in which petitions should he lodged against a Bill, and as one who frequently took the Chair in the Court of Referees, he urged that such a Motion ought not to be agreed to unless very special reasons were shown for taking the Bill out of the regular course. He might point out that hybrid Committees were usually formed in cases in which private interests were involved in a public Bill, and when it was thought proper that private individuals should have the right of being heard. Then, too, they were sometimes formed in cases in which very general interests were affected by a private Bill. But having listened carefully to what had fallen from the hon. Members he saw no reason for taking this Bill out of the ordinary course.

said that the circumstances might justify some special consideration, but the Motion went too far. The only claim which could be made was that petitioners against the Bill should not be excluded because the usual time for presenting petitions had passed. So great were the dangers and inconveniences of departing from the usual procedure, that if his hon. friend could only obtain satisfaction by substituting a hybrid for a Select Committee, he should feel obliged to vote against his hon. friend's Motion. But if he would modify his Motion with a view to getting permission for those for whom he spoke now to lodge a petition which would stand the scrutiny of the Court of Referees, he would give him his support.

hoped that the hon. Member for Newry would not press his Motion, in view of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Partick, whose remarks were founded on long experience. The Private Bill procedure of Parliament had stood the test of time, and he thought that it would be unwise if the House in a particular case departed from the ordinary rule. In his judgment, no case had been made out of an exceptional character in respect of this Bill. If it could be shown that either by accident or mistake the persons opposing this Bill failed to lodge their petitions in time, no doubt some way could be found out of the difficulty.

I say that public bodies affected were taken by surprise.

That could hardly be said, as the Bill was before the House last year.

And then the decision was the other way. My constituents believed in some continuity of policy on the part of the House.

said he was sure the Private Bill Committee would consider any proper representations that might reach them.

thought that the hon. Member had taken an unusual course. If the Motion was carried and the Bill referred to a hybrid Committee, not only would the petition to which the hon. Member referred be heard, but other petitions as well. It would cause a great deal of trouble to hear these petitions, and the effect might be to defeat the Bill altogether. The time had of course expired for lodging petitions, but the course to adopt might be similar to the case last session when the Chairman of Ways and Means moved the House to suspend one of the Standing Orders, so that the petitioners might be heard on their case upstairs. He hoped the House would not assent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

After the explanation just made and the suggestion thrown out by the Deputy Chairman. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion. I shall in due course make the appeal suggested, and I hope thus to get the relief I am asking for.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information as to the number of rifles and carbines and the amount of small arm ammunition captured by the Boers from His Majesty's forces; and, if so, whether he will communicate his information to the House.

No. Sir. The hon. Member will understand that in all cases of captures the number of rifles rendered useless and the amount of ammunition expended before capture make it impossible to make a calculation which would be of value.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that a large, proportion of those serving in the Auxiliary Forces now in this country who have served in South Africa, have already received the medal for the South African campaign, he will endeavour to expedite the issue of the medal to the regular troops in this country thereto entitled prior to the Coronation ceremony.

Every effort is being made to expedite the issue of the medals, but the clasps are not yet ready.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what period of training the 6,000 Yeomen who are to be despatched to South Africa next month have received, and whether they all have passed any tests of efficiency in riding and shooting.

These men have had from two to two and a half months training but not all have passed the tests in riding and shooting. Those who proceed to South Africa will be required to fully pass all tests before they start.

Start from where—from this country or from South Africa for the front?

From this country.

Is the House to understand that the Yeomanry who have been sent out to South Africa have had only two and a half months training, or is this in addition to a preliminary military training?

The hon. Gentleman has not followed my answer. Obviously the Yeomanry who were enlisted two and a half months ago could not have had more than two and a half months training. But they will not be despatched to South Africa until they fully satisfy the General Officer Commanding at Aldershot as to their efficiency.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the number of Imperial Yeomanry subaltern officers is below the establishment, and that the Yeomanry force has now been made subject to the Militia Act of 1882, he would consider the advisability of allowing Yeomanry officers to obtain commissions in line regiments, as is the case in the Militia.

Yes, Sir. It is proposed to give Yeomanry officers this advantage. A Yeomanry subaltern must have attended two full Yeomanry trainings without any leave, and be recommended by his commanding officer to be allowed to compete (on same terms as a Militia subaltern) for a cavalry commission.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, by registering the Imperial Supply and Cold Storage Company in Pretoria, the promoters have been able to evade the registration fees and capital duty payable in this country; whether he is aware that the registration duty for limited companies under Transvaal laws is £30; and if he will state the total duty payable if this company had been registered in London.

The promoters of the company were under no statutory obligation to register it under the Companies Acts of this country; and if they did not do so, of course no registration fees or capital duty were payable. The duty payable, if the company had been registered in the United Kingdom, would have been 5s. for every £100 of the nominal capital, with the addition of fees to a possible maximum of about £50. We heard from Lord Milner more than a month ago that a new law on the subject of the duties on registration and on the nominal capital of companies in the Transvaal was in course of preparation—and his attention was called to the advisability of making these duties not less than those paid here.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office granted the provisional agreement for the South African meat contract to Messrs. Meyer. Weil & Joel to enable these gentlemen to register a limited company in Pretoria: and whether he was aware at the time that by granting this provisional agreement the Exchequer would lose the registration fees and capital duty on the formation of such company.

The provisional agreement for the South African meat contract was entered into With these gentlemen, subject to their forming a company to carry out the contract. As the business of the company was to be carried on in South Africa, it seemed reasonable that it should be registered there. I have nothing to do with the registration fees of companies, either here or in South Africa.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what contracts for transports, remounts, and provisions have been entered into during the South African war with Messrs. Houlder, and any companies in which they are known to be interested, together with the amounts respectively paid to each on such contracts; and will he also say what contracts are still outstanding, and the amounts pertaining to them.

I am not prepared, in reply to a Question, to give the detailed information alluded to. Messrs. Houlder have no contracts with the War Office at present, as all contracts for the carriage of troops are made by the Admiralty.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the hon. Member for King's Lynn, prior to his mission to Gibraltar, at the desire of the Government, was allowed to have access to that fortress, will he say why Members of this House are allowed privileges in regard to this fortress which are denied in the case of Members who desire to sec the workshops and ordnance yards at Hong Kong or other military stations; and will he say whether Naval and Military Members of this House are granted special privileges in matters of this character.

I have no information in regard to the visit of the hon. Member for King's Lynn to Gibraltar. As I have already told the House, Members of this House are not treated differently from other persons in this respect.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Member for King's Lynn has never received any favour or privilege of a special character from His Majesty's 'Government, but quite the reverse?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that a Member of this House is treated like any other person as regards permission to view barracks, workshops, and ordnance yards at military stations, will he explain the nature of the rules by which officers commanding are guided, and will he state whether they have discretionary powers on the subject.

Will the bon. Member kindly refer to the King's Regulations, especially Appendix 5?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, on the recommendation of the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans in receipt of very small pensions, and now in necessitous circumstances through inability to earn, usually have their pensions increased, with Treasury consent, to between 1s. and 1s. 6d. a day, provided that they have been wounded or discharged for disability due to service: and whether, if this is so, he will take steps, perhaps through the officers commanding districts and the local newspapers, to circulate locally such information as may enable qualified veterans to apply for participation in this most acceptable relief.

Yes, Sir. The increase of the pensions mentioned has been granted provided that the men are suffering from increased disability arising from wounds or from the disease which led to their discharge from the Army. This reply shall be communicated to the Press.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to grant to those officers of the selected Volunteer Infantry Regiments, included in the 4th Army Corps for home defence, along with Militia battalions, the pay of their rank, and the same allowance as Militia officers receive while out for the annual training in camp.

The allowances granted to Volunteer officers attending camps, amounting to 11s. per day, are calculated as sufficient to cover their expenditure. I think it is doubtful whether the proposal of my hon. friend to convert the Volunteer officers mentioned into a paid force would meet with general approbation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the 44th (Essex Regiment) captured a French eagle at Busaco in 1810; that the regiment were permitted to wear the badge on their undress uniform up to 1899; that application has been made since that date for permission to wear the eagle on their appointments and accoutrements; and whether, taking into consideration the conduct of the Essex Regiment in South Africa, and that the question has been under consideration for two years and a half, he can now state the determination of the War Office on the subject.

The War Office records would appear to show that the Essex Regiment captured a French eagle at Salamanca, not at Busaco. If the regiment wear the badge on their undress uniform, they did so without the anthority of the Commander-in-Chief. The application was made and refused in 1899. It has only recently been revived. There has, therefore, been no delay.

How many more years will the War Office take to make up its mind?

The hon. and gallant Member could not have heard my answer. I said that application was made and refused. Hence the War Office did make up its mind at once. But the application has now been renewed, and I will consider whether there ought to be any change in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware in connection with the carrying out of a painting contract at Ashton-tinder-Lyne Barracks in duly last the Ashton-under-Lyne and District Trades and Labour Council made complaint to the military authorities as to the employment of unskilled labour and the payment of less than the standard rate of wages for this district, and that the military authorities immediately ordered the dismissal of the men in question, and later on caused the work to be done again by skilled work-men paid the standard wages; and, seeing that the contractor admitted having acted contrary to the spirit and intention of the House of Commons Resolution of 1891, can he explain why the authorities refused to exclude the offending contractors from tendering in future for Government work.

I am aware of the complaint mentioned. Provided a contractor pays the current rate of wages when warned, he is not held to be disqualified for future tendering; the circumstances, however, are noted against him.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the calculated balance of pay, after deducting all charges and stoppages, the following units of Naval forces have respectively in their pockets to spend at the end of the week, when quartered on shore in barracks, viz., able seamen, Royal Navy; ordinary seamen, Royal Navy; gunner, Royal Marine Artillery; private, Royal Marine Light Infantry.

(1) The calculated balance of pay, after deducting all charges and stoppages, is as follows—

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the additions of pay to be granted to the I Army will be granted to the Marine forces.

The matter-has never been lost sight of, and is now under consideration, but I am not at present able to make any announcement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the names of the various torpedo destroyers of His Majesty's Navy which have been lost since 1st January, 1899), and dates of each loss.

The following torpedo boat destroyers have been lost since the 1st January, 1899:—The "Viper" lost on the 3rd August, 1901; the "Cobra," lost on the 18th September, 1901.

I beg lo ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state at what date the Indian Government were consulted as to the cost to India, of increased pay to the British troops on the Indian establishment, and whether they were informed that the remainder of an eight-year Colour Service after the portion of Service of the recruit spent at home was a maximum in the scheme, or whether suggestions for prolonging the Service by two or tour years were a portion of the matter on which they were consulted; whether he can inform the House what would be the financial difference to India between the scheme as placed before the House of Commons and a scheme in which the usual term of Indian Service would be either two or four years longer; when the full reply from India is expected; and whether the written opinions of the members of the Viceroy's Council upon the subject will be laid before Parliament; and whether he has received any official Reports showing the effect as regards efficiency of the prolongation of Service beyond eight years in the case of those soldiers who have accepted the arrangements proposed for temporary prolongation during the present war.

It was on the 26th of February that the Secretary of State for India in Council was officially informed by the Secretary of State for War of the decision of His Majesty's Government in connection with the increased pay to British troops, and this decision was at once telegraphed to the Government of India. As vet, no reply has been sent to the communication received from the War Office, but the Secretary of State in Council, in framing his reply, will give due weight to the views of the Government of India. No question has been raised as to the prolongation of the Service by a further term of two or four years. I cannot say what would be the financial effect of such a measure upon the revenues of India, as the saving would be only in transport charges, which cannot easily be estimated, and against this there might be an increase in invaliding. I can form no opinion at present as to the date when the correspondence will be complete; till then I cannot undertake to lay Papers on the Table In reply to the last Question, we have received no such reports.

gave notice that he would deal with the question the; next day on the Army Votes.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he has now received a copy of the letter which was sent on the 25th August. 1901, by Sirdar Balvant Ramchandra Natu, of Poona, to J. L. Jenkins, Esq., I.C.S., Secretary to the Government of Bombay; will he ascertain why no notice whatever has been taken of this letter, not even an acknowledgment having been given; and will he state when Sirdar Natu's claims will be considered.

I am informed that the letter in question was handed in personally by one of the Natus, who was verbally told that his allegations would receive full consideration. They relate to numerous petty items of account, and are still under investigation, but will be decided as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for foreign Affairs if he will explain why His Majesty's Consul at Kobe. Japan, has hitherto omitted in his Reports all reference to the Tansan Water Industry, which is carried on by an Englishman in the Kobe Consular District; and, in view of the fact that many hundreds of persons in the villages around this natural mineral water spring are employed in this industry, and that extensive shipments of the water are regularly made, will his Majesty's Consul at Kobe be asked to refer in future in his Annual Report to this and other important industries owned by British subjects.

The Report for 1901 has not yet been received, but when it arrives I will bear in mind the suggestion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and, if necessary, the attention of the Consul shall be called to the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether-he will state what progress has been made in carrying out on the mainland of the East Coast Protectorate of Africa, the abolition of slavery, since the assurance given in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury on June 24th, 1897, of the earnest desire of the Government to take steps in this direction; whether, seeing that in the instructions given to Colonel Sadler, on appointment as Commissioner in the Uganda Protectorate, it is laid down that the task of educating the natives to a degree enabling them to take part in the European administration of the Protectorate must devolve upon the missions established in the country, it is intended to propose a special grant to societies carrying out educational work in the Protectorate.

The latest reports from our officers in the mainland dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar show that gradual progress is being made in the diminution of the number of slaves. There are now little more than 15,000 slaves on the mainland. The institution of slavery is moribund; in a very large number of cases the status of slavery is already nominal, and in fifteen years we have every expectation that it will have ceased to exist. It is not at present pro-posed to give any special grant to educational societies in the Uganda Protectorate, but His Majesty's Commissioner will, as instructed, discuss the question of education with the missions, with an earnest desire to relieve them, so far as is consistent with the general policy of His Majesty's Government in such matters, from all restrictions which can hamper their good work.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the case of two soldiers who were tried at Warwick Assizes on March 6th for burglary, and at first pleaded guilty, but were induced to withdraw their plea; whether he is aware that the evidence showed that they broke into a house and stole articles to the value of £7, which were afterwards found in their possession at the barracks; that both men said they did it in order to get their discharges and not to steal; and that the jury found them not guilty, because, as the foreman said, they did not want the men to get their discharges; and whether these men will now have to undergo any military punishment.

It seems to me a matter for regret that these men should have escaped the punishment which, on the facts as stated in the Question, they appear to have richly deserved. Having been found not guilty by a jury, they cannot be tried on the same charge by a Count Martial. Whether they have committed any breach of military discipline for which they are liable to be punished I am unable to say. This would be a matter in which the Home Office is not concerned and which would be altogether independent of the charge on which they were tried at Warwick.

Has the right hon. Gentleman also ascertained that the men had been previously convicted?

I do not remember having heard that. But, whether or not, I do not think they can be tried by Court Martial on a charge on which they have already been acquainted, although they pleaded guilty.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that several motors were racing on last Sunday afternoon in the Bays water Road; and if the Government will inquire into the best method of taking the necessary steps to enable such offenders to be prosecuted.

I have a note from my hon. friend stating that such racing took place, but beyond that I have no information: and in the absence of further details or identification of the alleged offenders, I do not think anything can be done.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Broadhurst), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that it is within the power of the county authorities to regulate the attendance of jurymen at Quarter Sessions and Assizes without further legislation, and that in some counties such arrangements are now being made, whether he will issue a circular making clear to county authorities their powers in this respect.

I believe that the local authorities do, in some cases, make the arrangement to which the hon. Member refers. The matter is, however, one of considerable difficulty, and I do not think any circular from the Home Office would be likely to assist them in so doing.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the varying practice of magistrates as to permitting, or declining to permit, the mother of a legitimate child, when the father is living, to apply for, on behalf of the father, and receive a certificate of exemption on account of conscientious objection under the Vaccination Act, 1898, he will issue a circular to clerks of Petty Sessional Courts on this point.

The question appears to turn upon the admissibility of particular evidence in particular cases; and this is not a subject upon which I can issue a circular as suggested.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has now completed his inquiries with regard to the public vaccinator of the Battle Union who charged the Guardians fees for vaccinating three persons, although he had also charged these persons fees as private patients for the operation; and whether he is aware that the public vaccinator did not draw attention to the matter, but that the Guardians called the attention of the public vaccinator to the matter on the 21st October, with the result that he returned the fees on the 11th, November.

I have written to the Guardians enclosing a copy of the communication which I received from the public vaccinator and referring to the point alluded to in the second part of the Question. I have asked for their further observations on the case, and am now awaiting their reply.

grant: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Dr. Copeman inoculated monkeys with smallpox material obtained from cases under observation during outbreaks of the disease, that he inoculated calves from the vesicles so produced on the monkeys, and inoculated a considerable number of children from the vesicles so produced on the calves, as described by himself in a paper read before the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society on the 10th December, 1901; whether those experiments were conducted with the knowledge of the parents, or with the knowledge or sanction or at the expense of his Department; and whether Dr. Copeman is now or has been in the employment of the Government.

The answer to the first two points is in the affirmative. I am informed that a considerable number of children were vaccinated with the lymph obtained from the calves referred to, but none of the vaccinations were performed by Dr. Copeman. I have no information as to whether the experiments were conducted with the knowledge of the parents of the children vaccinated, but they were not performed with the knowledge or sanction or at the expense of the Local Government Board. Dr. Copeman is one of the Medical Inspectors of the Department.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the danger of infection in schools from children who have not been vaccinated; and if he will take steps, if necessary by legislation, to empower school authorities to exclude such children from attendance at school.

I am aware of the danger referred to where smallpox is prevalent, but it mainly affects children who are not protected by vaccination. I may, however, point out that tinder Article 88 of the Code of Regulations made by the Board of Education, the managers of any public elementary school must comply with a notice of the sanitary authority of the district, or of two members acting on the advice of the Medical Officer of Health, requiring them for a specified time, with a view to preventing the spread of disease, to exclude any scholars from attendance. There is a right of appeal to the Board of Education if the notice is considered unreasonable. I understand that in one case unvaccinated children have been excluded under the Article.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what effect is given to Clause 2 (5) of the Mercantile Marine Fund Act, 1898, which provides that communications between lighthouses and the shore shall, as far as practicable, be available for private messages; also, whether the Departmental Committee appointed in 1900 to consider this question, and that of the extension of electrical communication with lighthouses and light vessels, has reported; or, if not, can he say when their Report may be expected; and when the establishment of signal stations at the Fastnet and Tuskar will be carried into effect.

The Departmental Committee to which the hon. Member refers has presented an Interim Report recommending the institution of a system of signalling at Fastnet and Tuskar in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 (5) of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, 1898, but the carrying out of this recommendation has been delayed by difficulties connected with the adoption of the system of wireless telegraphy. It is hoped, however, that these difficulties will shortly be overcome.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses decided last year to establish a fog signal at Douglas Head Lighthouse, subject to the necessary statutory approval being obtained from Trinity House, which, however, was refused; and, seeing that the Board of Trade have the power to review this decision, and in view of the danger to life and property attending the navigation of vessels approaching the Isle of Man during the prevalence of fog, especially of passenger steamers bound to Douglas, in the absence of a proper fog signal, whether it is intended to allow this requirement to remain unsupplied

The Board of Trade, after full consideration, have withheld their statutory sanction to the scheme submitted by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses for the establishment of a fog signal at Douglas Head on the ground that it is not required for the purposes of general trade. It is for the local harbour authority to consider what aids to navigation are necessary within their jurisdiction.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the piracy of musical compositions which at present prevails, and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing without delay some measure which will bestow an effectual protection on the owners of musical copyright.

I am afraid I can add nothing to the answers which have already been given by myself and the Attorney General to similar Questions. The present state of the law is undoubtedly unsatisfactory, but I cannot give any promise on the part of the Government that they will be able to deal with it this session.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Board of Education have received complaints as to the condition of the Vaynor National School, County Brecon, and as to the accounts of the school; whether he can give dates on which such complaints, if any, have been received by the Board; whether these complaints have been investigated; and, if so, whether he can furnish particulars of the remedies which have been put into force to remove the alleged evils.

Reports as to the condition of the school premises were made by the Inspector in 1900 and 1901, and the managers were required to make structural improvements, for which plans have now been furnished. A complaint about the accounts was made by one individual, but it proved on investigation to be of too trivial a character for further notice.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board are acquainted with the results of the recent experiments with weight-Carrying motor cars; and, in view of the difficulty experienced in conveying to the Stornoway Market the fish landed at Carloway and caught on the fishing beds off the western shores of the Island of Lewis, will the Board consider the expediency of placing a motor car on the road from Carloway to Stornoway; and, in view of the fact that it has not been found practicable to construct a light railway between Garve and Ullapool, will a motor car be also placed on that road.

I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they do not know to what recent experiments the hon. Member refers, but in any case, they do not, having regard to their own present experience, propose to subsidise any such schemes as are mentioned in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the discontent existing among postal and telegraph employees with reference to their conditions of service; whether he is aware that at conferences and public meetings, resolutions have been passed asking for the appointment of a Committee of Members of Parliament to inquire into the nature of the alleged grievances; and whether the Postmaster General will consider the advisability of recommending that a Committee composed of Members of this House be appointed to investigate and report.

In view of the careful investigation made by Lord Tweedmouth's Committee only a few years ago, the Postmaster General is not prepared to recommend the appointment of any further Committee on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will explain why there are now over 130 sorters employed in the Eastern Central Section of the Post Office on compulsory Sunday duty, whereas in 1900 there were only sixty of those officers at work compulsorily on Sunday; whether the amount of work on Sunday has increased 100 per cent. since that time; whether the letters sorted by these men lie for nearly fourteen hours before being despatched to the district offices; and if this is the case, could not the sorting of letters on Sunday be held over until early on Monday morning; is Sunday labour increasing in the Post Office; and have any measures been taken to relieve some of the sorters who have been performing Sunday labour (obligatory) for two years.

The number of sorters in the Eastern Central Section liable to compulsory Sunday duty is now about 130; but these men are only called upon to work every sixth Sunday (Christmas season excepted). There has been some slight increase in the number employed each Sunday since 1900; and the increase is due partly to additional work arising from the removal of the provincial sorting duty to Mount Pleasant, and partly to the normal growth of correspondence reaching London on Sundays, especially in mails from abroad. It is true that some of the letters sorted on Sunday lie for nearly fourteen hours before being despatched to the district offices; but if they were held over for treatment until early on Monday morning the result would be seriously to delay the first delivery on Monday throughout the London districts. No fresh work is being performed in the Eastern Central Section, and any increase that may have taken place is solely due to normal requirements. It is not proposed to relieve any of the sorters who, under the conditions of their employment, are liable to perform Sunday duty, of their obligation in this respect.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state if a special inquiry into afforestation in Ireland will be held; and, if so, can he state of whom the Committee of Inquiry will be composed.

The question is still under consideration. No decision will be taken until the evidence which will be given before the Forestry Committee for Great Britain is available.

Having regard to the fact that the Cork County Council were the first body to move in the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are represented on any Committee that may be formed?

I fancy that on the Committee which is sitting in England there is a representative of the Department of Agriculture, and when we have his report I shall be in a better position to discuss this question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the general anxiety in all parts that this inquiry should be extended to Irelaud?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Board of Guardians of the Banbridge (County Down) Union a Resolution on the subject of the transference to clerks of County Councils of the registration duties hitherto discharged by clerks of Unions, and whether he proposes to give effect to the suggestions contained therein.

The Resolution has been received. The transfer of these duties to the secretaries of County Councils is provided for in Section 83 (7) of the Local Government Act, 1898. No hardship was imposed, however, upon clerks of unions by the change, as Section 121 expressly provided that no such transfer should take place in the case of existing clerks without their consent. Clerks since elected were aware, before taking office, of the terms of their appointments. The reply to the last query is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any restrictions have recently been made limiting the admission of mail carts and children's carriages to the Royal Botanic Garden, Glasnevin, Dublin: and, if so, what is the object of such regulation.

Regulations were made in August, 1898, the object being to prevent the Gardens from being diverted from the special purposes for which they are maintained, and to minimise the inconvenience caused by the large number of vehicles previously brought into the Gardens.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the annoyance and expense the cottiers in the neighbourhood of Mallaranny, County Mayo, are being put to owing to the frequent prosecutions by Sergeant M'Gee for having their cattle on the public road, although the only time the cattle are found on the road is when they are being driven home in the evening; whether he is aware that Sergeant M'Gee, instead of going by train to Mallaranny to the Petty Sessions Court at Newport, a distance of nine miles, the return ticket for which is 1s. 3d., hires a car, thereby incurring unnecessary expense; and whether he will inquire into the conduct of this sergeant.

It is an offence to allow cattle to stray on the public road. In taking proceedings against the owners, the sergeant is merely carrying out the law. It is not the fact that cattle are only found on the public road when being driven home in the evening. The train service between Mallaranny and Newport is unsuitable, having regard to the hour at which the Petty Sessions are held. The additional expense incurred by the use of a car is small.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that there is no weighing machine at Mallaranny, County Mayo; and seeing that it is the duty of the landlord who charges tolls to provide a weighing machine, will he see that such duty is carried out.

The Department of Agriculture, in the exercise of its statutory powers, has made an order exempting the Market Authority of this place from the necessity of providing a weighing machine. The exemption is for a period of three years from 1st October, 1900.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the appointment of Sergeant Harnett as Clerk of Petty Sessions for Achill Island and Ballycody districts, County Mayo, has been sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant; what is his age as given in his birth certificate, and also that as given in the constabulary papers: what is the limit of age of candidates for the position of clerkship of petty sessions; whether this officer at present holds the two appointments of sergeant of police at Achill Sound and clerk of Petty Sessions for Achill and Ballycody: and, if so, on what grounds can he hold the two at the same time; and, if his appointment has been sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant, what pension does he or will he receive, and how many years has he been in the police force.

The appointment has been approved by the Lord Lieutenant. The sergeant was forty-four years of age when elected. The limit of age in the case of members of the Constabulary is fifty years. The appointment will not take effect until he retires from the Force. He has been twenty-two years in the Force, and his pension has not yet been fixed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Report of the Irish Land Commission for the financial year ending 31st March is not usually published until late in July or until August, when the House has no time to discuss it; and whether, as the figures are ready by the end of the financial year, he can say if the next Report will be published by the 1st of June.

The preparation of the statistical tables in this Report cannot be commenced until after the 31st March. The Commissioners are alive to the importance of issuing the Report as soon as possible after that date, but they cannot undertake to fix a day for its publication.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at petty sessions recently held in Taghmon, a poor man named Matthew Grace was find £3 and 6s. costs for salmon fishing: and whether, taking all the circumstances into consideration, he will take steps to have the fine reduced.

Any application that may be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant by this man praying for a reduction of the penalty will be duly considered. This is the proper course to be adopted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing that £10 is the maximum fine for illegal salmon fishing, whilst £5 is the maximum fine for illegal steam trawling, whether he will take steps to alter the law so as to enable magistrates to impose an adequate fine in the latter instance.

The maximum penalty for illegal trawling in Irish waters is £100.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the circumstances of the village of Dooagh, in Achill Island, County Mayo, a fishing centre along the coast of the island; is he aware that the village contains a population of over 750, of whom 223 came over to England and Scotland last year as harvesters, owing to lack of employment at home; and that the holdings of the villagers average only about three and half acres each; and, seeing that, although fishing is the only possible industry, there is no place on which to land fish or to afford any shelter to boats in rough weather, whether he will use his influence with the Congested Districts Board with a view to inducing that Board to erect even a small pier for these pool people.

The question of improving the landing place at Dooagh was considered by the Congested Districts Board last month. It was decided that no work of practical utility could be executed, except at an enormous cost out of all proportion to the benefits' which might be anticipated from its construction.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the needs of this parish might be supplied for £100, according to the estimate of the villagers?

But that does not tally with the estimate of our expert.

Will you send down a practical man to examine and report?

That has been done long ago.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the date of the application of the Great Northern Railway Company for the appointment of an arbitrator under the Railways (Ireland) Acts to hold an inquiry and make award in respect of the lands to be compulsorily acquired for the construction of the railway between Ballyroney and Newcastle; and what is the name of the arbitrator.

No such application has been received, and no arbitrator has been appointed.

Is it a tact that the appointment rests with the Board of Works, and if so, what is this cause of the delay?

No application has been received.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the contracts for meat recently entered into by the Committee of the Belfast Lunatic Asylum, by the Belfast Poor Law Guardians, and by the Committee of the Antrim Asylum; whether he is aware that the tenders of Government contractors were injected in favour of higher tenders by other contractors; and whether the attention of the Local Government Board auditors will be drawn to the matter with a view to the excess being surcharged upon those who voted for the higher tenders.

Representations have been made to the Local Government Board in this matter. The Board has no power to intervene, beyond referring the representations to the auditor, who will determine whether the case is one in which he would be justified in taking action.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named M'Elligott, of Spruagh Bawnboy, County Cavan, has been confined in Dundalk gaol during the past eight months for contempt of court, and that the contempt for which he was committed was a refusal to give up possession of his farm to his landlord for £60 less than what he could get for it from another solvent purchaser; and, will the Government take any steps to amend the law relating to imprisonment for contempt of court, so as to put an end to permanent or indefinite imprisonment for this offence.

This man was committed to prison in July last for contempt on a writ of attachment issued by the Master of the Rolls, the contempt consisting of his re-taking forcible possession of his former holding, and of his refusal to comply with an order of the Superior Court. To purge his contempt he must apply to the Master of the Rolls. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland is he aware that the Morley Estate in the County of Cavan was purchased on the 21st November, 1901, by Messrs. John-stone & Saunders, two land agents, for about eight and a half years purchase of the gross rents; that a notice was issued on the 23rd November, by a Mr. Hatte, purporting to be signed by Lord Morley, and sent to the tenants, to the effect that the estate had been sold by Lord Morley to a Mr. Crookenden and a Mr. Casey, when, in point of fact, it had been sold to Messrs. Johnstone & Saunders; that Mr. Hatte demanded the arrears due by the tenants to Lord Morley, which they refused to pay; and that these gentlemen, by their agent and others on the 31st December, 1901, and on other dates, sent out notices to the tenants with a view of getting them to pay those arrears of rent; and, seeing that these gentlemen had no right to demand these arrears during the months of December, 1901, or January, 1902, will he direct proceedings to be taken against them for trying to obtain these moneys.

I have no official knowledge of the matters mentioned in the first paragraph; nor have I any special means of ascertaining the facts. It does not appear that any crime was committed by any person concerned, and the Executive have no power to interfere between debtors and creditors in controversies respecting the civil rights.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries whatever into the truth of these statements?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Local Government Board inspector held a local inquiry on the 28th August, 1900, into an improvement scheme for the erection of cottages under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts made by the Rural District Council of Clonakilty, and as a result of such inquiry recommended the erection of fifty-nine cottages and the acquisition of twenty-five additional allotments; and, seeing that in a subsequent Report of the inspector the Local Government Board, when framing this Provisional Order, omitted thirteen of these cottages, will he state on what grounds they were rejected; and will he cause a copy of the inspector's Report stating on what grounds each of such cottages was rejected to be furnished to the Rural District Council of Clonakilty.

The thirteen cottages were excluded from the Provisional Order because it was proved to the Board that a number of cottages already provided were occupied by persons who are not agricultural labourers. The District Council has been informed of the reasons for reducing the number originally recommended from fifty-nine to forty-six.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord; Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the amount accruing to Boyle No. 1 and No. 2 District Councils, out of the grant voted by Parliament in 1890, in aid of the liabilities under the Labourers Acts, will be placed to the credit of those Councils, seeing that they have in course of construction a number of labourers' cottages.

It is expected that the shares of the District Councils named, as well as all other Councils entitled to participate in this grant, will be issued before the end of the current month.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that under the Land Purchase Acts some sales to the tenants have been made on the Fitzmaurice Estate, and will he say what is the cause of delay in carrying out the sales on the Coolnadown, County Limerick, and Clougheready, County Tipperary, divisions of the property; and will he take steps to see that those sales shall be perfected with as little delay as possible.

Advances have been sanctioned in respect of a large number of applications received from the Queen's County portion of this estate. These applications are now pending in the Court of the Land Judge, but the sales have not yet been completed. No applications for advances have been lodged in respect to the portions of the same property, situate in Limerick and Tipperary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that a large proportion of the Irish agricultural labourers occupy houses which they hold from neighbouring farmers and others as weekly tenants under what is called a caretaker's agreement, and are liable to be evicted on a weekly notice; and, seeing that such persons are bonâ fide labourers, but cannot avail themselves of the advantages of the Labourers Acts as the sanitary officers cannot certify the houses to be unsanitary, will he hold forth any promise of amendment in the Labourers Acts in favour of those people, and also in favour of rural, tradesmen and artisans.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Sanitary officers are not debarred as the hon. Member supposes; but in practice it may be that a weekly or monthly tenant is reluctant to make an application for a new cottage. The hon. Member for North Antrim has brought in a Bill, one clause of which is framed to deal with this difficulty. I have stated that the question of the housing of the artisans and others living in towns and villages too small to support Town Commissioners, is receiving consideration.

rose to put another Question, but was directed by Mr. Speaker to give notice in the ordinary way.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is now in a position to state when the prosecutions in connection with the recent disturbances near Dromore, County Down, will take place; whether the accused persons will be proceeded against under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act; who will represent the Crown at the trial; and whether he can state the nature of the recommendations of the local police authorities on the subject of the erection of another police barracks in the neighbourhood.

The prosecutions will be ordered as soon as the complete report of the evidence available in the case, has reached me. In the meantime, I cannot, by anticipation, state what procedure will be adopted or who will conduct the proceedings on behalf of the Crown. No recommendation has been made for the erection of a police barrack in the locality, and it is not intended, therefore, to erect one.

As a matter of fact, has the Crimes Act ever been put in force in the cases of Orange rioters?

Order, order That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.

The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that the rioters had been identified. Are they under arrest?

I must ask for notice of that Question. The hon. Member must be aware that in cases of misdemeanour, bail is under ordinary circumstances accepted.

As these riots occurred a fortnight ago, is it not about time the right hon. Gentleman got the information we have since been asking for?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a director of the Kinsale Gas Company has stated that no authority was given to anyone to withdraw from the prosecutions which were pending in connection with the breaking of public gas lamps by soldiers at Kinsale: and whether he can explain why the proceedings were abandoned.

I have already stated that no proceedings were instituted by the police. Consequently, they abandoned none. Only one lamp was broken, the value of the breakage being remitted to the Gas Company. It is not for me to explain the action of the company or its officers.

As this is the only case in which detection was possible, and in view of the great damage done at this place, will the right hon. Gentleman see that when soldiers are detected—

Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will grant the Return relating to the redemption and purchase of Quit and Crown Rents in Ireland, notice for which stands on today's Paper.

Yes, Sir.†

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the instructions contained in the Secretary's Order, No. 437,905/98, concerning meal reliefs, are not applied to the Enniskillen office; and, seeing that, in reply to a petition of the staff, the memorialists were informed that this Order was not universal

† For this Return, see the report of March 24th, later in this Volume.

The Postmaster General is not aware of the circumstances referred to; but he is making inquiry into the matter, and the hon. Member shall be duly informed of the result.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the oil lamps to be used in the new Fastnet lighthouse are to be the ordinary Trinity House mineral oil lamps or any improved method of burning petroleum; whether there are to be two lamps superposed, both lighted in all weathers; how many lenses will surround these lamps: what angle will each subtend; and what will be the duration of the flash which is to appear every five seconds.

I am in formed by the Trinity House that the lamps to be used in the new Fastnet lighthouse are incandescent oil burners, and not oil burners of the ordinary Trinity House type. There will be two lamps superposed, which will be lighted in all weathers, with four lenses round each burner. The angles will be eighty vertical and ninety horizontal, and the duration of the flash will be 16 second.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now say definitely whether the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill will be taken on Tuesday next immediately after the Motion for the adjournment of the House over Easter.

The Bill is down for today, and I have some hope we may be able to reach it. I am very desirous that the Bill should pass the Second Reading, because it is very important that the measure should go upstairs to be discussed by the Grand Committee. It stands second on the Order Paper today, but unfortunately I am not able to control the length of the debates that stand in the way of that happy consummation. I have already stated to the House that on Tuesday, after the Motion for the adjournment over Easter, the Irish Land Bill will be introduced.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now state, for the convenience of the House, on what issue we are to discuss tomorrow the new Army scheme.

I have done my best to consult those qualified to give an opinion, and I am informed that the most convenient course will be to take the discussion on the new Army proposals on the War Office Vote. In these circumstances. I will not ask the House to come to a decision on Friday night.

Will another opportunity be given of discussing the Secretary of State's salary?

I said that I shall not ask the House to come to a decision tomorrow.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give us another day?

The hon. Gentleman knows that he is making an unreasonable request in asking for another day.

Will the Chairman of the Committee be a party to the arrangement? It has been ruled that that is necessary.

I am not sure whether it is for me to answer that Question. I have taken pains to consult him in the matter, and I understand there will be no difficulty.