I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended, upon the termination of the war in South Africa, to detain in custody either British civilian subjects or aliens who may be imprisoned undergoing sentences imposed by military tribunals or courts martial; and, if so, by what authority can this course of policy be adopted.

The Question is. I think, the hon. Member will see, premature at the present moment.

But was not the war ended last September twelvemonth?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office gave orders that two articles from the "Johannesburg Star," enclosed in Lord Milner's despatch to him of 26th April. 1899, should not be printed in [C. 9345]; and whether, seeing that there is no instance in all the papers and articles printed in this volume where Lord Milner having called his attention to any article the same was not printed or had previously been printed, will he explain why an exception was made in the case of these two articles.

I have already informed the hon. Member in reply to his Question of the. 18th that these articles were not considered of sufficient public interest to print. No exceptional course has been adopted, and I have nothing to add to that answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether two articles from the "Johannesburg Star," enclosed in Lord Milner's despatch to him of 26th April, 1899, contained a passage that the people of the Rand are united and fixed in their determination not to accept their present political status as final, and not to remain for ever as helots under the domination of their Boer masters.

The answer is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what is the explanation of the discrepancies between the original and revised figures in the Return of Deaths in the Concentration Camps in January and February last.

The original figures which were received by telegraph appear to he incorrect, but I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the revised figures.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Albert Cartwright has now completed the term of imprisonment imposed upon him a year ago by a court of law in Cape Colony; whether he is now free to return to England; and, if not, on what grounds, in the absence of any legal charge, he is compulsorily detained in Cape Town.

He has completed his term of imprisonment. I am in communication with Lord Kitchener respecting his further detention.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last clause of my Question—on what grounds is Mr. Cartwright detained?

I answered that the other day in reply to the right hon. Gentleman.

I shall take the opportunity to call the attention of the House to this subject after Questions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state what facilities, if any, were offered to Lord Wolseley on the occasion of his recent visit to South Africa, having regard to the fact that he was Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in the early period of the South African War and his position as a military historian, to visit the scenes of the operations in South Africa, during the period of his supreme command of the British Army.

May I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a Question put by the hon. Member for South Leitrim on March 18th, to which I have nothing to add.†

My Question now is whether any facilities were offered to Lord Wolseley to visit the battlefields. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer "Yes" or "No"?

I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Then I will put this Question—Was Lord Wolseley refused facilities to visit the battlefields?

† See preceding volume, p. 317.

The answer is covered by what I said before.

Then I beg to give notice that—

Order, order; The hon. Gentleman must take the answer of the Minister for better or worse.

Yes, Sir, I shall take the answer for worse; and I wish now to say that I will put the Question again tomorrow.

, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information as to the attack made by the Boers on the suburbs of Kimberley on the 28th March last, in the course of which it is alleged that they looted all the stores and houses for a distance of fifteen miles; and whether he can explain how the Boers came to be in force in the neighbourhood of Kimberley at this stage of the war.

It appears that under cover of an inquiry as to terms of surrender, a party of Boers under De Villiers were allowed to approach Kimberley and took advantage of this to drive oft' some cattle, getting away rapidly before they could be intercepted. De Villiers' conduct is described by Lord Kitchener as a hoax.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any details of the fight which took place at Olivier's Farm, near Ficksburg, on Sunday last.

No details have yet been forwarded from South Africa.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the loss of life still going on on both sides in South Africa, he will reconsider the refusal to grant an armistice pending the decision of the commandoes on the terms of peace.

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Sir Redvers Buller, or any one authorised by him, has ever asked for the publication of the Spion Kop despatches containing criticism of Sir C. Warren; and whether Sir Redvers Buller was ever consulted, or given an opportunity of expressing an opinion, on the expediency of the publication just made.

The right hon. Gentleman wishes me to state that Sir Redvers Buller's statement on this subject and his request that—

"If any further publication is intended, my words may be published I as written, and without manipulation, and that the opportunity will he taken to correct; in this respect previous publication "

will be in the recollection of the House. He was not consulted as to the publication made in consequence.

May I ask the noble Lord whether the statement he quotes from Sir Redvers Buller was not made in regard to a totally different matter—namely, the Ladysmith telegram, and not to the Spion Kop despatches?

I have given the answer which my right hon. friend, who is unavoidably prevented from being in the House, has asked me to give in this respect.

Yes Sir, but will the noble Lord undertake to publish the Ladysmith despatches without manipulation?

If they are pub lished at all, it is not for me to say when or how they are to be published, except this, that I am certain they will be published, as the others were, without manipulation.

If the noble Lord will refer to Sir Redvers Buller's letter of April 5th to the First Lord of the Treasury, he will find that the statement I have made is absolutely accurate.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that members on the executive of the South African League have for many months past openly advocated that all Boors taken prisoners should be immediately hung; that they have described the Boers as human vermin who should be placed on a lower level than Kaffirs; and whether, in view of these facts, he will forthwith give instructions to prevent this organisation holding meetings in South Africa during the war.

I am not aware of the circumstances alluded to, and I do not propose to give any instructions on the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the appointment of a Colonel Long to the position of Inspectory of Veterinary Hospitals in South Africa; will he state if this is the officer who lost his guns at Colenso, and what other qualifications he possesses for this particular appointment.

Colonel Long, who is now Inspector of Veterinary Hospitals in South Africa, is the Artillery officer mentioned. He has a great practical knowledge of horses, and has long been known as one of the best horse masters in the Royal Artillery. He has done excellent service in the Remount Department for several months.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Return respecting Martial Law in South Africa ordered by the House on the 8th April will be presented.

As I have already informed the House, the preparation of this Return involves considerable labour, but I hope to be able to present the Return at no distant date.

I hope the Secretary for War will not forget that a Return identical with this was ordered in March last in another place.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will now state the action taken and the result of the full investigation which was called for and instituted with reference to the practice of inflicting; the penalty of shot drill, which has been abolished in the Army since April, 1899, on prisoners in the military cells at Lichfield up till 17th February last.

The officers concerned have been censured.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now say how many cartridges fell into the hands of General de Wet when four months ago he captured the whole of the depôt camp at Tweefontein; and, if information on this point has not been communicated to the War Office, what explanation, if any, can be given for Lord Kitchener's reticence; if information has reached the War Office, will he explain why it has not been communicated to the public.

I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on the 21st January.†

What is the reason for Lord Kitchener's reticence? Has the noble Lord anything to say as to that?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any qualifications as to rank, length of service, or other conditions have been required in respect of those appointed to be commandants of military districts established under the operation of martial law in South Africa; and whether such commandants have in all cases been officers of the British Army, or in some cases officers of the forces raised in the Cape or other Colonies.

Officers in charge of districts are selected from the experienced senior officers available, Since

† See (4) Debates, ci., 455.

December, 1901, officers specially selected have been appointed administrators of martial law in each area in addition to the officers commanding the districts; of these three have been Colonial officers selected by Lord Kitchener with special qualifications.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Courts Martial on Commandants Scheepers and Krit-zinger took place with closed doors; and, if so, in view of it being laid down in paragraph 71, Manual of Military Law, that such a Court must be open to the public, military or otherwise, if he can state by what authority the public were excluded.

I have no information to show that the trials referred to were held with closed doors. The procedure laid down in the Manual of Military Law does not necessarily apply to Military Courts held under martial law.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a medical officer attains the ranks of captain and major at three and twelve years of service, and a veterinary officer attains the same ranks at seven and a half and fifteen years respectively; if so, will he explain the reason for this difference.

I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why there are such differences in rank, pay, and promotion between the medical and veterinary services in the Army; and whether he is now prepared to place them on the same footing.

The facts are practically as stated. A new Warrant for the Army Veterinary Department has just been issued giving considerable and additional advantages, and I am not prepared to make any further additions thereto.

Will the noble Lord state what the advantages are?

They are set out in the Warrant.

Where is the Warrant to be obtained?

I do not know whether it has been published in the Press, but it certainly is in the hands of those most interested.

I shall apply for a copy.

The hon. Member can have one.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what the camp allowance for the Volunteer force will be in the present year.

They will receive the same allowance as last year, viz., officers 8s. a day, and men, 2s. 6d. a day; except the battalions told oil for the Field Army, who will get—officers 11s. 6d. a day, men 5s. a day.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the closer relations which now obtain between the different branches of the service, and with the view of having trained soldiers in the ranks of the Volunteer Force, the War Office will consider the advisability, of allowing six years service with the Colours, six years with the Reserve, and fourteen years with the Volunteers, to; count for the long service medal.

This medal is in tended for Volunteer service only. It would be most unfair to the Volunteers, generally to allow men who had served in other forces to reckon such service as if it had been voluntary service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of officers of Imperial Yeomanry who have been given commissions as captains on probation in cavalry regiments since the commencement of the war, and to what regiments such officers have been appointed; and whether he will state the number of subalterns of cavalry with at present four and five years regular Army service respectively.

Seven officers, late of the imperial Yeomanry, South Africa, and one from Roberts' Horse, have been granted commissions as captains on probation in the following cavalry regiments:—3rd and 6th Dragoon Guards; 3rd, 4th, 8th, and 14th Hussars; 6th Dragoons; and 21st Lancers. There are 34 subalterns of cavalry with four years service, 23 with five years service, and 36 with six years service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the distinguishing numbers of batteries in the Royal Field Artillery have lately been removed from the shoulder straps of the men's uniforms; and whether, with a view to maintaining the esprit de corps, and the old spirit of emulation between batteries, he will permit the wearing of these numerals to be resumed.

The Royal Artillery full dress, which will be the walking out dress when the service dress clothing is issued, has cords on the shoulders, and does not therefore admit of the wearing of numerals.

Were the officers of the batteries consulted before the change was made?

I cannot say.

Can the Regulation be altered so as to have the numerals on other than walking out uniforms, which the men are not always wearing?

I will inquire if it can be done in the case of the service dress.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, although the new territory on the Kowloon side of Hong Kong was acquired mainly for the purpose of protecting the Colony, no steps whatever have been taken to fortify the hills; and will he say whether this inaction has the sanction of the Defence Committee and His Majesty's Government.

May I refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given to a Question he put on this subject on March 24th, to which I have nothing to add.†

But this Question has never been asked before. Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that this Kowloon territory was acquired for the better protection of the colony?

I admit nothing.

Why should Hong Kong be better protected than Gibraltar?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the engineer officers in the Navy are at their full strength; and, if not, will he state what is the number of present vacancies.

The numbers of engineer officers voted for the year 1902–1903 are not at present fully borne, and as the entry of officers from Keyham and from outside technical colleges docs not take place until July, the hon. Member will understand that it is never possible for the numbers voted to be reached by this period of the financial year. The number of vacancies remaining to be filled is eighty-five.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state how many vacancies were

^* See preceding volume, p. 823.

offered, how many candidates sat, and how many were successful at the last two examinations in January and March for the rank of assistant engineers for temporary service in the Navy.

There was no specific number of appointments as assistant engineers for temporary service offered for competition either in January or March. The examination in January was not held, as no candidates were forthcoming; in March two candidates presented themselves, of whom one was successful.

Am I to understand that these two examinations failed to attract any candidates?

For temporary engineers, yes.

May I ask whether there are at present engineers sufficient to man the A Division of the Fleet Reserve at Chatham?

Order, order! That does not arise out of the answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether subventions for the right of pre-emption or hire of ships as armed cruisers or transports are paid by the Admiralty to companies whose ships fly the British flag but are owned abroad; whether, in the event of war, there is anything to prevent these companies from substituting a foreign flag for the British flag at short notice; and whether the Admiralty has any practical means of enforcing its right of pre-emption or hire in such a case, or whether, by abandoning the subvention, the companies could claim that the right of pre-emption had ceased.

No subventions have been at any time or are now paid for the right of pre-emption or hire of ships as armoured cruisers or transport to companies whose ships fly the British flag but are owned abroad. The second and third paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question involve important legal points which I am afraid I cannot deal with in answer to a Question. But the whole matter is being carefully considered with a view to defining the rights of the Admiralty in the event of the situation suggested by the hon. Member arising.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether information has reached the Admiralty that the owners of certain vessels forming part of the Royal Reserve of Merchant Cruisers have entered, or are about to enter, into a trade combination under foreign control; whether the conditions of the subsidy are compatible with such an arrangement; and whether the Admiralty are taking any action in the matter.

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The situation referred to was certainly not contemplated when the present form of agreement was settled, and the Admiralty have appointed a Committee to consider and report on the purport and form of future subsidy agreements. Meanwhile, they have made an arrangement with the White Star Line which will preclude the possibility of any of their subsidised or retained merchant cruisers being transferred to a foreign flag without the consent of the Admiralty during the unexpired portion of the current subsidy agreement, terminating some three years hence.

The hon. Gentleman only mentioned the White Star Line, but what about the other lines?

The White Star Line is the only one which has subsidised cruisers.

asked the hon. Gentleman whether he would see that on the Committee there should be some person conversant with the law of nations.

I am not responsible for the nomination of the Committee, but I will take care that the reasonable wish of my hon. friend is represented to those who are.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any information, to the effect that the vessels belonging to several line of steamboats trading between this country and the United States of America have been sold to a company with a capital of £34,000,000 and having its principal place of business in the United States, while the vessels will retain and will sail under the British flag; whether British vessels when sold to a foreign company having its principal place of business abroad retain their British registry, or whether, under such circumstances, the vessels cease to be British and become foreign vessels, disentitled to a British register and to sail under the British flag.

I have not before me information which will enable me to say that a sale of the vessels referred to has taken place. But if such a sale has taken place the vessels would lose their British registry.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the widows and orphans of those seaman and marines who lost their lives in the recent disasters to H.M.S. "Cobra," "Condor," and "Mars," are only entitled to pensions of 5s. 6d. for the widows and Is. per child per week, and are not eligible for pensions on the scale awarded by the Government to the widows and orphans of soldiers who fall in war, which range from 5s. to 10s, for widows and 1s. to 2s. per child per week, the Government will remove the disability; whether, failing the ability of the Government to afford any augmentation from State funds, they will consider the advisability of soliciting the Lord Mayor to make an appeal to the benevolence of the nation to supply such additional funds as may ensure these sufferers sufficient to save them from destitution.

I beg also to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the disasters connected with H.M.S. "Condor," and H.M.S. "Mars," following upon the loss of H.M.S. "Cobra." His Majesty's Government will consider the possibility of charging the pensions of widows of seamen so killed upon public funds instead of upon the funds of Greenwich Hospital, which are now inadequate to meet the existing claims of old seamen who are qualified to receive the Greenwich Old Age Pensions.

The matter is still under consideration, and I am unable at present to give any answer.

Is the matter under the consideration of the Admiralty or of the Treasury?

Of all the Departments concerned.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can say when the Report of the Departmental Committee, presided over by him, which has considered the causes of the delays in shipbuilding, will be in the hands of Members.

It is hoped that the Report will be in the hands of hon. Members early next week.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the British forces operating at and around Tientsin from the 10th June to the 14th July, 1900, from the arrival of Admiral Sir Edward Seymour to the capture of the native city, sustained such casualties that those of the Naval Brigade alone amounted to 50 killed and 247 wounded; and whereas at Taku the total casualties of British forces ashore and afloat amounted to one killed and 13 wounded, for which a clasp has been granted, whether he will consider the advisability of recommending the issue of a clasp, inscribed "Tientsin," to the forces, Naval and Military, engaged in the operations between the dates specified, which included the defence of Tientsin and the capture of the Peiyang Arsenal.

The services of the British forces operating at and around Tientsin have not been overlooked. The operations were part of those which had for their object the relief of Peking, and the forces engaged receive for their gallant conduct a clasp, with the words "Relief of Peking" inscribed on it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will assent to the preparation and issue of a Consular Return, showing the prison treatment extended to political prisoners in European countries and in the United States, and also in the British Colonies.

His Majesty's Government have no official information as to the treatment of political prisoners in other countries, and I cannot therefore assent to the suggestion in the hon. Gentleman's Question.

Seeing that information was obtained from our Consuls abroad as to the Rules which obtain in Foreign Parliaments, cannot the same course be taken on this Question?

No, Sir.

Has the noble Lord consulted the Irish Office on this matter?

You must respect Lord Salisbury's son!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with a view to promote a stable peace in the East, His Majesty's Government are prepared to co-operate with other Powers in order to secure the independence of Persia and the development of her commercial and industrial resources by guaranteeing the neutrality of her territory; and whether His Majesty's Government will invite the Government of Persia and the European Governments represented at the Congress of Berlin to hold a Conference to consider the best means of attaining the objects set forth.

In answer to my hon. friend I have to say that I do not think any public advantage would be gained by the adoption of the step he suggests. My hon. friend probably has present to his mind the fact that there is in existence an agreement with Russia in connection with the integrity of Persia.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any dispatches with reference to the recent Military operations in the Nile provinces of Uganda; and, if so whether they will lay them upon the Table.

Despatches have been received and are under consideration. They will be published in the Gazette in due course.

I beg, to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will explain why the list of articles subject to the new corn duty which has been laid upon the Table of the House does not include all those which were originally posted at the Custom House; and whether he will also publish a list of commodities which are liable to duty because of their ingredients, and the rate of duty to be levied on each.

The list of articles subject to the new corn duty laid on the Table of the House covers all those named in the list posted at the Custom House. Only unnecessary verbiage has been omitted. It is not practicable to prepare a complete list of specific commodities which will be liable to the new duty on importation because of their ingredients; but lists of this kind will be issued from time to time as experience is obtained.

Did the original list in the customs indicate "dextrine" and "Mandioca flour?"

It indicated "Mandioca flour."

Would it not be better, even if the list were slightly unaccurate, to issue as complete a one as possible as quickly as possible?

It will be done.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman promised to lay on the Table of the House a copy of the list issued to the Customs House?

Yes and this is the list exclusive of unnecessary verbiage.

May we have the unnecessary verbiage. It would place us in a better position for estimating the number of new duties.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can take steps to oblige the Great Eastern Railway Company to publish a list of its charges for the carriage of goods by sea between Rotterdam and Harwich.

My hon. and gallant friend will find the law on the subject contained in Section 33 (5) of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1886. I have communicated with the Great Eastern Company and they inform me that the particulars relating to the charges for the carriage of goods by sea between Rotterdam and Harwich are duly published in compliance with the law.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the action of the Beccles bench of magistrates in refusing certificates of exemption from vaccination for their children to C. E. Parnell and D. G. Reeve on the 21st March, although both applicants stated that they had a conscientious objection to vaccination; whether he is aware that the same magistrates require applicants for such exemption to attend at the magistrates' clerk's office before hand to give notice of their intention to apply to the magistrates for exemption, and also require them to provide themselves with legal certificates of the births of their children; and will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Edward Pratt, of Gayton, who applied on two occasions, viz., on 3rd and 17th March, to the bench of magistrates at Grimstone, Norfolk, for a vaccination exemption certificate for his child, and was on both occasions refused, although he declared his conscientious conviction that his child would be injured by the operation; and, seeing that the same bench refused another applicant on 7th April, whether he will give instructions for the bench to grant the exemptions provided by the Vaccination Act, so that these parents may be saved from the trouble and expense of having to meet a prosecution.

Even assuming that the facts of the eases are precisely as stated in the Questions, I have no power to take any stops in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state what facilities are to be offered to sorting clerks, postmen, and other Post Office officials during 1902 who desire to attend the Volunteer camps for annual training; and whether special leave, with full pay, will be granted as in former years.

So far as the exigencies of the service will admit, Volunteers employed in the Post Office will be allowed the same facilities this year that they were allowed last year for the purpose of attending camps. Under the Treasury Regulations, those Volunteers whose regiments attend special camps, being attached to army corps, will be allowed special leave, so far as the requirements of the service will admit, for a period not exceeding a fortnight, without civil salary, to attend camp. Those who devote their annual leave to this purpose will, of course, receive full civil pay.

I Leg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether be will explain why the practice of allowing notices intimating the date and particulars of concerts and other entertainments to he exhibited in the Postmen's Office at Glasgow has been departed from in the case of two notices submitted to the postmaster having reference to social meetings of the local branches of the Postmen's Federation to welcome the executive council of the federation; and can he state why the postmaster or his representatives refused to initial these particular notices for exhibition.

The practice which formerly obtained at Glasgow of allowing unofficial notices to he exhibited in the Postmen's Office was irregular, and when it came under the notice of the postmaster it was stopped.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if it is intended to pass over the senior sorters, Messrs. R. H. Burn and H. Johnson, in making promotions to the overseers class at the South-Eastern District Office; if so, will he state the reasons for passing over these officers, and will they be given an opportunity of stating why they should not be passed over before the appointments are made, seeing that they have been performing overseers' duties for about eight years and three years respectively, and been certified annually for many years past as competent to perform the highest duties of their class.

The claims and qualifications of the two sorters referred to will be considered with those of others before any promotions are made, but the Postmaster General cannot undertake that the confidential reports which will in due course be made to him respecting these sorters shall be communicated to them in order that they may discuss the question of their fitness for promotion. Such a course would be contrary to the practice of the Department and to the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee.

Will the same procedure be adopted in the Irish offices?

The procedure I have described is the usual one.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, when a soldier goes on active service, records for past misconduct are cancelled; if so, is the same course adopted in the case of postal employees who have volunteered and been accepted for service in South Africa; and if not, will he explain on what ground is the distinction made.

The Postmaster General cannot say whether the practice in the Army is as stated, but he sees no reason for adopting such a rule in the Post Office Service.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that Mr. David MacBrayne, the contractor for the Stornoway, Kyle and Mallaig Mail Steamer Service, continues to employ a forty-one year old boat which has been shown to be frequently late on both the outward and return passage, will he consider the expediency of terminating the contract with Mr. MacBrayne, and inviting tenders from other steamship owners who are prepared to provide a steamer of greater speed, and in other respects adapted to the wants of the 30,000 inhabitants of the island of Lewis.

There have no doubt been many delays on the voyage, but during the last few months there has been a great deal of rough weather in the Minch. As regards the question of terminating the present contract and of calling for tenders, the Postmaster General can only repeat the answer given to the hon. Member on the 13th of June of last year, which was to the effect that he was not prepared to take such a course, as he saw no reason to suppose that it would result in a more economical arrangement than the present.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the boat is forty-one years old, and in consequence another steamer must take its place?

I confess I do not think the service is very satisfactory; but the subsidy is adequate, and I unfortunately see no possibility of getting a better service on reasonable terms.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will give the number of sorters attached to the London postal service serving with the colours in South Africa, the number of acting, temporary, casual, and supernumerary sorters and auxiliaries, and part time auxiliaries employed in the London postal service; and whether, in view of the condemnation of auxiliary labour by the Tweedmouth Committee and the representatives of organised labour, the Postmaster General will take steps to abolish this form of labour.

The number of sorters attached to the London postal service now serving with the colours in South Africa is 162; and the number of acting, temporary, casual, and supernumerary sorters employed in London is 406. The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension as to the findings of the Tweedmonth Committee upon the subject of auxiliary labour. While desiring as far as possible to discourage the employment of this class of labour, the Committee recognised the impossibility of altogether dispensing with it; and under present circumstances the Postmaster General sees no immediate prospect of being able to make any material reduction in the number so employed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will grant a Return of the number of hours extra duty performed by sorters in the East Central District Office between eight o'clock p.m. and midnight, for three months from the 15th January, 1902.

The Postmaster General has ascertained that the number of hours of extra duty work as described was 6,348. There are about 600 sorters in the East Central District Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a counter clerk and telegraphist of the East Central District, named God be hear, received a risk allowance of 3s. per week when performing the duties of overseer and senior telegraphist from 1893 to 1896, which allowance was stopped in 1897; and whether, in view of the Tweedmouth Committee's recommendation that the rights of existing holders in risk allowances should be maintained, he will restore the allowance to this officer, and, if not, will he explain why this cannot be done.

The Postmaster General will have inquiry made into this matter, and inform the hon. Member of the result.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the service of a teacher in a poor law school is held recorded service as defined by the Elementary School Teachers Superannuation Act, 1898, and therefore under the existing Code entitles such a teacher to the issue of a parchment certificate under Article 63D; whether it is intended to remove professional distinction, if any, between teachers in poor law schools and those employed in other elementary schools, in order to-secure that local Boards of Guardians shall be able to obtain the services in poor law schools of qualified and efficient teachers.

The answer to the first point is in the negative. It appears, however, from the reply given recently to a similar Question addressed to my right hon. friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, that service in a poor law school is now accepted by the Board of Education for the purposes of Article 63 of the existing Code, and that in the Code of 1902 the Article will be included in a clearer form.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that a person was nominated and elected for a ward on the West Ham Board of Guardians when she was already a member, and has twelve months to serve in another ward, without first resigning her seat; and whether, according to the Regulations of the Department, she can vote for or represent either ward.

My attention has been called to this case. The real question appears to be whether the person referred to was disqualified for being elected as guardian for one ward whilst in office for another. I have no authority to decide this point, and there are no Regulations of the Local Government Board which affect the matter. The question can only be determined by an election court on a petition. I am, however, advised that it is open to considerable doubt whether she was not disqualified. She has applied to me to consent to her resigning her seat for the ward for which was she first elected, but in the circumstances I have not at present thought it expedient to accept the resignation.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state whether the Commissioners recently appointed under the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Act to inquire into the Aberdeen Tramways Bill held any meeting to decide upon the place where their inquiry was to be held; if so, whether they decided to hold the inquiry in Edinburgh; and, if so, what were the reasons which induced them to hold it there rather than in Aberdeen, where the parties and the witnesses reside.

The Provisional Order referred to is one of a group remitted for inquiry, comprising schemes from the North, East and South-West of Scotland; and Edinburgh was selected as the most central and convenient place for the consideration of the whole group, with the concurrence of the Chairman of the Commissioners, and, I believe, with the approval of the great majority of the parties interested. The Secretary for Scotland is not aware that any meeting was held by the Commissioners to decide upon the place of inquiry.

Would it not be possible to arrange for the Commissioners to sit in different places to conduct these inquiries?

It is perfectly possible. It is only a matter of arrangement.

Is it the case that the Commission did not hold a meeting in this case to decide upon the place of inquiry?

The Chairman of the Commission was consulted.

Have the Commission made any inquiry in Aberdeen into local conditions in connection with these proposed tramways?

I cannot say. I believe in any case this Order could only have been taken today.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of parochial medical officers in each of the six crofting counties who do not possess the public health diploma required under the Public Health Act, 1897: and will he state why the Local Government Board for Scotland continues to confirm the appointment of medical officers in Highland crofting counties regardless of the conditions imposed by statute.

The Secretary for Scotland is informed by the Local Government Board that the figures are as follows:—Argyll County, twenty-three Local Medical Officers, of whom three possess statutory qualification; Inverness County, ten Local Medical Officers, of whom one possesses statutory qualification; Ross and Cromarty, eleven Local Medical Officers, of whom two possess statutory qualification; Sutherland County, no Local Medical Officers; Caithness County, no Local Medical Officers; Orkney and Shetland, three Local Medical Officers, none of whom possess statutory qualification. The Medical Officers who do not possess the public health diploma were appointed prior to the coming into operation of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, and consequently do not require to possess the qualification. The Local Government Board do not recognise new appointments of Medical Officers who do not possess the statutory qualification.

Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the propriety of forming these counties into a combined district, so that they may get the services of highly qualified medical men?

I must ask for notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when the road from the Mall to Charing Cross will be opened.

The houses to be removed to secure the opening into Charing Cross will be in vacant possession of my Department this summer, and, subject to my obtaining the necessary funds to meet the cost, the work will be carried out as soon as possible afterwards.

Let us hope it will be before the Coronation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some tenants (those of Ballynoneen) on the estate of Wren and Stokes, in Chancery since 1883, were evicted from their holdings in 1891, and allowed in as caretakers for three years; that at the end of this period they were obliged to sign proposals to the Court under the eleven months grazing system; and that some refused to sign, and had attachment orders got against them for contempt of Court; and whether the receiver had the authority of the Court in offering yearly tenancies on condition of paying fines.

The evictions were carried out by direction of the Court of Chancery. The tenants evicted were re-admitted as caretakers in respect of the houses, and as grazing tenants in respect of the lands. An attachment order, which has never been executed, was issued against one tenant only. In every case in which a yearly tenancy was created it was done with the sanction of the Court. No fines were taken from the tenants. Any payments made by them were on account of arrears of rent.

Did the Court endeavour to enforce the attachment order?

I have no information on that point. I only have information that one attachment order was issued, but has never been executed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the reason for the delay which annually takes place in publishing the statistical tables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police; and whether, having regard to the fact that similar statistics in connection with the city of Glasgow are published in February, he will secure an earlier publication of the Dublin statistics in future; also if he will cause to be inserted in the Report for 1901 and in all future Reports, the salaries paid to the chief commissioner, assistant commissioner, and other officers and men as set forth in the annual report of the chief constable of Glasgow, and also the sums contributed by the Corporation and Treasury respectively for the maintenance of the force.

The police statistics for Dublin have been published annually about May. If it be possible to publish them earlier, this will be done. I cannot, however, give any undertaking in the matter. The information referred to in the second part of the Question is given in the Estimates which are yearly presented to Parliament.

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph?

The information will I think, be found in the Estimates. I will consider if it can be given in a more convenient form.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that in the prosecutions on Thursday for the rioting at Dromore, County Down, two of the witnesses failed to identify any of the accused, although they had previously made statements identifying the accused; (2) whether he is aware that in the Normoyle case the witnesses who declined to confirm their previous identification were committed to prison for contempt of court; and (3) will he explain why a similar course was not pursued in the Dromore case, and why the Dromore prosecutions were not conducted under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act.

At the request of my right hon. friend. I will reply to this Question. The witnesses in the Normoyle case were committed for contempt because, in the opinion of the presiding Justice, they were obviously prevaricating, swearing falsely, and trifling with their oaths. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the two witnesses in the Dromore prosecutions pointed at in the Question, namely, Mr. Wilson and Miss Whiteside, were guilty of misconduct of that kind. A bench, of seven magistrates, including the resident magistrate, decided that, while a riot undoubtedly took place on the occasion, there was no evidence to implicate any of the persons accused. The proceedings were not taken under the Crimes Act, because there was no reason to believe that a jury could not be found in that county who would decide according to the evidence.

HOW does the right hon. Gentleman arrive at the conclusion that this is justified because the jury could be relied on, in view of the fact that the case was not going before a jury at all, but before a packed, bench of magistrates?

The hon. Member asked why were not the proceedings instituted under the Crimes Act. My answer was that justice could be obtained under the ordinary law.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion that these witnesses swore falsely was made by the Crown Solicitor at the trial?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the recent quarter sessions for the Macroom Division of the West Riding of Cork. County Court Judge Bird was presented with white gloves in consequence of there being no criminal business to transact, and that Millstreet rural district is included in this quarter sessions area; and seeing that there is an absence of crime in the locality, can he explain on what grounds it was specially proclaimed under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act.

I must refer the hon. Member to the statement made by me on the 17th instant. To that statement I have nothing to add.

May I point out that in the right hon. Gentleman's speech he gave no definite reasons for the proclamation of this district?

I am content to rest it on the general arguments I advanced.

But I want specific reasons.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objection to issue a Return showing the distribution of the cases of total boycotting and partial boycotting in the district proclaimed under Section. 2 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887.

No, Sir. A Return giving this information will be laid on the Table.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many fishing boats have been built to the order of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland since its establishment, where built, and where the sails and general outfit were supplied from, and the cost of these boats; and were the sails and outfit for the fishing boat now building at Baltimore School made at Baltimore; and, if not, can he explain why this was not done.

The information asked for could not very well be embodied in an answer to a Question, and I have, therefore, sent it direct to the hon. Member, who can give it what publicity he desires.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Sergeant Sheridan, a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, whom the Chief Secretary has accused of manufacturing crime in Ireland, is still at large; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken by the Irish Government to bring this sergeant to trial.

This matter was fully discussed in the statement made by me on the Appropriation Bill at the end of last session. To that statement I have nothing to add.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what steps the Government are prepared to take with a view of making good Liscannor Harbour; and are the Government prepared to help the Kilrush Harbour Board in the manner asked by them to enable the Board to improve the entrance to that harbour.

Negotiations are, I believe, proceeding between the County Council of Clare and the new Department in respect of Liscannor Harbour. I trust that some arrangement may be arrived at. I am also considering legislation which, if passed, will assist in placing certain fishery harbours in a more satisfactory position. But I cannot, at this stage, give pledges in respect of particular ports. In respect of Kilrush, the Board of Works are prepared to undertake certain improvements on conditions which have been communicated to the Urban District Council.

In the event of anything being done, will this harbour be put under the County Council?

I shall be prepared to go into the separate question of maintenance when I bring in my Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will publish the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the pay and allowances of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

The Report was laid on the Table yesterday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government offer of £12,000 to enable the reconstruction of the Portumna Pail-way will be available if a company finds the same amount of capital and undertakes to work the railway.

The attitude of the Government in this matter was fully explained in the replies to Questions addressed to me last session. To these replies I am afraid I must refer the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord 'Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the observations of his Honour County Court Judge Moore, who, at Clonmel Quarter Sessions on Wednesday last, on the hearing of an application of Edward Burke for compensation for the burning of a farm, which was opposed by the Rural Council of Cloghen on behalf of the ratepayers, said that the people of Ardfinnan would not care if Burke as well as the house was burned; and whether, having regard to the effect upon the administration of justice of such language used from the bench, the Government propose to take any steps in the matter.

I have submitted the Question to his Honour, in case he may desire to make any observations upon it. But, of course, he is under no obligation to this House, and I have no responsibility in the matter.

May I ask if there is no means by which such wholesale slander of our people can be stopped?

Order, order! Questions with regard to judicial proceedings must be asked in moderate terms.

I do not think our people ought to be slandered by judges or anyone else.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for the year 1901, or for any previous year, the amount, approximately, of corn and grain imported into Ireland from foreign and colonial ports, either directly or after being transhipped or registered in Great Britain, and the same for flour; and if he will give the amount of Irish grown corn, whether in grain or flour, shipped from Ireland; also the estimated amount of the Irish-grown corn used in the manufacture of the whiskey, beer, and porter shipped from Ireland.

The direct imports into Ireland were, grain, 16,294,030 cwts., flour, 2,386,610 cwts. The direct exports from Ireland were, grain, 137,142 cwts., flour (bran), 7,700 cwt. I cannot say what proportion was sent via Great Britain. Irish-grown grain is not separately distinguished in the Returns.

Cannot you give me some information as to the last paragraph?

I have none.