laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—

To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the constant losses which are being suffered by music sellers and composers owing to the sale of piratical editions of copyright songs, and whether he proposes to take any steps to facilitate the passage of the Bill already before Parliament to put an end to this sale. (Answer.) The Government are aware of the evils referred to, and are in sympathy with the provisions of Lord Monkswell's Bill, which has come down to the House of Commons after being amended by the House of Lords Standing Committee. It is impossible, as yet, to make any statement on the question of granting special facilities for the passage of this or any other measure promoted by private Members.—(Treasury.)

Mr Speaker, Papers have already been laid upon the Table, and will be in the hands of Members in two or three hours, I hope, at the latest, which will give not only the terms of surrender happily agreed upon last Saturday, but also the correspondence leading up to that auspicious event. But I think that the House will perhaps be anxious to hear the actual outcome of the negotiations, even before hon. Members have an opportunity of reading the Papers and the correspondence which have led up to that consummation. Though the documents are rather long, perhaps I may be allowed to read in the first place the agreement as to the terms; of surrender of the Boer forces in the field approved by His Majesty's Government; and in the second place, a document supplementary to the first, the character of which will be understood directly I have read it. The following are the terms of agreement, signed on Saturday night. His Excellency General Lord Kitchener and his Excellency Lord Milner, on behalf of the British Government, and Messrs M. T. Steyn, J. Brebner, General C. R. De Wet, General C. Olivier, and Judge J. B. M. Hertzog, acting as the Government of the Orange Free State, and Messrs. S. W. Burger, F. W. Reitz, Generals Lewis Botha, J. H. Delary, Lucas Meyer, Krogh, acting as the Government of the South African Republic, on behalf of their respective burghers desirous to terminate the present hostilities, agree on the following Articles:—

His Majesty's Government will place at the disposal of these Commissions a sum of £3,000,000 for the above purposes, and will allow all notes issued under Law 1 of 1900 of the South African Republic, and all receipts given by officers in the field of the late Republics, or under their orders, to be presented to a Judicial Commission, which will be appointed by the Government, and if such notes and receipts are found by tins Commission to have been duly issued in return for valuable considerations, they will be received by the first-named commissions as evidence of war losses suffered by the persons to whom they were originally given.

In addition to the above-named free grant of £3,000,000, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to make advances on loan for the same purposes free of interest for two years, and afterwards repayable over a period of years with 3 per cent. interest. No foreigner or rebel will be entitled to the benefit of this clause.

"After handing to Boer delegates a copy of draft agreement "—

"which his Majesty's Government are prepared to approve, with a view of terminating the present hostilities, I read to them the following statement and gave them a copy.

"His Majesty's Government must place it on record that the treatment of Cape and Natal Colonists who have been in rebellion, and who now surrender, will if they return to their Colonies, be determined by the Colonial Governments and in accordance with the laws of the Colonies, and any British subjects who have joined the enemy will be liable to trial under the law of that part of the British Empire to which they belong.

"His Majestys Government are informed by the Cape Government that the following are their views as to the terms which should be granted to British subjects of Cape Colony who are now in the field, or who have surrendered, or have been captured since April 12th, 1901. 'With regard to rank and file, they should all, upon surrender, after giving up their arms, sign a document before the resident magistrate of the district in which the surrender takes place acknowledging themselves guilty of high treason, and the punishment to be awarded to them, providing that they shall not have been guilty of murder or other acts contrary to the usages of civilised warfare, should be that they shall not be entitled for life to be registered as voters or to vote at any Parliament—(cheers)—divisional council, or municipal election. With reference to justices of the peace and field-cornets of Cape Colony, and all other persons holding official positions under the Government of Cape Colony, or who may occupy the position of commandant of the rebel or burgher forces, they shall be tried for high treason before the ordinary court of the country, or such special court as may be hereafter constituted by law, the punishment for their offences to be left to the discretion of the Court, with this proviso, that in no case shall penalty of death be indicted.'

"The Natal Government are of opinion that rebels should be dealt with according to the law of the Colony."

The right bon. Gentleman has given the House a plain and businesslike narrative of the most recent of these all-important events. He has refrained from making any comment, or expressing any feeling on the subject, but I cannot but think that the House will allow a certain expression, at all events, to be given to what I believe to be the universal feeling of the country. Sir, this intelligence which the right hon. Gentleman has, happily, been able to give us—intelligence long looked for and long hoped for—will, I feel certain, cause the most profound and universal satisfaction, not only at home, but within the whole wide bounds of the Empire. It will bring ease and comfort to many an anxious, aching heart; it will give rest to many who have served the King in all ranks, and whose energies have been through long months overwrought. It will relieve the power and the resources of this country of a strain which they have been proved to be well able to bear, but a strain great beyond any previous example. It will put an end, let us hope, to suffering and disastrous losses and confusion, which during the continuance of the war necessarily blighted the fair South African dominions of the Crown. I believe that the harmony of feeling on this subject with which we greet this announcement is complete. We are all at one in our recognition of those who have fought for us, of the courage and endurance, the patience and discipline, which they have displayed, and by which they have maintained the traditions of the British Army. I am sure that I can go further, and say that we are unanimous in our admiration of those who up to now have been our enemies, and who now are our friends and fellow-citizens, whose military qualities, whose tenacity of purpose and self-sacrificing devotion to liberty and country, have won for them the respect of the whole world, and foremost of all the respect of us who have been their opponents. We shall also be alike in our hope and expectation that from the date of this peace there shall dawn a happier era, an era of concord and prosperity upon South Africa. As to the terms of settlement, we must await the perusal of the Papers before saying anything, and this would not be a fitting occasion in any case. All that we can do, I think, as Members of this House, is to offer our humble congratulations to the King and to the country on the thrice-blessed establishment of peace.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he would consent to the adjournment of the House until the morning sitting to-morrow, if it will not dislocate business too much.

As my hon. friend will probably have anticipated, it is quite impossible to entertain the proposal, which I am sure in a most excellent spirit he has set before us. I do not think it would be a very judicious way of celebrating the happy event which I have announced to the House that we should suspend the carrying on during the whole of the present sitting the business of the country. I may, perhaps, be allowed to say, as I know there must be a good deal of natural and strong feeling upon the subject, of which I have given but a bald outline, that there will be a legitimate opportunity for explaining all that we think about the services to the country which have been performed by our forces in South Africa, and their distinguished general, because I shall at an early date move that a vote of thanks be presented to them by this House.

Is there any intention on the part of the Government to have a Thanksgiving Day for the termination of the war?

The time for questions has expired. Notice should be given.

had on the Paper the following questions: To ask the Secretary of State for War if the telegraphists of the Post Office, who were called for in the spring of 1900 to volunteer for South Africa, were enlisted into the Army in precisely the same way as the City Imperial Volunteers, the Service Companies of Volunteers, the Imperial Yeomanry, and the Volunteers of the St. John's Ambulance Association; and, if so, will he explain why no effort has been or is being made to relieve them in the same way as the Members of those emergency corps, namely, after good service, instead of retaining them indefinitely until the close of the war under the strict letter of the engagement they entered into. The hon. and gallant Member said it would be sufficient if he asked if when these men returned their claims would be duly considered.

Yes, Sir, certainly.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of deaths from enteric fever amongst the men of the Wiltshire Regiment at St. Helena; what hospital and medical staff there is available on the spot to deal with the disease; and what steps are being taken to prevent any further spread of the epidemic.

The total number of deaths from enteric fever among the men of the Wiltshire Regiment is nine. The Royal Army Medical corps staff now in St. Helena consists of—1 lieutenant-colonel, 1 major, 1 quartermaster, 7 civil surgeons, 5 nursing sisters, 1 sergeant, 4 corporals, 3 lance-corporals, 22 privates, 27 regimental orderlies attached, 21 prisoners of war orderlies. There are 427 beds available. This staff will be augmented from Capetown today. The epidemic is steadily subsiding, and the health of the troops is greatly improved.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say what quantity of horses were purchased for Army purposes during April, and state the countries from which they were obtained.

13,557 horses were purchased during April. They were obtained as follows:

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Reserve Officers who have retired from the services on receiving a lump sum down by way of gratuity, and who have served during the South African war, are allowed the full pay of their rank, whereas those Reserve Officers who have retired on receiving a pension instead of a lump sum, and who have similarly served, are not allowed the full pay of their rank. Can he state how many military and how many naval officers, respectively, have either been deprived of pay altogether for their services in South Africa, or have received diminished pay on the ground that they are in receipt of retired pay or pensions. I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War, is he aware that a Commander in the Royal Navy, compulsorily retired at the age of forty-five in 1900 with a pension of £300, reduced subsequently by commutation to £228, volunteered for service in South Africa in January 1901, joined as a trooper, was advanced through successive ranks to captain in the Imperial Yeomanry, and would be entitled, as such, to pay of £237, 5s. per annum, but that he has nevertheless been refused any pay whatever from Army funds, on the ground of his enjoyment of a naval pension; and, is it proposed to adhere in all cases to a rule which enables the War Office to accept the services of experienced officers, and at the end of their services to refuse to them any pay for those services.

It has been repeatedly explained to the House that retired officers re-employed cannot, under the Regulations, claim both effective and non-effective pay, but are permitted to choose whichever is most advantageous to them. I am aware of the case referred to in the second Question. If this officer elected to draw his effective pay, it would be necessary to deduct the value of the commuted pension which would reduce his salary below the rate of his present pension. An exception in a particular case would necessitate a general change in the rules laid down by the Treasury. Two supplementary questions were asked by Mr. GIBSON BOWLES, but neither the questions nor the answers were audible.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any vacancies have occurred in the Naval Ordnance Department since the, Secretary to the Admiralty stated that Naval Warrant Officers were to fill such appointments; and whether he can state the nature of the appointments he proposes to offer to Naval Warrant Officers.

The two vacancies which now exist and which are for Assistant Naval Store Officers are not of such a nature as to render it possible with advantage to the service to fill them from the Warrant Officer's List, nor do these posts come within the scope of the Committee's recommendation referred to in the answer given by the Secretary of the Admiralty to a previous question. This recommendation was in reference to storeholders only. The whole question of the staff at the outports is now referred to a sub-committee who are visiting the ports and no fresh appointments will be made until their report has been received.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will take steps to ensure that the ship allotted to the Members of the House of Commons at the Coronation Naval Review is not too crowded with guests having no connection with the House, and that there shall be an adequate supply of provisions, so preventing the inconvenience to Members which occurred at the last Jubilee Review.

I am aware that in the case of the Jubilee Naval Review considerable inconvenience was experienced by hon. Members owing to the large number of passengers on the ship appropriated to the House of Commons and to the inadequacy of the refreshment accommodation. Every effort is being made to avoid the recurrence of any inconvenience of the kind, and to make adequate provision for all Members of the House of Commons attending the Review.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that ninety-six Members have been unsuccessful in the ballot for sleeping accommodation on board the vessel to witness the Coronation Naval Review; and, whether, seeing that this number exceeds the number for whom provision is afforded, a second vessel can be provided for the accommodation of this number.

Two vessels have been provided for the accommodation of hon. Members who desire to witness the Coronation Review. The arrangements made by the Admiralty include the conveyance of Members to and from London, and their entertainment on board ship during the day. The Admiralty is not responsible for either ship after she has disembarked passengers at Southampton in the evening. It has, however, been found possible to retain one of the ships for the night. The company to which the vessel belongs has agreed to make a private arrangement by which the sleeping accommodation of the ship will be made available to hon. Members on payment. I am aware that the number of hon. Members desiring to sleep on board is larger than this ship can accommodate, but I am considering whether, and in what way the available space can be supplemented. If I find that more berths can be obtained I will immediately communicate with hon. Members, but I should like to make it quite clear that the provision of sleeping accommodation is outside the responsibility of the Admiralty, and also that the two ships which have been retained are amply sufficient for the accommodation during the day.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state to what local authority an application should be addressed in regard to the need of superseding by steamers of modern type the present fifty year old steamers in use at Sara Ghat Ferry.

The Ferry in question is worked in connection with the Eastern Bengal Railway, and complaints should be addressed to the administration of that railway.

Are these steamers leased by the Eastern Bengal Railway?

They are worked in connection with the railway.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonics whether, before discussing the commercial relations of the Empire with the representatives of the self-governing Colonies when they are here for the Coronation, he will afford the House an opportunity of considering the attitude that should be adopted by the mother country in respect to any proposals that may be made for establishing a system of mutual trade preference within the Empire.

I do not think that there would be any advantage in such a preliminary discussion until definite proposals upon which the Colonies are generally agreed are before His Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state what information he has about the expedition to Lake Chad under Colonel Morland, and whether it is intended to establish a residency in Bornu.

Colonel Morland reached Gujba, in Bornu, on the 11th of March, and I have learnt by telegraph that he has now returned to Jobba. He was instructed to leave a resident in Bornu, and has no doubt done so, but the full report of the proceedings has not yet been received.

I beg to ask the Secretary for the Colonies whether the Government of the Dominion of Canada has disallowed certain Acts of the Legislature of British Columbia restricting the immigration and employment of Asiatics; and, if so, whether this action is sanctioned by the Imperial Government.

The Governor General of Canada has, on the advice of his Ministers, disallowed certain Acts of the Legislature of British Columbia which imposed serious disabilities on Japanese and other friendly powers. His Majesty's Government have seen the decision of the Dominion Government with great satisfaction.

I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what is the present international status of Egypt, whether it is a protected State in the British Empire or a province of the Turkish Empire; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to carry out the promise given to evacuate the country.

Egypt is a tributary State of the Turkish Empire, in British military occupation.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the promise of inquiry made on 15th February, 1901, His Majesty's Government are now aware that in September, 1900, a German force forcibly seized a portion of the Congo Free State, and turned the Belgian forces out of their stations there under a threat of war; and that the Germans thus took possession of the strip of territory leased to Great Britain by King Leopold of Belgium in 1894, which territory was abandoned by Great Britain, owing to the objections of the German and French Governments; what grounds were or are alleged by the German Government for seizing territory which they objected to being occupied by Great Britain, and the lease of which Great Britain abandoned on German representations; has His Majesty's Government made any representations on the subject to the German Government, or does it propose to make any; and if any such representations have been made, will the correspondence be laid upon the Table of this House.

The information we have received from the German Government does not include any mention of occurrences of the kind described in my hon. friend's Question, but is to the effect that a mixed German Congolese Commission has for some time past been engaged in the preliminaries necessary for delimiting the boundaries of the respective German and Congolese territories in the neighbourhood of Lake Kivu. There are no Papers which could conveniently be laid.

The noble Lord says the information received does not include that I ask for. Is he aware that in February, 1901, he promised to make inquiry, and has he done so?

Oh, yes, communications have passed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the terms of the Agreement of 29th April, the Peking-Shan-hai-Kwang Railway has been handed over to China on 1st June; and, if it has not been so handed over, whether its retention is due to disagreement among or refusal by the Allied Powers.

We learn from His Majesty's Minister at Peking that there has been some difference of opinion between his colleagues as to the date at which the railway might be handed over to China, and he is not yet able to give us definite information upon this point.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what arrangement has been come to with regard to the navigation of the Whang Poo river between Shanghai and the sea; whether the channel has been deepened; and what is the composition of the controlling authority of the navigation.

The arrangements concluded between the Powers and China with regard to the Whang Poo navigation are contained in Annex 17 to the Final Protocol of September 7th, 1901, and will be found at pp. 270–72 of the Parliamentary Paper China No. 1, 1902. His Majesty's Minister at Peking reported on March 27th that the Conservancy Board had been constituted in accordance with Article 3 of Annex 17, with the exception of the Chinese representative, who had not yet been appointed, and that work had therefore not yet commenced.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary, of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Italian Government have recently issued a regulation to the effect that all foreign artists who wish to study in the Italian galleries or museums must produce an academic diploma and a certificate from the Italian Consul in their native city or town that they are capable and respectable; and whether, in order to prevent inconvenience to British art students at present studying in Italy, he will consider the expediency of making representations to the Italian Government on the subject, with a view to the withdrawal of the order.

We have received no information on the subject, but inquiry will be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of fatal accidents resulting from parachute performances in Great Britain since 1890, and how many of the persons killed were males and how many were females.

No, Sir. Fatal accidents resulting from parachute performances, being of rare occurrence, are not classified separately in the Registrar General's returns. But I may say that during the period 1890 to 1900 the wider heading "Falls from Balloons" shows the deaths of two males and one female.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state how many of the 9,596 animals experimented upon under certificates A and A + E and A + F have been under the personal observation of the inspectors; and in the case of animals experimented upon under these certificates, which have not been under the personal observation of the inspectors, what is the guarantee, besides the word of the operator himself, that the provisions of the certificates have been obeyed. The following Questions also appeared on the Paper in the name of the same hon. Member— To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state at how many of the 1,176 experiments on living animals in 1901 done under licence alone an inspector was present, and what is the guarantee, other than the word of the operator himself, that the provisions of the licence as to anæsthesia were obeyed in the cases where an inspector was not present; also at how many of the experiments done under certificate B and B + EE, numbering together 699, was an inspector present; and, when experiments were performed under these certificates without the presence of an inspector, what is the guarantee, besides the word of the operator himself, that the provisions of the certificates and licences as to anæsthesia were obeyed. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state in how many experiments done under Certificates A, A + E, and A + F pain ensued before the main result of the experiment had been attained, and who is the authority that decides whether or not pain does ensue.

Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to give one answer to his three Questions, as very similar considerations apply to all the points raised. Very few of the experiments under the certificates indicated or under the licences alone have been witnessed by an inspector. But a very large proportion of the animals experimented upon have been seen and carefully examined by the inspectors, and in no case have they found that an animal has been unnecessarily kept alive in pain. The licensee is, of course, responsible for carrying out the conditions of his licence and certificates, and the additional "guarantees"—if I accept that word—are that the inspectors can judge whether the licensee is in the habit of obeying the conditions by the number of cases which they see and in which they find the animals in a proper state and by the fact that whenever they find an experiment going on the provisions of the law with regard to anæsthesia are obeyed. Further "guarantees" lie in (1) the character of the persons to whom licences are granted and the eminent persons who recommend them, and (2) the fact that such experiments must be performed in registered places, which are under the control of responsible authorities, and that all applications are carefully scrutinised before registration is granted.

I beg to ask the Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent if the Charity Commissioners intend to adhere to their rule of compelling trustees (for the purpose of temporary investment) to purchase consols; and whether the Commissioners will consider the advisability of permitting such moneys to stand on deposit in the Bank of England or approved Joint Stock banks.

The Charity Commissioners have no rule of compelling trustees in the case of interim investments to purchase consols. In authorising such investments they are guided by the circumstances and requirements of each case. The objections to the course suggested by the hon. Member are that the Bank of England do not allow interest on money deposited with them, and that a deposit of money with a Joint Stock bank might involve the trustees of a charity in personal liability for the loss of the sum deposited.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent, as a Charity Commissioner, if his attention has been called to the Report of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Mr. Marchant Williams, for the parish of Llansadwrn, Carmarthenshire, dated 8th August, 1900, which, on page 290, states that the trustees of Cornwallis's Charity, with the sanction of the Charity Commissioners, invested in 1877 £200 on a deposit account of the Carmarthen Branch of the National Provincial Bank of England at 3 per cent. per annum, which interest was invested for prizes to the children; and, seeing that, as stated in the Report, after a few years the distribution of prizes ceased and the capital sum disappeared, what steps have been taken against those responsible for the trust.

(1) The Charity Commissioners did not sanction the deposit of the £200 to which the Question refers. On the contrary, they pressed the trustees to invest it in Government securities, and, for that purpose, to transfer it to the account of the Official Trustees of Charitable Funds. (2) The sum in question was not capital, but was accumulated income, which it was within the competence of the trustees to expend on the objects of the Charity. (3) As the sum was income, and not capital, and was not great in amount, the Commissioners did not think it desirable to take any steps for enforcing their recommendation that it should be invested. (4) The present trustees of the Charity deny the statement that the sum in question has disappeared; and a close examination of the records in the office of the Commissioners indicates that it formed part of a sum of £400 which was, under an order of the Board of 27th January, 1888, transferred from the deposit account of the trustees to the Official Trustees of Charitable Funds, was invested by them in consols, and still remains so invested.

Will the old trustees be re-appointed?

I must ask for notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Member for Salford, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if attention has been called to the conduct of the Central London Railway Company, who have blocked the main entrance of the parish church of St. Mary Woolnoth, in the City of London, and are selling seats at their station booking office for scats built upon the churchyard, and in front of the main entrance of the parish church; and, seeing that the Central London Railway Company are not the owners or part owners of such fabric or churchyard, if they have paid or deposited any, and, if so, what portion of the award against them for injuriously affecting the said church; and if such erection has been made with the knowledge and assent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have not been consulted as to the erection by the Central London Railway Company of a stand upon the churchyard of St. Man Woolnoth, nor do the Commissioners claim any authority in the matter. I understand that a faculty for the erection of a stand has been decreed by the Consistory Court of the Bishop of London, to be granted to the rector and churchwardens and the railway company jointly. The Commissioners have been informed that a sum of £80,000 has been paid into court by the railway company in respect of the arbitrator's award upon the claim made by the rector and churchwardens for interference with the church and churchyard, and so forth. The award, however, was provisional upon the decision of the High Court upon certain legal questions involved, and the time for appeal against the judgment of the High Court which has been obtained has, I understand, not yet expired.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it has come to his knowledge that the mail steamers of the Orient Pacific and Peninsular and Oriental Shipping Companies only average about 340 miles daily, while they have power; to run 400 miles, which is the average speed of the American steamers on the Pacific; and, seeing that the time can be shortened by several days between England and Australia, and in view of the competition with German and other lines, will arrangements be made by the Post Office department to avail itself of the full speed of English mail steamers.

No, Sir; it is calculated that, in order to perform their voyages between Brindisi or Naples and Adelaide within the contract time; the packets of the Orient Pacific Line and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company would have to maintain an average speed of about 340 miles a day, whereas, in practice, most of them exceed that rate and reach the terminal port considerably before contract time, the Post Office gaining the advantage of such earlier arrival. The average speed is certainly considerably above 340 miles per day. Even if some of the ships could be driven faster still, the contracts give the Postmaster General no power to require additional speed.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to certain remarks made by Sheriff Guthrie, of Glasgow, in sentencing to nine months imprisonment for housebreaking a prisoner of nineteen years of age with three previous convictions, the sheriff suggesting that the prisoner should go into the Army to retrieve his character; whether, with the view of encouraging recruiting, he will point out to the sheriff the inadvisability of making such a suggestion again, more especially in a recruiting centre like Glasgow, where young men of good character join the colours.

I am confident the sheriff mentioned meant no disrespect to the Army; and if the Army offers to young men who have gone astray a chance of retrieving their lives, that does not seem matter for regret. In any case it does not fall within my duty or powers to interfere with a sheriff's discretion in the method of passing sentence.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether secondary schools carried on for private profit are now eligible for public grants out of taxation as well as those secondary schools which are conducted so as to pay a substantial dividend on the capital employed.

They are not eligible for public grants.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education on what authority financial grants are made by the Board of Education towards the education of pupils in secondary schools whose pupils are financially able to pay, and do pay, substantial fees for their education.

The sums granted by Parliament are administered by the Board of Education in accordance with regulations annually laid before Parliament. Such grants are made to schools which, from their character and financial position, are eligible to receive aid from public funds, and not to individual scholars.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any, and if so, what, machinery is provided for administering the schools taken over by the County Education Authority from the School Boards between the date of the adoption of the Education Act by the County Council and the enactment of the Scheme which is to provide for the future administration of such schools.

The machinery is to be found in Clause 20, sub-Section 2, of the Bill.

On behalf of the Right hon. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a member of the Granard Rural District Council has taken possession of a cottage erected under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; whether this person is entitled to such occupation; and, if not, whether the attention of the Local Government Board will be drawn to the matter.

My right hon. friend has sent me a newspaper report, from which it appears that the fact is as stated. A district councillor may be a tenant of a cottage if he is an agricultural labourer. Whether the councillor in the present case is eligible from this point of view, I cannot say. The matter is one which concerns the Council, and the Local Government Board has no power to intervene. No legal disqualification for the office of councillor attaches to a person by reason of his being the tenant of a labourer's cottage.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board in Ireland has been called to the drainage of Greencastle, County Antrim; whether the joint scheme of the Belfast Corporation and the Local Urban Council has been sanctioned; and, if so, what is the reason for the delay in putting the scheme in force.

The Local Government Board has not sanctioned any such joint scheme of drainage. The Corporation and the Rural District Council entered into negotiations on the subject. These, however, have been suspended, as the Council considers that the area proposed to be drained by the Corporation is not sufficiently large.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the practice carried on in Dublin of tenement holders of houses systematically increasing the rents on their tenants; whether he has read the observations of the Recorder of that city in deciding cases recently brought before him for ejectments; and whether, in view of the hardship inflicted on poor tenants, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to deal with this matter.

The hon. Member has sent me a newspaper report of the Recorder's observations in the cases referred to. I cannot hold out any hope of being able to introduce legislation in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the constabulary authorities are aware of the action of constables from Milford, County Cork, in placing a watch upon the meetings of the Shandrum branch of the United Irish League; is he aware that at the last monthly meeting of the branch on 25th May two policemen were stationed in the front of the league-room, although they had not visited the village on Sunday during the past month; and, if so, can he explain what is the reason for his watching of the meetings of this association.

The police do not watch the proceedings of this branch. They visited the village on Sunday the 25th May, and on all previous Sundays for some months past when the branch did not meet, for the purpose of supervising the public houses in the village and preventing a breach of the licensing Acts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that Mr. Fenton, Crown Solicitor for Sligo, who has caused a summons to be issued for conspiracy under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, 1887, against the hon. Member for North Leitrim, to be tried before two resident magistrates on 6th June, is the same Mr. Fenton who issued a writ against this hon. Member for an alleged conspiracy to injure him, in which the venue is laid in Belfast for the July Assizes; whether the Government will call on Mr. Fenton to explain why, instead of bringing a civil action for conspiracy against the hon. Member, he has failed to take penal proceedings against him before the local resident magistrates; whether he is aware that Mr. Fenton procured a writ of attachment to be issued against the hon. Member last year in a civil proceeding; that Mr. Fenton was also employed by the Crown to collect evidence and otherwise on the occasion of the recent prosecution of the hon. Gentleman in Dublin; and that Mr. Fenton when a candidate for Sligo Corporation was defeated by the hon. Member; can the communications made by Mr. Fenton to Dublin Castle, advising the present prosecution of the hon. Member, or those from Dublin Castle to Mr. Fenton on the same subject, be laid upon the Table; and whether, in view of the fact that the hon. Member is the third defendant from County Sligo in civil proceedings against whom Mr. Fenton has claimed damages before a Belfast jury within the past twelve months, the Government will consider the desirability of transferring him from Sligo to Belfast with a view to prevent his civil and criminal engagements from clashing.

Mr. Fenton, in his capacity of Crown Solicitor for the County of Sligo, appeared in the ordinary course of his duty as solicitor to instruct counsel in the prosecutions under the Crimes Act directed by the Government on the advice of the law officers. Mr. Fenton also assisted, as he was bound to do, in the prosecution of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, referred to in the second paragraph. All the other proceedings mentioned in the question are proceedings taken by Mr. Fenton in vindication of his civil rights as an ordinary Member of the community. The Government are not in any way responsible for these proceedings, and see nothing in them inconsistent with his position as Crown Solicitor. Mr. Fenton will not be called upon by the Government for any explanation as to the form of the proceedings he has taken on his own behalf. There is no power to transfer him to Belfast, and even if the power existed the Government would not transfer such an efficient public officer from the scene of his useful labours.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government will afford facilities for the passage of the Under Sheriffs (Ireland) Bill during the present session, seeing that the measure has received the support of most of the mercantile bodies in Ireland.

I will consider this measure, but at this period of the session I doubt whether legislation can be profitably assisted unless it be of a wholly non-controversial character.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is contemplated by the Government that any portion of the cost of the Education Bill shall be borne by the Exchequer instead of wholly by rates levied by the local authority.

I am not in a position at the present time to make any statement on this point.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state what will be the effect of the Education Bill on an educational endowment in a borough of less than 10,000 inhabitants which is sufficient, with the Government grants, to maintain the elementary schools; and whether a borough with such an endowment will be liable to be rated for the expense of the new local education authority.

Under the Bill a borough such as that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman would undoubtedly be liable to the county rate Some proposal will have to be made to meet the very difficulty which he suggests.

When will the Government proposals be brought forward?

I hope in ample time for their consideration before they come up for discussion.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before a renewal of the Treasury Minute regulating the distribution of the Parliamentary grant to universities and colleges in Great Britain, an opportunity will be afforded for considering whether any strictly denominational college should participate in such grant; and whether the vote for such colleges can be taken at a time when the subject can be discussed.

As far as I am aware, there are no universities or colleges coming within the description mentioned in the Question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the grant of five shillings per child payable to the voluntary schools in England and Wales under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, and amounting for the year 1900–1901 to £622,223, will be continued in the event of the Education Bill of this session becoming law.

Contributions by the Treasury towards voluntary schools will undoubtedly have to be continued to the local authority. In other words, the local authority will undoubtedly get, in those cases where the Act is adopted, the money which now goes to voluntary schools, but the actual provisions under which this is done have yet to be placed on the Paper, and I should be sorry that we should be led into a premature discussion with regard to them.

Will the local authority have a free hand as to the distribution of these funds?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will reserve the Question until he sees the proposal.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the differences of opinion which exist with reference to the provisions of the Education Bill dealing with elementary education, he will consider the desirability of proceeding this session only with Part I. and Part II. of the Bill, which relate to higher education.

No, Sir. It is impossible for me to accept the suggestion which the hon. Gentleman throws out.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state when he intends to take the Medical Vote on the Army Estimates.

No, Sir, I cannot make any statement about that.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the House will adjourn for the Coronation proceedings, and when its sittings will be resumed.

I shall in due course inform the House of the course I shall advise them to adopt with regard to a holiday at the time of the Coronation; but I think any such anouncement or suggestion on my part would be premature at the present moment.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the London Elections Bill deals with the re-arrangement of areas for Parliamentary elections, with which it has not hitherto been customary to deal except at the time of and in connection with a general redistribution of Parliamentary seats, and whether he was informed by the Local Government Board of the intention so to deal with Parliamentary areas before the Bill was introduced under the new Rule, all question or division on the matter being thus precluded.

I think the Bill to which the right hon. Baronet refers hardly comes under the description of a redistribution Bill. As I understand, it was pressed on my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board by both Parties, and has no political significance whatever. Under those circumstances I hope it will pass through the House without difficulty.

said that Sir Charles Cayzer and two other Gentlemen proposed as members of the Committee were connected with the shipping interest. He consequently opposed this Motion, although he would not divide the House against it, because he did not think it proper that hon. Gentlemen should serve on Select Committees which were appointed to deal with subjects in which they might be personally interested. This Committee could not, he contended, be in any true sense of the word a judicial Committee, if Sir Charles Cayzer was a member of it.