To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that officers in the Royal Engineers have to serve eleven years after receiving their first commission before they attain the rank of Captain, and that they must he thirty years of age before attaining that rank, and seeing that this term of service as a junior officer is longer than is required in other branches of the service, he will consider the advisability of shortening the period for the Royal Engineers. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The whole question is at present receiving my attention.

To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of public schools in the Island of Lewis which have been closed during the year on account of typhus or typhoid fever or other epidemics, and the period during which each school has remained closed. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The schools in the Island of Lewis closed since 1st January, 1902, on account of epidemic sickness, were as follows:—Stornoway, Aird Public School, March 7th to July 14th; Stornoway, Tolsta Public School, July 3rd—still closed; Stornoway, Knock Public School (Junior Section only), August 25th to September 15th; Stornoway, Bayble Public School (Junior Section only), August 23rd to September 8th; Barvas, Lionel Public School, April 9th to June 2nd; Barvas, Cross Public School, January 1st to February 18th; Barvas, Shawbost Public School, January 1st to March 24th; Barvas, Airidh-an-tuim Public School, January 1st to February 19th; Uig, Carloway Public School, January 1st to January 6th.

To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the report of the South Western District Committee for Ross and Cromarty, dated 26th July last, shows that there were several cases of typhoid fever and other infectious diseases in the district during the year, some of which proved fatal, will he state to what cause these outbreaks are attributable; were any public schools in the district closed on account of these outbreaks of disease; if so, how many, and for how long a period did each school remain closed. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed by the Local Government Board that the medical officer of the county is of opinion that the outbreak is traceable to the insanitary condition of a house in Loch Carron. The Secretary for Scotland is taking steps to secure fuller information. The schools closed during the year ended 31st July, 1902, in the district referred to were Kintail, Dornie Public School, about two months; Lochalsh, J. Earbusaig, about two months; Loch Carron, Strome, about two and a half weeks.

To ask the Lord Advocate whether the whole of the twenty-nine quarter-acre sites for fishermen's dwellings near Stornoway have been applied for; have any sites yet been allotted; if so, how many. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am at present unable to furnish the hon. Member with any additional information to that contained in my Answer to his similar Question of 20th November,† and I regret that, as no notice of this Question has been given, I have been unable to obtain what further information, if any, may now exist.

To ask the Lord Advocate, whether Mr. William Shield, who has been deputed to report on the condition of the harbour at Port Ness, Island of Lewis, has yet decided on a date on which he will visit the island. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Mr. Shield has already visited Port Ness, and is engaged in preparing his report.

† See (4) Debates, cxv., 21

To ask the Lord Advocate, if he will state the names of any public schools in the Island of Lewis outside the burgh of Stornoway at which continuation classes are held. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Up to the present date no proposals have been received from managers of schools for the recognition of classes under the Continuation Class Code during the current Session in any part of the Island of Lewis outside the burgh of Stornoway.

To ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether, seeing that the high sheriff for a county in Ireland receives payment to cover to some extent his outlay in attending judges of assize, while high sheriffs of county boroughs do not receive any such payment, he will take steps to place the latter on the same footing in this respect. (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) It has already been decided that the provision made by Parliament in respect of certain expenses of the high sheriffs of counties could not be extended to county boroughs. The law in regard to the shrievalty of counties and boroughs is widely different. In the former case the person appointed is obliged to accept office or, on refusal, to incur a heavy penalty. In the latter it is specifically provided by Section 7 of the Municipal Privileges (Ireland) Act, 1876, that the person appointed may decline to serve without incurring any penalty.

To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to a memorial from the inhabitants of Greencastle district, County Donegal, requesting the substitution of a mail car for the present service by foot postmen, and will he state how much extra such service would cost his Department; and whether, in view of the importance of this district as a summer seaside resort, he can comply with the prayer of the memorial. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The memorial referred to has not yet reached me, but I will make inquiry respecting the postal service in the Greencastle district, County Donegal, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

To ask the Postmaster General if he has now received the Report of Home Office Inspectors on the alleged insanitary condition of the General Post, Office, East, referred to in his reply to the sorters' memorial; and whether the nature of that Report can be made public.

The Report has not been received, but I will make inquiry on the subject.

To ask the Postmaster General if there is Treasury authority for paying the removal expenses of officers taking up duty on the Travelling Post Office with headquarters in the provinces; and whether it is the practice of the Department to pay such expenses. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I fear that I cannot, in an answer to a Question, give a full account of the regulations governing the payment of removal expenses; but, speaking generally, an allowance is made, subject to certain conditions, to an officer who is required to change his headquarters in the interests of the public service.

To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Colonial Office will present to Parliament a, précis of the information collected and published by the Imperial Department of Agriculture for the West Indies relating to experiments with varieties of sugar cane, and to the chemical selection of sugar cane. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) Pamphlets giving summaries of the Reports referred to by the hon. Member are published by the Imperial Department of Agriculture for the West Indies, and can be purchased of Messrs. Dulau and Company, 37, Soho Square, for a few pence. It would therefore seem hardly worth while to publish them separately for Parliament. The question of whether these and similar publications cannot be made more widely known is under consideration.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that dogs lost in London are seized by the police and sold by auction; and will be state how often these auctions are held, whether notice of them is sent to owners who have reported the loss of dogs to the police, and to what purpose the money realised by these sales is applied. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I have called for a report from the police on the facts alleged in the case on which the hon. and gallant Member informs me he has based this Question. I will communicate with him further in the matter.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent sale by public auction in London of stolen dogs under the order of the Chief Commissioner of Police; will he say whether this order has received his sanction; whether, seeing that the dogs were found in the possession of a man who was convicted for having stolen them, will he say to what purpose the money derived from this sale has been appropriated; and whether he will consider the advisability of directing that all stolen dogs, as well as lost or strayed, which fall into the hands of the Metropolitan Police and remain unclaimed, should be sent to the Dogs' Home at Battersea. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I beg to refer to my answer on a similar Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Georges, Hanover Square, and to promise a further communication.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will undertake that the memorial of the officers of His Majesty's prisons, praying for the special consideration of their terms of service for pensions be referred to the Royal Commission on Civil Service Superannuation. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I will see that the case is brought to the notice of the Commission, but I cannot undertake to say to what extent they may be able to deal with it under their terms of reference.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware of the increase in devices for evading the laws as to betting, and in inducements to enter into betting transactions by systems of credit accounts and by other contrivances now being scattered through the country; and whether he has considered, and proposes either to lay before Parliament legislation on the subject next Session, or to deal with the matter administratively. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I am aware that the facilities for all kinds of betting are only too numerous Certain phases of the evil were dealt with in the Report of the recent Select Committee of the House of Lords, and it is a matter which deserves and is receiving careful consideration. I have no special powers of administration with regard to it, and I am not in a position to make a statement as to the prospect of legislation.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the church graveyard at Catterick, Yorkshire, has by order of the Local Government Board been closed for many months; and whether he will explain the delay in inspecting the proposed new burial ground. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) An Order in Council was made in March last closing the churchyard at Catterick from the 30th June, subject to certain specified exceptions. A site for a new burial ground had already been selected, but on the 19th of June I was informed by the Parish Council that the medical officer of health could not give a certificate as to its suitability. Application was subsequently made to me for approval of a new site and for sanction to a loan of £500 for the purpose of providing a new burial ground. The Parish Council had been made aware in February and March of the particulars which would be required to enable the case to be dealt with, but it was not until the middle of November that the complete information was furnished. A local inquiry was then directed, and the Parish Council were informed that it would be held as soon as the engagements of the inspectors would permit. The inquiry has now been fixed for the 30th of this month.

To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the First Commissioner of Works when it is intended to re-erect the statue of King James the Second, which used to stand in Whitehall Gardens, and more recently on the south-east side of Whitehall; and whether, in selecting a site for it, regard will be had to the desirability of placing it in an open space of suitable size, and in 'which it will not be dwarfed by the neighbouring buildings. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) It is not possible to re-erect the statue at this moment, as the garden is under repair. In selecting a site careful regard will be paid to the surroundings.

To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will state the exact nature of the details of the exchange of land to the London United Tramways Company in connection with Bushey Park; whether he will state what His Majesty's Commissioner of Works is giving to the London United Tramways Company for the portion of Garrick's Villa land he is acquiring from the Tramways Company; and whether the addition to Bushey Park, if any, will be open to the public. (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) As the hon. Member was informed on the 7th November, there is no exchange of land to the London United Tramways Company. Nothing is to be given to the Company. The land to be added to the park will be thrown into that portion which is already set aside for the care of the deer.

To ask Mr. Attorney General if he can state the reasons for removing Mr. Aldritt, Mayor of Tamworth, from the office of Justice of the Peace. (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I am informed that the circumstances are as follows: In an action for slander, Ash-wood v. Aldritt, tried at the Birmingham Assizes on Tuesday, 5th August, 1902, arising out of words uttered in respect of an application to the Bench by the plaintiff for a licence, the judge left it to the jury to decide whether, in uttering the words complained of, Mr. Aldritt had been actuated by an honest desire to do his duty as a magistrate, or whether, influenced by some other motive, he had intended to injure the plaintiff. The jury found against Mr. Aldritt, a verdict with which the judge agreed.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Coronation set of specimen coins were charged by the Mint at more than their face value; and, if so, what additional charge was made. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) With the approval of the Treasury, the prices charged to the public for specimen coins struck at the Mint, bearing His Majesty's effigy, are as follows: Face value £9 1s. 10d. Specimen coins: A, comprising five pound piece, two pound piece, sovereign, half sovereign, crown, half-crown, florin, shilling, sixpence, maundy fourpence, threepence, twopence, penny, without case, £10; with case, £10 6s. Face value, £2 1s. 10d.: B, comprising sovereign, half sovereign, crown, half-crown, florin, shilling, sixpence, maundy fourpence, threepence, twopence, penny, without case, £2 12s. 6d.; with case, £2 17s. 6d.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if a licence has to be taken out for a rifle by a member of a rifle club under the National Rifle Association, only used at the club practices. (Answered by Mr Hayes Fisher.) Rifles owned by members of rifle clubs affiliated to the National Rifle Association, but used only on rifle ranges, will be exempted in future from gun licence duty, and no licence will be required in respect of them.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an assistant clerk of thirty-two years service has recently been retired from the General Post Office at the age of sixty-one years on a pension of less than 15s. a week; and will he, state the reasons for a pension of this amount being granted. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) If the hon. Member will send me particulars of the case to which he refers, I shall be happy to investigate it.

To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what has been the approximate cost of the printing of Answers to Questions since the new Rule came into force. (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) Approximately, £2,300.

To ask the Secretary of State for India if he, will state the sums paid to the auditor of the Indian home accounts for salary and allowances respectively during the period that he has been in the India Audit Office; and what was the maximum salary to be paid to him under the conditions on which he entered. (Answered Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The present auditor's scale of salary on first appointment to the Audit Office in 1860 was £100, rising by £10 annually to £250; in 1863 his maximum salary was raised to £450. In December, 1868. he was made junior inspector, with the prospect of rising to £500, which was subsequently increased to £600, to which a personal allowance of £100 was added in 1882. In October, 1892, he was appointed assistant to the auditor, the scale of salary being £700, rising by £25 annually to £800, retaining his personal allowance. In January, 1895, he was appointed auditor, salary £1,000. The salary of the post was increased to £1,200 in February, 1900.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the public boards interested in the proposed change of union boundaries in the counties of Donegal and Londonderry have informed the Local Government Board as to their views on the boundary question, and that the, County Donegal Boards have reiterated their opinion that an inquiry should be held by the Local Government Board into the proposed change, and whether, seeing that the Local Government Board some time ago informed the public boards in question that such an inquiry should be held, he will state when the inquiry will take place. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Local Government Board awaits an expression of opinion from the Londonderry County Council before taking further action in this matter.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what works it is proposed to carry out on the Donegal coast under the provisions of the Marine Works Act; and whether he will state his decision as to the requests made to him for the construction of piers at Port Noo, Falchorrib, and Kincasslagh, and the improvement of the pier and harbour of Portnablagh. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No, Sir. I hope to settle these questions during the month of January, when I shall be able to confer with private and public bodies who may be interested locally.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when will the construction of the pier at Dunquin, county Kerry, be begun. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Congested Districts Board's steamer is lying off the coast awaiting an opportunity to land the material for building this pier.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant a fifth Return of Estates in the Land Judge's Court in Ireland ordered to be sold, in continuation of the Order of the House dated 2nd August, 1900, and will he direct that the name of the county or counties in which these estates are situate be inserted in the Return. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A fifth Return is in preparation, and when settled will be laid upon the Table. These Returns are in strict conformity with the particulars required to be furnished by a statutory rule, dated 23rd February, 1897, in relation to proceedings under the fortieth Section of the Land Act of 1890.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the circular issued in August last to teachers of National schools in Ireland, stating that the inspectors' reports as to the neatness and cleanliness of the school houses and premises would be taken into account in questions of the grant and teachers' salaries, implies that the teachers have a responsibility in seeing that their schools are kept neat and clean, even should that involve the outlay of money on their part. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) All teachers are enjoined to promote cleanliness and neatness in respect to the school premises as well as to the pupils. If any expense be incurred in complying with this requirement it must be defrayed locally, though not necessarily by the teachers.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the appointment of Mr. George M' Donald as Master of Lismore Workhouse has yet been sanctioned by the Local Government Board; what are the usual tests as to qualification imposed on persons elected to the position of workhouse master before the appointment is sanctioned; and whether the Local Government Board has been requested by the Lismore Board of Guardians to sanction Mr. M'Donald's appointment. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The appointment has not yet been sanctioned. Candidates for the position are required to possess an elementary knowledge of arithmetic and English composition. Mr. M 'Donald has recently been examined in these subjects, and the matter is under the Board's consideration. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the affirmative.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the supersession of officers of the Garrison Artillery by officers of the Field Artillery who had joined the same regiment after them, and who were junior to them when on the same list prior to June, 1899, he will take steps, either by brevet or by some other means, to remedy this state of affairs. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Will the lion. Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question put by my hon. friend the Member for Cambridge on the 18th November on this subject?†

† See (4) Debates, cxiv., 1233.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have as yet finally selected the site for the proposed new Military Barracks at Buncrana, county Donegal; and, if so, when will the work of construction commence. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This case is still presenting difficulties, and, in consequence, the land required for the barracks has not yet been acquired.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability, when making contracts for supplies to the Army in South Africa, of making it a condition that all such supplies shall as far as possible be obtained from Imperial British sources. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The matter has been already considered, and the following clause inserted in all local contracts commencing on 1st January, 1003, viz.:—All supplies delivered under this contract shall be obtained from British Imperial sources, unless special circumstances necessitate otherwise, when the matter must be reported fully, and special sanction obtained for delivery of articles from any outside source.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the rates charged on the South African Government Bail ways for the conveyance of goods for the supply of the military canteens are considerably higher than those charged for the conveyance of stores required for the concentration camps; and will he consider the expediency of taking such steps as may be necessary to secure for military canteens the same rates as are accorded to stores for concentration camps; is he aware that the railway rates now charged for canteen stores are higher than those charged during the war; will he say to what extent the rates have been increased, on what ground the change was made, and on what date the new rates came into force. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The transit of canteen stores has been charged for by the Railway Companies since the 1st August last at ordinary public rates, which are from two to three times as great as the rates for military stores. Stores for concentration camps are charged for at the latter rates. (Jan-teen stores were charged for at these rates during the war. The rates on the Cape and Natal Railways are fixed by the Governments of those Colonies. The matter is still the subject of correspondence with South Africa.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what course he proposes to pursue as to the publication of the Army Annual Preliminary Return and the Army Annual General Return for each year ending 31st December, 1899, 1900, and 1901 respectively; and whether there is any precedent for the non-publication of the strength and distribution of the Army as given in these periodical Returns for the information of Parliament.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Annual Preliminary Returns and the Army Annual General Return for the year ending 31st December, 1902, may be expected to be presented to Parliament before going into committee of Supply on Army Estimates for 1903–1904. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The composition of the Army Annual General Return is at present being carefully considered, in view of the efforts now being made to cut down Returns generally. Further, it is very improbable that accurate figures can ever be given for the period covered by the war. There is no precedent for such non-publication, but no war of such magnitude or of so prolonged a character has occurred since the Return was originated. I may add that it is doubtful whether the Preliminary Return will be published in future.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what percentage of the men annually enlisted pass annually into the Reserve on the completion of their term of service with the colours. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The percentage of the men annually unlisted who pass into the Reserve is as follows: Three years men, about 47 per cent.; seven years men, about 40 per cent.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the staff's of the six Army Corps are now complete. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The reply is in the negative. The Headquarters Staffs of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Army Corps will not be required until 1st April.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can give particulars of the recent explosion at Waltham Abbey whereby three lives were lost; and what compensation is due to the relatives of the deceased. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) A violent explosion occurred at 12.3 p.m., 15th December, in an incorporating machine which, so far as can be at present ascertained, was being charged with cordite modified paste. The man charging it was blown to pieces, and two other men were killed by falling débris, one just outside the incorporating bay and another in the engine room. The damage done is extensive, and immediate action is being taken to make this good. The question of compensation will be considered. It is impossible to state at present what will be granted.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received replies to his inquiries regarding the leasing of the Remount Farms at Clark's Siding, South Africa, and the private uses to which they were put; if not, when he expects to be able to communicate the result of those inquiries. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No Report has as yet been received. I will press for a reply.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the name of the authorities in South Africa by whom contracts for the supply of excisable liquors to the Field Force Canteen at Pretoria have been made since the termination of the war. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The general officer commanding is responsible for such contracts.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, Will the remainder of the school grants held by the managers of voluntary schools, have to be paid over to the local authority when the Education Bill comes into operation, or whether the annual grant has been forwarded to the managers as the result of past work. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) No part of any Parliamentary grant held by the managers of a voluntary school will have to be paid over by them to the local education authority when the Bill comes into operation. Parliamentary grants payable in respect of a period before the appointed day will be paid, and must be applied, in accordance with Schedule 2 (12) of the Bill.

To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will consider the desirability of so amending the instructions to His Majesty's inspectors as to admit of an examination of individual scholars being held by one of His Majesty's inspectors, where such an examination is desired as a test of efficiency by the School Board or the authority responsible for the teaching of that school, and the inspector is willing to undertake such examination. (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The instructions relating to examination will be carefully considered before the next issue of the revised instructions.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean station has laid it down that, for purposes of official entertainments, engineer officers of the rank of inspectors of machinery shall rank with commanders in command; and whether, in view of the fact that, according to the King's and Admiralty instructions, inspectors of machinery have the relative rank of captain, he will take steps to ensure that these officers shall not lie for social purposes degraded below their proper rank. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster) The Admiralty are still without information on this subject. The Commander-in-Chief Mediterranean, was communicated with about a fortnight ago, but his reply has not yet been received, though it is now daily expected.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to make the grant of medals to employees in His Majesty's Dockyards retrospective, in any degree, as regards those who have already retired on pension. (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The regulations under which the Imperial service medal will be awarded provided that only those retiring from the service of the Crown subsequently to the 8th August last shall be eligible for the award of the medal. These regulations apply not only to dockyard employees, but to all other servants of the Crown.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that about eighty men have been discharged from the Works Department of Devonport Dockyard, with one week's notice; and whether, in view of the decision of the Admiralty regarding the employees in His Majesty's Dockyard at Woolwich, that the discharges should not take place till April, instructions will be sent to the authorities at Devonport postponing the discharges till April, 1903, (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The facts are as stated in the lion. Member's Question. The men referred to were taken on for particular works, which have been executed by direct employment of labour; the works having been completed, it is necessary to discharge the men. Such discharges are incidental to the completion of all large works, whether executed by direct labour or by contract, and it is impracticable to avoid them in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.

To ask the Post master General whether the Staff of the Central Telegraph Office have recently had a duty imposed upon them that extends from 11 p. m. to 7 a. m. one week, and from 7 a. m. to 2 p. m. the week following, and whether forty-two hours night duty is equivalent to forty-eight hours day duty: and whether, in view of Section 2 of the references to hours of work in the Tweedmouth Committee Report, and the assurances given to this House that the decisions of the Tweedmouth Committee would be adopted, he intends to continue the duty. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) This matter is already receiving attention, and my decision upon it shall be given as soon as possible.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a number of children, particularly girls, chargeable to various unions in the country are placed out by guardians in certified poor law schools over which the guardians have no control, and that many unions have passed resolutions in favour of the appointment of women (Local Government Board) inspectors for the inspection of such children; and will he state whether he can see his way to appoint women inspectors for this purpose. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long) I am aware of the matters mentioned in the first part of the Question. Certified poor law schools are visited by the General Inspectors of the Local Government Board. In the metropolitan district these schools are also visited by a lady inspector, but I have not found it practicable to extend this arrangement to the rest of the country.

To ask the Under Secretary of State or Foreign Affairs whether any complaints or claims have been made to His Majesty's Government by the Government of Venezuela as to the failure of British authorities to prevent the sailing of the "Ban Righ "; and as to the losses caused by that steamer; if so, whether he has any official information showing the damage and loss caused by the operations of the "Ban Righ"; and whether the Venezuela Government have asked for arbitration as to such complaints and claims. (Answered by Lord Uranborne.) Complaints have on several occasions been addressed to His Majesty's Minister at Caracas by the Venezuelan Government on the subject of the "Ban Righ" in respect of the particulars mentioned by the lion. Gentleman, and they have reserved their light to claim at a future time compensation for damages alleged to have been caused by the vessel. With regard to the two last Questions, the answer is in the negative.

To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is aware that a contract has been signed by the Greek authorities at Corfu, selling to a Franco-Belgian Company the British cemetery at Corfu, to be used as the site for building a gambling casino; and what steps have been taken to maintain the treaty stipulations confirming to His Majesty's Government the property of the British cemeteries in the Ionian Islands and to preserve the cemetery in question from desecration. (Answered, by Lord, Cranborne.) This matter is receiving careful attention. The site of the British cemetery has not been transferred, but it is understood that a company desire to acquire it for the purpose of building baths and a casino Gambling houses are forbidden by Greek law. A special Report on the whole question is expected within the next few days, on receipt of which the points raised in the latter part of the Question will be duly considered. The greatest care will be taken to prevent any action offensive to the very natural feelings which have been aroused by the use it has been proposed to make of these cemeteries.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will make to this House a statement similar to that apparently made yesterday in another place by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the question of Venezuela; and whether he has any further information of any kind on the subject to communicate to the House.

I am not aware that my noble friend made anything that can be called a statement in the other House. He did answer a Question put to him as to the course this country would adopt in case the seizure of Venezuelan gunboats proved insufficient to bring the present controversy to an end. I am perfectly ready to answer that Question in this House, although I think that by implication it is already answered in the Blue-book which is in the hands of hon. Members; and I rather think that I myself have given an answer by anticipation in the observations I made in debate two nights ago. At all events, the answer is perfectly explicit. Supposing that the seizure of the Venezuelan gunboats has not the result we all hope it will have, it will be necessary to proceed to a blockade. The blockade, of course, will be carried on by us and by Germany; but it will be carried on by the fleets of the two Powers as regards different portions of the coast, and though the fleets will be acting with the same object, they will not be acting as one force. We have no intention, and have never had any intention, of landing troops in Venezuela or of occupying territory, even though that occupation might only be of a temporary character. We do not think that would be desirable, either on military or on any other grounds.

When will the notification of the blockade be published, so that the Powers may be aware under what circumstances and in what manner the blockade will be enforced? I would also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will place the House and the country in possession of the communications that have passed between His Majesty's Government and the United States of America, both antecedent to the intervention and sub sequently, so that we may know really how we stand in reference to the Government of the United States?

May I also ask whether the Government, before deciding to institute this blockade, have considered and finally disposed of and removed the objections to such a blockade stated by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his communication to the Admiralty on October 22nd?

The whole matter, of course, has been very carefully considered, and all the conditions governing such a blockade have been drawn up and will be published in due time for the information of neutrals; but, without going into details, the Government are most anxious that these operations, the necessity for which we of course deeply regret, shall be as little inconvenience to neutral Towers as they can possibly be made. Papers are being prepared as rapidly as they can be, and they will, no doubt, include the papers the right hon. Gentleman opposite desires—at least, I assume so.

I assume that no difference will be made between the vessels of one neutral Power and those of another?

Certainly, no difference will be made.

Have the United States consented to the blockade?

I might put that question in a more specific way. Statements having appeared in Germany, which are believed in Germany, to the effect that the United States have declined to submit to the position of neutrals on the ground that there is no such thing as a pacific blockade, and that there are here no belligerents; have such representations been received here from the United States?

As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's Question, he refers to a controversy as to whether there can or cannot be such a thing in international law as a pacific blockade.

That is, pacific according to the American view communicated to Germany yesterday.

I think it is very likely that the United States Government will think there can be no such thing as a pacific blockade, and I personally take the same view. Evidently a blockade does involve a state of war.

May I ask whether there is any prospect of recovering the cost of these operations from the individuals on whose behalf they are undertaken?

Will the light hon. Gentleman state the total amount of the British claims against Venezuela, and the approximate total cost of the present expedition?

It is perfectly impossible to answer Questions like that without notice; but I may repeat the observation which I made the other night, that these operations are not undertaken in order to recover the debts of bondholders. They have been undertaken most reluctantly, and after long and patient delay, because the Venezuelans assaulted British citizens and seized British ships.

Has the right hon. Gentleman yet learned what he did not seem to be quite sure of the other night—namely, whether the Germans, who are acting in this matter, have any grievance against the Venezuelans, except such grievances as arise out of their financial claims?

Yes, Sir, I believe they have.

May I ask whether the United States have assented to a blockade, which, as suggested by His Majesty's Government, would exclude United States vessels?

May I ask whether any further efforts have been made, or any suggestions or proposals received, from either His Majesty's Government, the United States Government, or the Government of Venezuela, as to settling the whole matter in dispute by arbitration?

I answered that Question most fully in the speech I made two days ago. The Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Louth, does not arise when you are in a state of war with a third party.

A state of war! Has war been declared?

Does the hon. and learned gentleman suppose that without a state of war you can take the ships of another Power and blockade its ports?

Will the right hon. gentleman say whether the offer of arbitration made on behalf of Venezuela will be accepted by His Majesty's Government?

No, Sir, I can make no statement.

What I desire to ascertain from the Prime Minister is whether any further efforts have been made in the direction of arbitration since the right hon. Gentleman's speech of two days ago.

No, Sir. Nothing has occurred relevant to that particular inquiry since I last spoke on the subject.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether foreign hay is being supplied to the artillery camp in the Glen of Imaal, county Wicklow; if so, can he state the names of the contractors and the period for which the contract has been made; whether tenders for the contract were invited by advertisement in the Wicklow or other Irish papers; and whether the forage contractors resident in the district of Imaal were given any opportunity of tendering for the supply of hay to the camp.

The camp is not at present occupied, and therefore no hay is being supplied to it. In readiness for the last training the General Officer Commanding Curragh obtained tenders and made contracts for the supplies required for a period of about four months. The forage contractor was Mr. P. Fitzgerald. I am not aware whether the requirements were advertised.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say where Mr. Fitzgerald resides?

I cannot, but I should judge from his name that he is an Irishman.

But he does not live in Ireland.

No.

Why was not this contract advertised in the Dublin papers? Is it not usual to do so?

Yes, but in this case it was not thought necessary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are so advertised in the future?

I see no reason to change the existing system, which has been followed with advantage for many years.

Was the lowest tender accepted?

That is the usual practice. If the lowest tender were passed over it would be because it was thought the tenderer would not be able to carry it out.

Will the right hon. gentleman take care that the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons is enforced in these cases, so that there shall be no exploiting of cheap labour?

Order, order.

Was the advertisement sent to the Freeman's Journal?

Send it to Tully's paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether there is any early prospect of further troops coming back from Africa; if so, whether the 1st Battalion of Inniskilling Fusiliers, sent for a further period of service in Cape Colony, are to be kept at Middle-burg; and whether, seeing that this regiment has been fighting in Natal and afterwards in the Transvaal, and has had 12 officers and 192 non-commissioned officers and men killed in action, and that the 2nd Battalion of the regiment is now at Mafeking, and that this is the only regiment since the peace which has both battalions in Africa, will he state how long will the 1st Battal on of the Inniskillings be kept at Middleburgh; and will he explain why have they been sent to this station, and on what principle has an Irish regiment been selected for so much duty, seeing that the Guards and other English regiments were allowed home soon after the peace.

Will the hon. and learned Member kindly refer to my reply to a Question put on this subject by the hon. Member for Midlothian on the 27th ultimo?†

The explanation was so unsatisfactory that I thought it necessary to repeat the Question. I think the Irish. Members are entitled to some explanation of the exceptional treatment meted out to this Irish regiment.

All regiments are treated exactly on the same footing. There is not the smallest desire to treat this regiment unfairly.

Then why is it that both battalions of this regiment have been sent to the most unpleasant places in South Africa, after hundreds of the men have been killed and wounded in the war, while the English Guards were allowed to come home?

A good many officers would prefer to have both battalions in South Africa.

But this regiment has been sent to the most unhealthy and unpleasant places in South Africa. It is their reward for valour.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies,

† See (4) Debates, cxv., 616.

The prisoner of war who appears to be referred to, is reported as being of foreign nationality, not a naturalised burgher. He is consequently not entitled under the terms of surrender to be returned to South Africa.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in "Notes of Naval Progress," July, 1902, published at the Government printing office in Washington, it is stated that the Return of the annual prize firing with heavy guns of the Channel Fleet ships has been published, and the results of the competition are given; whether, as this information is in the hands of a foreign Government, the Admiralty will place the said Return, and the Returns of the annual prize firing with heavy guns for 1901 in the other squadrons, in the hands of members of the House of Commons; and whether they will also grant Returns of the annual prize firing for 1901 of the various squadrons with light quick-firing guns.

Yes, Sir. I am aware that a report of the nature referred to, having reference to the firing of one portion of the Fleet, viz., the Channel Fleet, was published as stated. The same Return has also appeared in the Press in this country. The particulars, both with regard to the Channel and other Squadrons, are not for sale as ordinary Papers, but are regarded by the Admiralty as being for the information of the officers of the Navy, and it is not considered desirable to publish them in the form of a Return.

May I ask why these particular figures should be accessible to foreign nations, and not to the House of Commons?

The figures relate to a particular squadron. It is unfortunate that they should be accessible to foreign nations. Similar figures in the ease of foreign countries are in no case accessible to us. The proper course would seem to be to prevent them becoming accessible to foreign countries in future.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in 1901, at the annual prize firing of the various squadrons, forty-six ships did not fire at all, among them being two Admirals' ships, the "Revenge" and the "Royal Arthur"; and will he state whether it is obligatory upon ships to take part in the prize firing, and, if so, will he explain why these ships failed to do so.

The reply to the first two inquiries is in the affirmative. The reasons which prevent any particular ship from taking part in the annual prize firing are always reported to the Admiralty, and are carefully considered. In the cases referred to by my hon. friend the reasons given were satisfactory, the ships concerned being principally those employed on special duties in connection with the South African War and the voyage of the "Ophir," or newly commissioned ships which only proceeded to their station during the year.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that of the 127 ships that took part in the annual prize firing of 1901, while one ship made over 70 per cent, of hits and two ships made over 65 per cent, of hits, seventy-five ships missed the target eighty-five times out of every 100 rounds, and five ships never hit the target at all, and that one Admirals ship, the "Warspite," was last of its squadron in heavy gun firing; and will he state how many of the Admirals' ships were among the class that missed the target twice out of every three rounds, and what were the names of these ships; and can he say whether the Admiralty propose to take any steps to deal with this inefficiency in gunnery.

The attention of the Board was drawn to the results of prize firing in the ordinary course, but these results do not agree with the figures given in the Question. Prize firing in the Navy is, and must essentially be, a competition between guns of the same nature in individual ships, and not between different ships carrying varying armaments and firing under dissimilar conditions of wind, weather, light, and sea. A comparison of the latter nature would inevitably be misleading. For these reasons a comparison between the results obtained on the "Warspite" and those obtained on other ships in the Pacific Squadron and elsewhere would not be conclusive. On the receipt of the return of prize tiring on each ship, the Admiralty take such immediate action as may be considered necessary after duly considering the circumstances of the individual case, and in forming their opinion they have the advantage of full knowledge of all the circumstances. It is, therefore, not considered necessary to call public attention to special ships, as, by so doing, incorrect opinions might be formed, which, owing to the absence of detailed information, might be misleading.

asked if it was not possible to publish a Return of prize firing in the British foreign Navies, on the same basis as the Return always moved for by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman give us some explanation as to the steps being taken to improve the firing in the Navy?

In answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, I have to say that his proposal cannot be acceded to, as we have no access to the prize firing Returns of foreign nations, and they are not published in the newspapers. In answer to the hon. Member for Shipley, I have to say that it would take up too much time to give him the particulars he wishes in the form of an answer to a Question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what Powers, signatories of the Brussels Sugar Conventions, have intimated to His Majesty's Government that, in their view, the Convention obliges Great Britain to levy countervailing duties on sugar and sugared products coming from such of her self - governing Colonies as grant bounties; and on what dates respectively were such intimations received; what Powers, non - signatories of the Convention, but having treaties with this country containing the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, have intimated that they will hold as an infringement of their rights under that Clause the imposition of differential duties on their sugar and sugared products; and on what dates respectively were such intimations received; has the correspondence with the signatory Powers resulted in a complete common agreement as to the effect of the Convention; and will he lay all that correspondence upon the Table of the House.

We have received no direct communication from any Government except that of Austria-Hungary calling in question our refusal to admit any obligation to enforce a penal Clause against any British self-governing Colony. A verbal communication was made by the Austria-Hungarian Embassy on the 29th November last, and further informal communications have since taken place. Statements on the same subject were made on the 9th of June last in the German Reichstag, and on the 2nd of December in the Netherland First Chamber. The answer in the second paragraph of the Question is that Russia is the only country which has made such an intimation. Communications from her were received on the 8th of July last and the 24th of September last. The answer to the third paragraph is that the correspondence has not resulted in a complete agreement. The correspondence is not complete, and it would not be desirable to lay further Papers at present.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, will His Majesty's Government undertake not to ratify the Brussels Sugar Convention until the disagreements as to its construction between Great Britain and others of the signatory powers have been removed, and until all correspondence with Foreign States relative to the Convention since its signature has been laid before Parliament, and this House has been afforded an opportunity of expressing an opinion thereon.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the substance of his answer to the Question as to correspondence which I have on the Paper.

I am afraid not. It is a Question which is not marked to be answered orally. In reply to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, I have to say that we see no reason to delay the ratification beyond the date fixed. My hon. friend has probably present in his mind that there is really no question between Great Britain and the other signatory Powers except as regards the liability of this country to penalise bounty-fed sugar from the self-governing Colonies. The objection is more theoretical than practical, as no appreciable quantity of sugar can be received from the Colonies during the five years of the term of the convention.

But would it not be desirable to have a complete agreement between the Powers before the ratification? The right hon. Gentleman admits that there is a disagreement.

No, Sir. We have never made any secret of our distinct and unalterable view with regard to the penalising of sugar from our Colonies; and we shall ratify the Convention on that distinct understanding. It rests with us, and only with us to penalise.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he feels confident that no self-governing Colony will give a bounty on sugar within the next five years?

No, Sir, I did not say that; but I said that I did not believe that there could be any amount of export of sugar from any self-governing Colony which is not a negligible quantity, in view of the great bulk of sugar imported. We have distinctly laid it down that this treaty does not require us to penalise sugar from our self-governing Colonies. We should regret if the Colonies put on bounties, but we are not bound to penalise them if they should do so.

Do any of the Powers agree with, or do any of them differ from, that view?

I think I have implied in my previous answer that there is not as yet an entire agreement between the Powers concerned in this Convention upon that point—an academic point, but, so far as we are concerned, a point which has an important bearing upon the relations between this country and our self-governing Colonies. It rests entirely with us to interpret the treaty as regards the self-governing Colonies, and we mean to interpret it in the sense I have described.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the amount that the managers of the Uganda Railway have paid in commission to the Colonial Crown Agents, and what was the nature of the service rendered for the commission or salary that was paid them.

The total amount which the Uganda Railway Committee have up to date paid as commission to the Crown Agents for the Colonies is £22,778, representing about half per cent, on the total expenditure on the line. The services for which this payment has been made are set out in detail on page 8 of Africa No. 4 (1900).

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state what progress has been made by the Commission on Tuberculosis in Cattle; whether he can state about what date their Report may be expected; and whether, in view of Dr. Koch's reiterated opinion and the failure of Dr. Gournault's experiment, instructions will be given to have greater care exercised in the confiscation of meat alleged to have been tuberculized.

Since my reply to a similar Question yesterday I have been informed that the Royal Commission have made considerable progress with their inquiry. Very extensive experiments are, however, being carried out, and arrangements have been made under which the Commission will be able to occupy the farms lent by Sir James Blyth for this purpose for two years from now. The Commission expect to be in a position to report within that time. As regards the last part of the Question, I do not think that pending the Report I can add anything to the observations contained in the circular letters issued by the Local Government Board in March, 1899.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether in order to prevent disadvantages resulting to certain localities by detached and isolated provision of relief works for the deserving unemployed, he will cause to be issued, as soon as practicable and before distress deepens, the 1893 Circular to all the Local Authorities in the United Kingdom, so that uniform action can be taken by responsible bodies to mitigate distress arising from want of work: and whether he will also recommend to Town Councils, boards of guardians, and other authorities the advisability of unifying and cooperating with all charitable and other agencies so as to prevent over-lapping and waste. The following Question also appeared on the Paper—

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a grant in aid from the public funds to aid local authorities in meeting the distress now prevailing, due to lack of employment.

Although I am sorry to say that there has recently been an unusual increase in pauperism, in the Metropolis, yet so far as my information goes the number of unemployed in the country generally does not appear to have increased of late, and the break in the cold weather is evidently favourable to work. The employment by Local Authorities of men on works to which they are not accustomed and which arc hastily undertaken is open to considerable objection and might even lead to an increase in the difficulties which it is desired to meet. I hardly think the time has come for urging the Local Authorities to proceed in this direction. At the same time, I have every sympathy with the object that the hon. Member has in view in making the suggestion, and I am giving the matter my unremitting personal attention. I shall continue to do so dining the Recess, and if it appears to me that it would be desirable that Circulars of the kind suggested should be issued, I shall certainly issue them, or take any other action which seems to me to be expedient. I may add, with reference to the Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has given notice, that I could not undertake to apply to my right hon. friend to make a grant of the kind referred to in that Question.

subsequently put his question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I have answered it. Obviously it is one that should have been addressed to me. I am not prepared to ask my right hon. friend to make any such grant.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made during the year in providing electrical communications between lighthouses and the shore; how far these communications, when provided, are available for private messages; if the Departmental Committee appointed in 1900 to consider the above matters has issued its Report; and whether the signal stations at the Fastnet and Tuskar have been completed.

During the present year electrical communication has been established between two lighthouses and the shore. It has not yet been found possible to arrange for making these communications available for private messages. Further progress will be made with the work during the coming financial year. I understand that the Departmental Committee does not propose to issue any general Report; it makes each recommendation the subject of a special Report. Signal stations at the Fastnet and Tuskar have not yet been completed. The whole matter has been somewhat delayed by the consideration of questions surrounding the development of wireless telegraphy—a subject which is engaging the earnest attention of the Government.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, considering the scarcity and present price of meat, and the outlook for the consuming public, he can now hold out any prospect of being able in the near future to remove the restrictions on the importation of Argentine cattle.

I understand that the Argentine Government have now proposed and carried an Act which embodies conditions I thought essential for the security of our own herds and flocks to ask that Government to impose within its own territory. No official information on the subject has, however, yet reached me. On being duly informed of the condition in question having been complied with, it would become my duty to reconsider the existing prohibition against the landing of Argentine fat cattle for immediate slaughter at the port of arrival.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will state the numbers respectively of head post offices in Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales; and of these respectively how many are under the annual value of £100, how many of £100 and not ceeding £200, of £200 and not exceeding £300, and how many of £300 and over.

If the hon. Member will put this Question down unstarred, I will furnish a printed answer showing the particulars desired. They are too long for oral reply.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Shrimpton, auxiliary postman of Richmond, Surrey, who has been dismissed the service for declining to work on Sundays, or in default thereof to find a substitute without cost to the Department; and whether, seeing that this man had agreed with the Department to work five hours a day for six days a week, and that he could not find a substitute other than an established postman, whose pay would be about 3d. per hour more than that of an auxiliary, and in view of the manner in which this man has done the duty which he contracted to do for 16 years, he will reconsider his decision and re-instate him.

Shrimpton's services were dispensed with, not for declining to work on Sundays, but because, without waiting for his appeal on that subject to be submitted to me, he deliberately refused to carry out the orders of his superior officers. He was not an established officer and only employed for a portion of his time. He had no agreement with the Department, and his services could be discontinued at any time on a week's notice.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in the distribution of the extra work that occurs in his Department during the Christmas and New Year pressure, he will, wherever possible, give preference in such work to those who are at present without any employment.

Arrangements for meeting this extra pressure of work have already been completed, but the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that since, generally speaking, the whole time of the additional men engaged is required, they are necessarily selected from those without other employment. I may add that, other things being equal, preference is given to ex-soldiers and Army reservists out of work.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will state what decision he has arrived at in regard to the appeal made to him by Members of Parliament to modify the new special leave regulations.

I have already addressed a letter on the subject to the hon. Member for South Islington informing him that, after full consideration, I am unable to depart from the decision arrived at by my predecessor. I may add that a similar communication has been addressed to the officers who memorialised me on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if it would be competent for a County Council, under the provisions of Clause 18 of the Education (England and Wales) Bill, to refuse to accept a particular nominee of an outside body to serve on an education committee; and if the Board of Education will confirm n scheme providing that persons should be appointed by the County Council from among the nominees of certain outside bodies.

The first part of the hon. Member's Question can be raised this afternoon in discussion on the Lords Amendments. The second part can only be answered as the occasion arises.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the condition of tendering for Irish Stationery Office contracts that contractors shall take all paper, cardboard, vellum, leather, cloth, and other raw material from the Department; and whether, in view of the effect of this condition in the case of employers in the printing business in the provincial cities and towns of Ireland as compared with those of Dublin owing to the charges for freight from and to Dublin, he will take steps to have such materials delivered to contractors from Irish provincial towns free of charge.

The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. The Stationery Office do not supply cardboard, vellum, leather, cloth, and other similar raw material to contractors. As regards paper, I have nothing to add to the reply given by my predecessor on May 7th, 1901.†

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state on what grounds the Treasury have refused to recommend to the South Dublin Union a loan of £7,500 for building the Roman Catholic chapel and officers' quarters in the lunatic department; and whether, in view of the solvency of the Union and the fact that the poor rates are 1s. 7d. in the pound, as compared with 1s. 9d. in the previous year, he will take steps to have this loan issued without further delay.

The Local Government Board sanctioned this loan, repayable in forty years. But in so doing, it was pointed out that in view of the high rates prevailing, which amount to 9s. 3d. in the pound in this area, the Treasury felt unable to authorise the issue of the loan by the Commissioners of Public Works until some reduction in the rates had been effected. It would be necessary, therefore, to obtain the loan from a bank or by tender in the open market.

† See (4) Debates, xciii., 956.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the Admiralty inquiry respecting the correction of the existing list of Irish lights, any measures will be taken by the Government to reconstitute the Irish Lights Board and place it on a more representative basis.

I am afraid I can add nothing to the replies I have already given the hon. Member upon this subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain the cause of the delay in the sale of the estate of W. L. Rae, Killorglin, Kerry.

The Land Commissioners hope soon to be in a position to make their Report on this estate to the Land Judge. No avoidable delay has taken place.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Examiner in the Land Judges' Court has refused to furnish a detailed account of the receipts and expenditure of the estate of W. L. Rae, Killorglin, Kerry; and whether, seeing that it was formerly promised that such an account should be furnished on application by the landlord, he will take steps to furnish him with a full account of the receipts and expenditure of the estate since it was placed in the present Receiver's hands.

I stated on the 29th October that copies of the Receiver's account would be supplied to Mr. Rae on payment of the usual fees for copying. The Receiver has since given a copy of his account to Mr. Rae.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many Members of Parliament are in prison as the result of sentences pronounced between the 27th October and the 14th December last by courts constituted under the Criminal Law and Procedure-(Ireland) Act, 1887.

None, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the Local Government Board refuse to grant sworn inquiries into the management of county infirmaries that are supported out of the county rates; and what steps have they taken to remedy the alleged abuses with regard to the Tipperary county infirmary.

Is it not the fact that the Tipperary County Council is thoroughly competent to manage this infirmary?

The Board has not, in any case, been asked to hold a sworn inquiry into the management of a county infirmary. In reply to the latter part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my reply to the Hon. Member's previous Question of the 24th November.†

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the managers of this infirmary have refused to carry out their financial business according to the instructions of the auditor, and that a lot of swindling is going on—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the salaries and travelling expenses paid to the two lady inspectors of boarded-out children, and to what fund are these sums charged.

£200 a year in each case, together with first-class railway fare. The cost is defrayed out of the Local Government Board Vote.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware

† See (4) Debates, cxv., 1233.

The Land Judge is informed that at present this property cannot be sold to the tenants, as the redemption of the superior interests would amount to more than any sum which would be expected to be advanced by the Laid Commission. He is also: informed that the tenants are aware of the difficulty.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state who is the officer responsible for investigating and reporting to the Crown on the eligibility and qualification for the office of high sheriff of a county in Ireland of the names returned to the Lord Lieutenant by the going Judge of Assize in each year out of which the selection is made of the high sheriff for the ensuing year.

The practice is that three names selected by the judges are submitted to the Lord Lieutenant and published in the Press. His Excellency almost invariably selects one name from the list. There is no officer whose special duty it is to inquire into the fitness of the persons named in the judge's lists, but his Excellency is quite ready to receive information on the matter from any reliable source.

Is there no statutory obligation on the Lord Lieutenant to inquire as to their property qualifications?

I am not sure it is a statutory obligation, but as the sheriff may have certain charges to defray, it is proper to ascertain perhaps that he has the necessary means.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on whose recommendation the advice of the local magistrates has been rejected in the matter of the proposed re-establishment of the police barracks at Scarva, County Down; and whether he can state the; character of the extra steps to be taken for the preservation of the peace in that locality.

The views of the Magistrates were carefully considered; but the police authorities, who are responsible for the preservation of the peace of the locality, do not consider it necessary to re-establish this station.1have already stated that there are three other barracks within a radius of three miles, and that ample protection will be given to all persons needing it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps have been taken by the Belfast and County Down Railway Company towards the construction of their part of the new railway line between Newcastle and Ballyrooney; and whether he can give any indication as to the time which will be occupied in completing the construction.

I have no information beyond the fact that on Monday last application was made by the Railway Company to the Board of Works to appoint an Arbitrator in connection with the taking of land. The statutory period for the completion of the line extends to the 30th July, 1905.

I have to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state who was the Auditor who audited the accounts of the Mullingar Lunatic Asylum for the years 1899, 1900, and 1901, and who certified the' accounts were correct for each of these years: seeing that it was afterwards found that the accounts were incorrect for some of these years, will he state what was the amount of rates embezzled by the Clerk; and whether this Auditor is still employed by the Local Government Board.

In reply to the first paragraph of the Question, the auditor was Major Eccles, who is still the Auditor of the district comprising Mullingar. Upon his audit for the half-year ended September, 1901, he discovered that frauds had been committed by the late Clerk, and that the earliest fraud took place in that month. Frauds of a prior date were subsequently traced, but they were connected with monies not brought to account in the Asylum books. The Auditor could have had no knowledge of those; they could only have been detected, if by any one, by the Committee of Management or the Resident Medical Superintendent. So far as is known, the amount misappropriated is about £663.

Why was the Auditor not able to detect the frauds?

He did.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether he can state on what grounds the Congested Districts Board took proceedings at the last Boyle Quarter Sessions against occupiers on the Dillon estate; what was the total amount due and the number proceeded against, and whether the Congested Districts Board have since taken any further steps in reference to the comments made in Committee on that occasion.

The number of tenants on the Dillon Estate is considerably above 4,000. The Congested Districts Board took proceedings against thirteen tenants for a total amount of £134 2s. 7d. But nine of these cases, involving a sum of £81 9s. 1d., were nonagricultural. No question of purchase under the Land Acts can arise in connection with them. The proceedings were taken in respect of ground rents and townfields. Four cases, involving £52 3s. 6d., were agricultural. But, in these, proceedings were taken to clear title with a view to re-arranging boundaries. In no case had the holding been sold to the tenant. The Congested Districts Board wrote on the 14th November to Judge O'Connor Morris drawing his attention to these facts, which he had unfortunately overlooked when commenting on these cases. It is much to be regretted that the learned Judge should have been misled by misrepresentations persistently put forward, in order, apparently, to discount the commendable punctuality with which the Dillon and other tenants on estates purchased by the Board have discharged their obligations.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the discontent in the Irish postal service caused by the system of appointment of English and Scotch postal officials to Irish offices, he will undertake that in future appointments the claims of competent officials resident in Ireland will be favourably considered.

I must ask the hon. Member to refer to the reply which I gave yesterday to the Question put to me by the hon. Member for South Leitrim,† to which I can add nothing.

Why does the right hon Gentleman give these appointments to officials who have absolutely no local knowledge?

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with reference to the recent vacancy in the postmastership of Dundalk, if he will say how many applications were received for this vacancy, and of the total number what was the proportion received from members serving respectively in Ireland, England and Wales, and Scotland; what is the length of service of the official appointed in the present instance; whether he originally held the position of counter clerk in a London office, if so, whether he can state the date of his first promotion from this position, also the dates of promotions to other offices

† See preceding volume, page 1339.

Thirty-seven applications were received. From Ireland twenty-six, England and Wales, eight, Scotland three. The official appointed, who, may say, was an Irishman, had thirty-five years service. He was originally a postman, hut was appointed a counter clerk in a London office in 1873. From that position he was promoted to the postmastership of Letterkenny in August, 1890, salary £160. In May, 1898, he was promoted to the Postmastership of Leek, salary £210: in November, 1900. to the postmastership of Poole, salary £230. The length of service of the senior applicant on the list of candidates from Ireland was thirty-seven years; his salary was £237, and his official position was that of postmaster.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, with reference to the vacancy which has recently existed in the postmastership of Edgeworthstown, whether he can state how many applications were received for this vacancy, and of these how many came from officials serving respectively in Ireland, England and Scotland; what is the salary attached to the office, and what is the length of service, salary, and official designation of the member of the Lanark staff appointed to this vacancy in the first instance; what was the length of service, salary, and position of the most senior applicant from Ireland, and to what office attached; and can lie say how" many members of the service holding appointments in Ireland have been appointed to postmasterhips in Scotland within the last twenty-five years; and, if any, to what offices they were appointed.

I have already answered fully two somewhat similar Questions put by the lion. Member, but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by giving all the particulars asked for in this Question, which could not lie collected without considerable labour. I accept of course full responsibility for the appointments which I make, but I deprecate any attempt to discuss the relative merits of different candidates by way of Question and Answer in this House. I may, however, say that the officer first appointed to this position declined the appointment. I then offered it to an officer in the Galway Post Office who, however, also declined it, and I have now offered it to a candidate from Castlebar.

Is it not the case that these appointments were only offered to Irishmen after Scotchmen had refused them?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the military operations recently directed against the Waziri and other Afghan tribes are carried on in the mountain regions of what has been called the New Province, lying beyond the boundaries of His Majesty's Indian Possessions; if a copy of the Orders directing the commencement of these hostilities will be communicated to both Houses of Parliament before the end. of the present session, in accordance with section 54 of the Act of 1858; if the consent of both Houses of Parliament will be invited to authorise the expenses of these military operations carried on beyond the frontiers of British India and whether the cost will be defrayed from the revenues of India, or be paid from the British Treasury.

was understood to reply that the matters referred to in the Question did not come within the purview of the Act cited.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury,, whether, in view of the duration of the present Session of Parliament, he is able to fix an approximate date when Parliament will reassemble in 1903.

I do not think it will be necessary for this House to reassemble, so far as we are at present aware, before February 17.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it a couple of months later?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in the present form of Clause 22 of the Education Bill, it would he competent for any local authority to provide purely elementary instruction for adult students in an evening school. At the same time may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the terms of Clause 2 of the Education Bill to the effect that the moneys available from the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Fund and the rate in aid contemplated under the Clause are only available for education other than elementary, it would be competent for any local authority to use these moneys for giving elementary instruction to adults in an evening school; and, if not, out of what funds the local authority would be able to maintain such instruction.

In reply to the first Question, the lion, gentleman correctly states the position. The rate for education other than elementary may be used for all forms of education and in any kind of school except a public elementary school. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the definition in Clause 28, sub-Section 3, he will see that that is made perfectly clear. As regards the second Question, it follows from what I have just said that the money available from the local taxation fund is applicable for the purposes of education in an evening school; that is, if the education is in an evening; continuation school it can be paid for out of that fund.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say, "Yes" or "No," if it will he competent for a local authority to give purely elementary instruction to an adult in an evening school?

Yes, Sir. The answer to that Question is in the affirmative.

This is the main question about which many of us have complained of the action of my hon. and gallant friend and the Government, and I think it is necessary to say some final word about the controversy which has so long engaged the attention of this House. It would have been competent, of course, to any hon. Memher of this House to have moved an Amendment which would have raised expressly the main issues about which we have been contending, namely, the issue whether an incumbent ought or ought not to be deprived by the managers of the right I he now enjoys in the majority of cases under the trust deeds, of himself providing and undertaking the religious teaching in a Church school. I do not myself move such an Amendment, because it does not seem to me to serve any good purpose to press the House to a division upon a subject upon which it has so often declared its opinion, but as the question now is whether we should finally agree with the Lords Amendment which apparently—we do not know what interpretation will be put upon it—destroys the right of the incumbent to teach in a school except with the consent of the managers, it is necessary to say a few words of final protest against the course which has been taken. Our objection to that course is, first of all, that the rights of incumbents existing under trust deeds are just as important and just as deserving of respect as any other of the rights arising under these deeds, and, therefore, in so far as denominational education deserves respect at all, it is respect out of deference to a i right which is precisely the same, and neither more nor less sacred than the right of the incumbent which is disregarded. In my view there is no reason for giving Church teaching in any Church school that cannot be urged for allowing the incumbent to supervise the teaching. The rights are exactly parallel, and the distinction now drawn most unjust and indefensible. That is my first objection to the Clause. My second is that, if not in express words, in substance and reality there is an unmistakable censure and condemnation passed upon the work of those who, in my view, do not deserve censure but rather the gratitude of the community. This censure, in effect, is not minimised because veiled by the language of panegyric and eulogium used in both Houses. What is in effect conveyed is that the clergy are not to be trusted save under lay control to do what it is their express duty to do, namely, the teaching of religion, and put it in whatever phase you please: this is a real censure and an undeserved censure which ought, and will be, deeply resented. But here 1 must be concise, or I shall be trespassing upon another Amendment. In reference to matters of doctrine I do not think that the restriction of the rights of the Bishop is anything but another insult to the wisdom and integrity of the Episcopal Bench, not made any better by the manner in which it was conveyed in another place. I do not suppose it ever happened before that the Episcopate of the Anglican Church has been invited to give an assurance, and when that assurance was given has been told that it is altogether inadequate, implying that at the worst they were deliberate liars, and at the best boasters who made promises that they could not any out.

The noble Lord seems to be entering on a very wide discussion of a very narrow Amendment. 1 was under the impression that this was a drafting Amendment.

I think that the character of the religious instruction raises the question to which I am solely addressing myself. The words of the Amendment "shall as regards its character" limit the operation of the trust deed to the character of the religious instruction. It does not allow the trust deed to operate in respect of the person who is to supervise the teaching. I intend to make my observations relevant to that Amendment, and if 1have trespassed it is unintentionally.

The noble Lord is right, and if he keeps to those lines he will be in order.

I do not intend to go beyond the lines of that argument. My third objection is that I think a wrong is done in overthrowing the rights of the incumbents not only to the clergy and the bishops, but also to the members of the Church of England. Neither the theory of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Life as to the State relationship, nor that of my right lion, friend the Prime Minister as to the family relationship with these schools, can be sustained for a moment. The schools do not bear any relationship to the family. The parents are neither formally nor informally represented on the board of management. There is not the slightest ground for thinking that they will reflect in any real degree the opinion of the parents. The clergyman himself is most in touch with the ideas of the parents as to the education of their children. Although I am aware that the Government do not hold that view, I believe this argument can only be defended on the hypothesis that this is a Church school, and that the lay members had a right to supersede the incumbent in his theological views. That sets up a principle to which all those who are sincerely attached to the constitution of the Church of England are unalterably opposed, and 1 very much regret that in this Bill step should have been taken to raise in this Clause issues of the most farreaching importance, the raising of which cannot but alienate very much indeed members of the Church one from another and a large number of the members of the Church from the Government and those whom they hold responsible for introducing this provision in the Bill. Next I regret very much that a standard, not of orthodoxy, not of right teaching, not of wisdom, but of popularity, should have been erected for clergymen of the Church of England. The clergyman is to be deprived of his right under the trust deed, not because he teaches what is not the doctrine of the Church of England—very likely as many will give what is not right teaching in the future as in the past, for the Bill gives no security that they shall not—but because they are not popular, and not popular with the upper and middle class among their parishioners; perhaps because they have quarrelled with a had landlord about the condition of his cottages, or with a trader who carries on business by dishonest methods, or a publican whose house is ill-managed, or a farmer who grinds down his labourers. I dare say some religious pretext in such cases may not be found wanting to drive a clergyman away from his schools. Such is the standard of ministerial duty that will be set up. Before all things they must be popular, not with the poor, but with those who are rich and well to do. To set up such a standard is in a very real sense to do wrong to the Church of England and to lower the standard of public duty among the ministers of that Church. My right hon. friend in a speech recently delivered made an appeal to those who have to work the Bill to carry it out loyally and with a real disposition to make it work. I hope and believe the appeal will be responded to; but I am sure it will not be responded to in regard to this particular provision. The general character of the Bill is, no doubt, of such a kind that those who wish well to denominational schools will endeavour to the best of their ability to make it work, but if there are to be found anywhere managers who are so disloyal to the character of the Church of England as to endeavour to supersede the clergyman without any authority from or approval of the Bishop, I am quite sure that every means that can be taken will be taken to resist them. If there is any ambiguity in the trust deed the matter will be carried to litigation. In any case there is always the pressure of public opinion to give or withhold financial support, and my right hon. friend and the Government may be quite sure that no considerations of peace or tranquility will stand in the way of those who feel that they are maintaining a great and important principle by resisting the character of this Amendment. I believe that the Government have done a most unwise thing in allowing this Amendment of the Bill. The real grievance might have been dealt with more easily and efficaciously by other means. They have chosen a course which is offensive to the religious sentiment of a large portion of the Church of England, very offensive to the clergy, very offensive to the Bishops. I trust that in the contest that may perhaps arise out of this Amendment they will maintain their efforts, not in disregard of the supreme interest of the religious education of the schools, but being sure that that religious character of the Church of England and the maintenance of its principles are the fundamental conditions under which alone that religious education can be properly carried out in this country—I hope they will charitably but manfully, and without cessation, maintain their efforts until they have succeeded in inducing Parliament to relinquish a policy which in an evil hour they undertook, and of which 1 am persuaded that the longer it is persisted in the more certain it will be found to be one of those blunders into which States are hurried when they offend the religious sentiment of a part of the community.

I feel that my noble friend who has just sat down has spoken out of the fulness of his heart upon a subject on which he feels very strongly, and in a cause in which he is conscientiously prepared to sacrifice many public interests; and one owes much sympathy to any one who addresses this House, and, through the House the country, as an advocate of a cause which, after all the discussion, in this House and in another place, must be regarded as an unpopular cause. Anybody who, I say, advocates principles which are unpopular principles, out of a deep religious conviction deserves, and will obtain, the sympathy of all who hear him. But having paid that tribute to my noble friend's motives, I confess that, after hearing him again on this subject, the feelings of regret with which I have heard him on frequent occasions during these debates have not been in any way diminished or alleviated. I do not pretend to understand exactly the line of argument on which my noble friend relies. He has mixed up in the speech to which Ave have just listened two sets of considerations which appear to me to lie utterly diverse, and which I do not think will run as a well-matched pair for the controversial purposes for which my noble friend desires to use them. He partly relies on the theological argument and partly on the legal argument. In other words, he partly relies on his view of the position in the Church of England a clergyman necessarily occupies in the parish where he officiates; and partly he derives his argument from the fact that, in his view, certain trust deeds are violated or affected by the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. These really are quite separate arguments; and the practical answer is evident when you remember that in a large number of schools, and in a large number of Church of England schools, the clergyman has no special rights whatever under trust deeds. Very well; is the doctrine of the Church of England violated in the case of these schools which have no trust deeds? If it is we have not heard of it before. My noble friend has never protested that sacred inviolate ecclesiastical doctrines are being tampered with when the clergyman, by trust deed, is not given special rights in these schools in regard to religious education. If that be so, I think my noble friend is very ill advised to rely on what I have described as the legal argument in defence of his position. The legal argument is merely incidental. My noble friend complained that the Government have tampered with trust deeds, and I do not deny that the Bill does affect the trust deeds of voluntary schools, and I do not believe that any Hill dealing with elementary education which admitted voluntary schools to any share in public money could avoid making alterations in their trust deeds. The change in the position of schools is so great, is so fundamental, that some alteration is necessary unless these schools are to be entirely left outside the scope of your legislation. But supposing it were a crime to touch these trust deeds, who incited the Government to commit that crime? Why, the two Houses of Convocation. I shall have a word to say about the Resolution passed by the two Houses of Convocation directly. My noble friend may perhaps differ from my contention, but he will not differ from what I now urge upon the attention of the House. Surely he cannot differ from me because all I am stating is that the Committee of the two Houses of Convocation deliberately suggested that legislation should be brought in which would add to the existing managers two from outside.

said trust deeds were broken in consequence of the arrangements for secular education; but why, mi his right hon. friend's principle, should he not go the whole length of the Opposition and say that denominational instruction should be put under popular control? There was only one rational line of division between religious and secular instruction, and that he thought the Government had taken, but it was inconsistent with the Kenyon-Slaney Amendment.

I am not dealing with the theological problem. I am dealing now entirely with the legal branch of the argument. Am I to understand that you may violate a trust-deed in regard to secular property, and that you may not violate it in dealing with religious instruction?

said in consideration of the use of public money there was interference with secular instruction.

It is not a question of altering trust deeds. My noble friend is trying to run together two quite different lines of argument. It seems to me that he has no case whatever on the legal aspect, and I leave the legal branch of his argument and come to that to which, I think, he attaches far more importance and on which he places more reliance. He has attacked something I said in a previous speech in which I said an elementary school had more analogy to the family than it had to the service and work carried on in the ecclesiastical edifice, be it the church or the chapel in a parish. My noble friend disputes that proposition. He has pointed out with perfect truth that the analogy is not in any sense complete, and that it would be absurd to say that a child in school is precisely in the same position as the child in the family, but I do distinctly reiterate the argument I used, which was to this effect, that in the education given in an elementary school you do for the children of the poorer classes that which in regard to the children of the richer classes is, if not invariably, commonly done in the domestic circle by the parents themselves, or by persons engaged for the purpose. It seems to me perfectly clear that when you are dealing with the children of the poor, and providing them with the education their parents have not the time or money which their richer neighbours can afford, that when you compel them to send their children to an elementary school and say to them you propose that not only shall the children obtain secular education, but also that religious instruction, which, if the children were educated under easier circumstances at home the parents would give them—then I say the analogy is extremely close. Though it is perfectly true you cannot describe any part of the elementary school system as giving a co plete representation of the parental care of the children, surely it is absurd to say that since there is this distinction between the school and the family as a necessary consequence you must regard the clergyman as having the sole authority in that instruction.

said the whole conception of the school was that it should be conducted on the principles of the denomination, and if those principles were abandoned, then there was really no answer to the opposition.

Then the school is not conducted in accordance with the principles of the denomination unless the clergyman has control!