I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any representations have been made by the present commandant of the Royal Military College, Camberley, on the indifferent shooting of some among the recent batches of cadets; and, if so, will he state the nature of the representations, and whether he has any official reports attributing indifferent shooting to the standard of vision for candidates being only one-fourth of normal vision with the naked eye instead of normal vision, viz., six-sixths of Snellen's type.

The commandant Royal Military College has reported that the shooting of the 4th Division of Cadets now passing out of Sandhurst was bad, but he did not attribute this to defective eyesight. Last year the question of admission of cadets with defective eyesight to the Royal Military College was rail d by a report from the Principal Medical Officer, First Army Corps, and steps were then taken to ensure that all cadets admitted to the Royal Military College or Royal Military Academy, whose eyesight, though defective, was within the standard laid down by Regulations and remediable by glasses, should be advised at the medical inspection to consult civil occulists to ascertain exactly what glasses they should wear. There are no official reports to the effect stated in the last part of the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Committee appointed to report on the vision test for recruits has furnished its Report; and, if so, when, and what action it is proposed to take on the Report.

This Committee reported on the 15th February, and the Report has since been receiving very careful consideration. To some of I the recommendations effect is being given, of which the most important are the adoption of a uniform standard and the Snellen types.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any Report has been submitted by the late Inspector-General of Recruiting for the betterment of recruiting; and, if so, whether it will be acted on.

No special Report on the betterment of recruiting was submitted by the late Inspector-General of Recruiting. There are no recommendations in the Annual Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting which have not been acted on, except in regard to legislation to deal with false characters, a Bill for which has passed through the other House, and will, I hope, be passed by this House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the remarks of the Chief Justice of the Transvaal in delivering judgment in the case of Hunter v. Wilson and Worthington, in the Transvaal Supreme Court, to the effect that the plaintiff had bought from Colonel Morgan a quantity of chaff for £300, which was the property of the Military, and for which the ratepayers of this country had to pay; that it had never been put up to public auction, but was sold to Hunter underhand; and that on this expenditure of £300 the plaintiff had made £1,800 profit, one-third of which went to Mr. Frank Morgan, who was Colonel Morgan's brother; and whether, having regard to the fact that Colonel Morgan was director of supplies for the whole Army in South Africa during the latter part of the war, what steps, if any, do the War Office authorities intend to take with reference to this transaction.

Colonel Morgan has instituted proceedings against the London newspaper which commented on the remarks made by the Chief Justice of the Transvaal in connection with this matter. No action, therefore, will be taken by the War Office until the case is decided in Court.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Private Pitt, of the artillery force now stationed at Longford, who on a recent occasion threatened the Rev. Joseph Skelly, P.P., Newtownforbes, with assault, and at the same time used language of an insulting character to him, has since been raised to the rank and pay of a sergeant; and, if so, can he state the grounds upon which this soldier has been raised so suddenly in the ranks after this insult to a Catholic priest.

I have no information whatever on the matter alluded to in the Question. I would suggest that the hon. Member refer the matter to the General Officer Commanding the Third Army Corps.

I certainly shall not do that.

May ask, as a matter of order, whether the right hon. Gentleman is not himself responsible for the management of the Army. Can any communication be held between officers of the Army and Members of this House?

That is not a matter of order. It is not for me to say what are the exact functions of a Minister.

Have we not a right to refer to the right hon. Gentleman for information on these matters?

I see nothing irregular in the Answer.

This is important. Have we as Members of Parliament any right whatever to communicate with military officers, and are they under any obligation to communicate with us, while there is a Minister to act as intermediary?

That is not a question of order.

It is one of taste.

I shall call attention to this on the Army Vote.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Third Army Corps. Is such a Corps existing?

I beg to ask the Secretary for India a Question of which I have given private notice, viz., whether on Saturday last at a public banquet he refused to respond to the toast of "His Majesty's Forces"; whether this was because of his disagreement with the military policy of the Government; and, if so, whether he intends to take any further steps in the matter.

I really do not know on what statement the hon. Member has founded his Question; but, whatever it was, the inference which he has drawn is incorrect. What occurred was this: The officer who was expected to reply to the toast was not present, and I was suddenly asked to respond, when I pointed out that, not being Secretary of State for War, probably I was not so well qualified to respond as another gentleman present, who had served his country in the South African War.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider the advisability of inviting the Governments of the Colonies to send representatives to an Imperial Conference next spring in London to consider and examine the whole fiscal situation of the British Empire.

This is a Question which should have been addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury; but, speaking for myself, the advisability of such a conference as the hon. Member refers to is a matter which could not be decided without very careful consideration.

I beg to ask the 'Secretary of State for the Colonies if any provision is made in the Transvaal Estimates for the year ending 30th June, 1905, for the first instalment of the war contribution loan.

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is in a position to make any statement regarding the attitude of the Portuguese Government in relation to the Netherlands Pier and adjoining land at Loreneco Marques, Delagoa Bay, a valuable asset of the late Transvaal Government.

I hardly think it is necessary for me to say more than that I have every reason to believe that the interests of the Transvaal Government will be fully safeguarded.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, His Majesty's Government having decided to give representative institutions to the Transvaal, the representation will be elective from those entitled to vote as in other self-governing Colonies; if not, will he say in what manner the new representative assembly will be elected, and at what approximate date.

I am not at present able to add anything to the general statement which I made on the 21st instant. The details can only be settled after full consideration and discussion with the authorities on the spot.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Chinese labourers now employed in the South African mines will come under the provisions of the Transvaal Liquor Licensing Ordinance; and, if not, what arrangements have been made with regard to the sale of intoxicants to these labourers.

These labourers will, I am informed, come under the provisions of the existing liquor law which prohibits the sale or free issue of any intoxicating liquor to coloured persons including Chinese.

May I ask the Colonial Secretary whether he has any information to give with reference to the riots taking place among the Chinese in the Transvaal? Are they still going on or have they been brought to a conclusion?

I have no information beyond that which appears in the newspapers.

Has the right hon. Gentleman cabled for information?

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the remarks of the Chief Justice of the Transvaal, in delivering judgment in the Supreme Court of the Transvaal on 1st June, in the case of Hunter v. Wilson and Worthington, and the disclosures in that case of loss to the Imperial Government by purloinage, he will direct Lord Milner to publish the text of the contracts entered into between the Transvaal Government and Messrs. Wilson and Worthington for the purchase of repatriation stores.

The text of the contract between the Repatriation Department and Messrs. Wilson and Worthington was laid on the Table of the Inter-colonial Council on June 7th and was published in the Johannesburg Star of the same date.

On behalf of the hon. Baronet the Member for Preston I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he expects to be able to make any announcement before the close of the session as to any steps which it may be possible to take to encourage the growth of cotton in West Africa or in South Africa.

The policy outlined in my speech on the 27th of April is being actively pursued. As there is little to add to what was then stated, I do not think that it will be necessary that I should make a further announcement on the subject this session.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the precedence taken away from the Chief Justice of New Zealand was taken away by an Act of the New Zealand Legislature, or at the request of the Prime Minister of that Colony; if taken away at the request of the Prime Minister what reasons were submitted warranting such an alteration in long established precedent.

The alteration in the precedence of the Chief Justice of New Zealand was in accordance with the strongly expressed desire of the Colonial Ministry. The reasons for advising His Majesty to comply with this desire were stated in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 21st instant †

Then was it not done by an Act of the Colonial Legislature?

No. Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state on whose authority the representative of the Indian Army at the War Office has been abolished.

The appointment of Assistant Military Secretary for Indian Affairs at the War Office has been abolished under the orders of the Secretary of State for India in Council and with the concurrence of the Army Council.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that charges of alleged maladministration have from time to time been brought against the

†See page 769.

Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will find, in Mr. Casement's Report and other Papers recently laid before Parliament in connection with that Report, the steps taken by His Majesty's Government to investigate the charges of maladministration in the Congo Free State.

Are not these charges got up by people who are jealous of the progress Belgium is making in the Congo and with a view to capturing the rubber industry in that State?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an organised effort is being made by British subjects in South Africa and elsewhere to bring Belgian rule in the Congo into disrepute by the circulation of stories as to alleged atrocities and acts of maladministration; if so, whether such interference on the part of His Majesty's subjects in the affairs of a friendly State has the sanction of the Government; and, if not, what steps it is proposed to take to discourage such action in future.

His Majesty's Government have no information on the subject beyond what has appeared in the public Press. His Majesty's Government do not consider that they are called upon to interfere with the expression of personal opinions by British subjects.

I beg to ask the Under. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that a Russian warship, the "St. Petersburg" has overhauled and searched British vessels in or near the Red Sea; and, if so, can he state whether this is the same vessel, also named the "St. Petersburg," that recently passed through the Bosphorus under the Russian commercial flag; and, if so, whether it is in conformity with international law that the same vessel can at one time fly the commercial flag and at another time assert the authority of a warship; and whether this transformation can take place on the high seas, or whether it is obligatory that a vessel holding a commission as a warship should be commissioned as such in a port of the nation to which she belongs.

There are several Questions on the Paper of the same character addressed to the Prime Minister, and perhaps it would be more convenient if this could be dealt with at the same time.

Then am I to address it to the Prime Minister?

I think my hon. and gallant friend will see from the Answers to be given to the other Questions how far it is possible to answer his.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been directed to the disabilities which East African settlers and intending settlers suffer through the want of direct communication; and if he will inquire on what terms it could be arranged for the German East African Company to call at an English port on outward and homeward journeys.

The question of establishing direct steamship communication between this country and East Africa is now being considered by an Inter-Departmental Committee; and pending the result of their deliberations. I do not think it advisable to make the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member.

:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now state whether the representations made to the Portuguese Government as to the prejudicial effect of their new tariff on the export of our mercerised goods has met with any result; and whether there is any treaty with Portugal in which the principles of the most-favoured-nation clause find a place.

The rate of duty on mercerised cotton goods proposed in the draft tariff now before the Portuguese Cortes is somewhat lower than that contained in the draft Portuguese tariff which was the subject of the representations referred to in my previous reply to my hon. friend. The duty as now proposed, however (like many other duties in the draft tariff), is very largely in excess of that at present charged, and the matter is not being lost sight of. There is no treaty between this country and Portugal containing a most-favoured-nation clause.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will grant a Return showing which British Colonies and foreign countries have established systems of graduated income-tax, or of income-tax levied at different rates on earned and on unearned incomes, or both; with particulars in each case of the rates of tax, the method of assessment and collection, and the degree to which evasion or fraud is estimated to detract from the proper yield of the tax.

I am making inquiry to see to what extent the information for which the hon. Member asks is available. I will communicate the result to him in writing.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether the course of the Lurgydonnell River, in the electoral division of Aughaulish, Ballyshannon Union, had been inspected by an engineer from the Con- gested Districts Board, with a view to the stoppage of flooding; whether he is aware that the Board held out hopes to those periodically injured by floods in this district that steps would be taken to have the course of the river widened, and that nothing has been done in pursuance of the promises made; and, if so, will he, in view of the fact that this congested district has been hitherto overlooked by the Board, see that these promises are carried out.

The locality has been visited by two members of the Board, accompanied by one of their engineers, in the ordinary course of inspection; but no promise has been given by the Board that it would undertake drainage works in the districts. The question whether the Board can offer to make a small contribution to the county council towards the cost of any scheme which it may be practicable for the council to undertake in the absence of the establishment of a properly constituted drainage board, will shortly come before the Congested Districts Board for consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the office staff of the Estates Commissioners is entirely unable to deal with the originating applications as they are lodged, and that a period of some weeks must elapse before an application now lodged can be even opened; and whether he will take steps to have the staff augmented.

There has been some delay in dealing with such applications; but the delay has been unavoidable and incidental to the working of a department only recently constituted. The Treasury has sanctioned an augmentation of the staff, both indoor and outdoor, and the work of the Department will now proceed with greater expedition.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Irish Members copies of Amendments which they propose to move to the Loan Fund Bill in case that measure is proceeded with this session; has the Irish Government considered those Amendments, and will the suggestions of the Irish Members be accepted; can he inform the House when the Loan Fund Bill will be taken; and can he assure the Irish Members that, if it is proceeded with this session, adequate time will be given for its discussion.

It is quite impossible to accept the proposed Amendments, one of which is to the effect that the Treasury should pay to the debenture holders the losses they have sustained by reason of the borrowers having taken advantage of a technicality to avoid payment of the sums lent to them. The Bill is merely designed to remedy the result of an error into which the Loan Fund Societies have fallen, and extends the time for sueing on notes current in March, 1899. It does not deal with the larger question of the reform and reconstruction of the Loan Fund system. Unless the Bill be treated (as the Government think it ought to be) as uncontroversial, time cannot be given this session for its consideration.

Will the other suggestions of the Irish Party be accepted by the Government?

There are others that cannot be accepted. The Bill, to be passed, must be an uncontroversial measure.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state what Amendments he is prepared to accept?

If the hon. Member will communicate with me on behalf of the Irish Party I will tell him what the Government will accept and what they will not.

I shall raise this question again.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that new tenancies have been created in the West of Ireland during the past two years by the selling and letting of grazing farms held by landlords to non-resident graziers and others; and whether, as such a practice is calculated to defeat the aim of the Land Act of 1903, in regard to the enlargement of small holdings in congested districts, steps will be taken by the Estates Commissioners to put an end to it.

The Estates Commissioners have no power to prevent the creation of new tenancies. Section 53 (1) of the Act of 1903, limits advances in cases of tenancies created after 1st January. 1901, to £500, except in non-congested counties, where a larger advance may be sanctioned, subject however, to the general limitations prescribed in the Land Purchase Acts and without prejudice to the wants and circumstances of other persons in the neighbourhood. Section 53 (2) limits advances in cases of Court lettings to £1,000, or in non-congested counties to £2,000.

But have not the Estates Commissioners power to refuse to make any advance under this section where farms are let with this object?

said he could not accept that definition of their powers.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 4th inst., the Most Rev. Dr. Henry, Roman Catholic Bishop, addressed a communication to the Local Government Board, asking them to direct an inquiry into the action of the Belfast Corporation in refusing to concede to his demand that before the Roman Catholic dead were allowed burial in Dundonald Cemetery a certificate from a recognised priest must be produced to insure that deceased died in communion with the Roman Catholic Church; and whether, in view of the fact that the Belfast Corporation admit the principle of an allotment for the Roman Catholic dead, he can state on what grounds are they asked to be responsible as to whether deceased died in or out of communion with the Roman Catholic Church; and if the inquiry sought for is to be granted.

The communication referred to has been sent to the corporation, whose observations thereon are awaited by the Local Government Board.

Was it sent by the Local Government Board?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Mall Egan, who occupies Patrick O'Brien's farm, Liskin, Cadamstown, King's county (estate of the Rev. T. L. Malone), is tenant of the holding; and, if so, for how long, and under what terms as to rent and otherwise.

No advance has been made to Egan for the purchase of the holding, nor has the estate in question come before the Estates Commissioners. This being so, I have no information on the matters referred to.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the audit of the accounts of the Mill street Rural District, county Cork, on the 9th instant, the auditor, Mr. Bourke, surcharged six of the councillors the sums of 4s. 6d. and 4s. 8d. for the printing and postage of a resolution asking the landlords of the rural district if they were prepared to sell their estates to their tenants under the provisions of the Land Act, 1903; and, if so, whether, seeing that this expenditure was incurred in the public interest, and in the endeavour to bring about a peaceful settlement of the land question, and that Mr. Bourke or other auditors have passed, without comment, the expenditure made by other district councils in the county in respect of similar resolutions, he will remit the surcharges in this case.

The auditor's report on his recent audit of the accounts of the district council has not yet been received. If surcharges have been made as stated, it will be open to the councillors concerned to appeal to the Local Government Board in the manner prescribed by law.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Head. Constable Ryan, of the Royal Irish Constabulary at Belfast, at present occupies the married quarters in Mount Pottinger, although he is not stationed in that district; and whether, in view of the fact that his father-in-law lives with him in these quarters, contrary to police regulations, he will consider the advisability of having these quarters occupied by the men at present doing duty in the district.

My attention had not been previously drawn to this matter. The Inspector-General has given directions that the arrangement under which the head constable's father-in-law has been permitted to reside in the barrack shall no longer continue.

Am I to understand that this head constable occupies quarters in these barracks without being stationed in the district, while others who are so stationed are deprived of quarters?

That point is not raised by the Question. The point is as to the occupation of the barracks by the head constable's father-in-law.

I asked as to the occupation of the barracks by the head constable himself.

It is in the power of the Inspector-General to allocate these quarters, and I do not feel it my duty to interfere with his discretion.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman cannot interfere with the head constable occupying the married quarters, though not stationed in the district, while others stationed in the district are deprived of them?

I say I cannot dream of interfering with the discretion of the Inspector-General.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of appointing the hon. Member as Inspector-General of the Orange section of the Belfast police force?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the professor of logic in the Queen's College, Belfast, holds an appointment under the Board of Intermediate Education and an appointment under the Board of Agriculture besides his examinership; whether the professor of chemistry and the professor of pathology derive any fees or remuneration from the Corporation of Belfast or other public body in addition to examinerships; and whether he can state the number of examinerships and lectureships held outside the college by the different professors.

The professor of logic occasionally acts as an engineer for the Board of Intermediate Education. I am not aware whether he performs any duties for the Department of Agriculture, but I am inquiring. The professors of chemistry and pathology occasionally advise the Belfast Corporation on matters affecting the public health; I have no information that they receive fees for doing so. Other professors have been employed as examiners by Universities in Ireland and Great Britain. There is no objection to the employment of the professors in the manner stated, so long as such employment does not interfere with the discharge of their college duties, and provided they obtain the consent of the college council.

Under what authority does he hold these additional appointments.

One can hardly call them appointments.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that affirmances of decrees for rent were granted at the recent Cavan Assizes against nine tenants on the Drumlane portion of the Morley Estate; and whether, in view of the fact that part of this estate, viz., Doobally, has been, already sold under an arbitration, and that the arbitrators had publicly explained their inability to deal more expeditiously in the matter, and further that they would proceed with the Drum-lane portion in August coming, he will take steps to secure that these tenants do not suffer through delay in the arbitration due to no fault on the part of these tenants.

This is not a matter in which I have authority to intervene as suggested. I am informed, however, that the agent has agreed not to proceed with the decrees pending the negotiations for sale.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps will be taken by the Department of Agriculture to supply a competent agricultural instructor this year for the county Longford or whether the appointment to this office recently made by the county committee has yet been sanctioned.

The Department's scheme of instruction in agriculture for the year ending 30th September next, was not adopted by the county committee. Consequently no funds were provided by the Department for the appointment of an instructor. The appointment stated to have been recently made has not been, notified to the Department.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord- Lie u-tenant of Ireland if he will state the total cost of the experimental processes in peat rearing at Inny Junction; whether he is aware that so far no proper machinery for compressing peat has been provided: and what compensation is being paid to the landlord in respect of this bog.

The experiment has only recently been inaugurated, and the cost cannot be ascertained until the 'experiment is completed, when the results, with full details, will be published.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state whether any application has been made to the Estates Commissioners on behalf of the tenants to purchase under Section 7 of the Land Act of 1903 the Galbraith Estate in North Longford; and, if so, will he state with what result.

An application has been received from one of the tenants, but no originating application has been received from the owner and no request under Section 7 has been issued.

I beg to ask the; Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to state whether any: complaint has been received as to the, failure of the Board of Education and Technical Instruction in Ireland to supply proper analyses of foodstuffs for cattle sent to them by the chairman of the Longford County Conncil; and, if so, will he say what action is proposed to be taken in this matter.

No such complaint has been received. The duty of undertaking analyses of feeding stuffs devolves upon county and borough councils through the medium of district analysts appointed pursuant to statute.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the pier at Kinvara, county Galway; and whether immediate steps will be taken to remedy this source of danger to the lives of those who have to use this pier.

Yes, Sir; but the Government accepts no responsibility for the condition of the pier, which is private property. The question of making a contribution towards the cost of putting the pier into a proper state of repair, supplemented by grants from the Department of Agriculture, the Congested Districts Board, and county council, is engaging attention. A decision cannot be reached until certain legal points arising out of the contemplated expenditure have been adequately considered and determined.

Has it come to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman I that a serious accident occurred at this pier lately?

Yes, but that does not affect my Answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in how many cases during the last five years sentences of imprisonment without option of fine have been imposed by benches of magistrates in the county Roscommon on charges preferred by the police for alleged cruelty to animals; and who was the resident magistrate chairman at the petty sessions Court where such a sentence was imposed.

There was one such case, details of which were given by me in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for South Roscommon on the. 13th June†. The presiding magistrate on the occasion was Mr. Holmes, resident magistrate.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken Ito bring to justice two men, who discharged firearms on the public road between Turlough and Pontoon, county Mayo, on a recent Sunday evening,

†See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 1495.

Proceedings have been instituted by the police in this case, which will be heard at petty sessions on Wednesday next.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if his attention has been directed to the fact that at the Cork summer assizes, in connection with the trial of a youth, Michael Barry, charged with having placed stones on the Fermoy and Lismore Railway, with intent to upset or overthrow a train, forty-eight jurors of the county were ordered by the Crown officials to stand by; and will he state whether this action was taken on the advice or with the approval of the Law Officers of the Crown. I beg at the same time to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland is he aware that at the recent trial of Patrick Fitzgerald, at the Cork summer assizes, charged with a moonlighting offence, twenty-seven jurors were ordered by the Crown Solicitor to stand by; and, if so, can he state how many of the twenty-seven so challenged were Roman Catholics.

In the first case the jury disagreed at the first trial though the evidence was clear. Extensive canvassing of both the Grand and Petty Juries prevailed, and 45 jurors were ordered to stand aside. In the second case canvassing of jurors also took place and 25 jurors were ordered to stand aside. I am unable to say how many of the jurors who served or who were ordered to stand aside were Roman Catholics. The Crown Solicitor reports to me that in both these cases he acted in strict conformity with the directions contained in the Circular to Crown Solicitors, dated 12th February, 1894, believing that if sworn the jurors ordered to stand aside would most probably not deliver an impartial verdict.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the first case mentioned the Judge directed the jury to acquit the prisioner and they did so?

I am aware that this boy placed stones on the railway track, one weighing 65 lbs. and the other 35 lbs., and it was held that he had no intention to obstruct.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to re-try the case in Parliament?

I think it is the hon. Member who is doing that.

If the jurors were not ordered to stand aside on account of their religion, why were they?

Because the Crown Solicitor believed that if they were sworn they would not give an impartial verdict.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the action of the Board of Works, Dublin, in reference to Rush Harbour, county of Dublin, and to its threat of legal proceedings against the Dublin County Council to compel it to put the harbour mentioned in repair; whether he will call upon the Board to give the names of the fishermen who are alleged by the Board to have complained of the condition of the harbour, and to state when the alleged complaints were made; whether the Board has declined to receive a deputation from the county council, which desired to lay before it a statement of its views; and, if so, whether the Government has sanctioned this disregard of local opinion.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the position of the Board of Works in this matter. The Board are advised by their engineer that the harbour works at Rush are in need of repair, and they are reporting the fact to the Lord-Lieutenant in order that His Excellency may determine whether to advise the Treasury to put in force the 11th Section of the Act 16 and 17 Vict. cap. 136, under which, in default of the necessary action of the county council, the repairs may be effected by Government and recovered from the local authorities. The Board are unaware of the names of the fishermen referred to in the Question. They see no advantage in receiving a deputation, as their function is merely to report to the Lord-Lieutenant that the harbour works require repair.

It having been stated at a public function that the local fishermen had complained surely they must know who they are?

replied that the engineer was away on his holidays, but he would ascertain the facts as soon as he returned.

I beg to ask th Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the action of the Board of Works, Dublin, in the matter of Rush Harbour, whether an opening made by the Board itself in the groyne in the harbour soon after it was built has chiefly caused the silting which takes place there; and, if so, whether the Board will first close this opening before insisting on the harbour being cleaned out at the expense of the ratepayers.

No, Sir, the opening in the groyne does not cause the silting, and it is not proposed to close it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the action of the Board of Works in the matter of Rush Harbour, county of Dublin, whether he is aware that the cost of the work of repair which the Dublin County Council has been called upon by the Board to execute has been estimated by the county surveyor at about £1,000, and that one of the reasons given by the county council for not now incurring such an expenditure is the fact that they have actually bound themselves to expend a sum of £in the immediate future on another harbour in the same, district of the county; and whether, the Board having declined to take any account of this fact or of the views of the local authority, he will direct the Board to see, before proceeding to carry out its threat of legal proceedings against the council, whether the ratepayers concerned are willing to undergo the additional liability which compliance with the Board's requirements would involve.

The Board are not aware of the county surveyor's estimate. They have received from the county council information that it is proposed to spend £1,500 on another harbour; but neither this fact, nor the unwillingness of the ratepayers to keep Rush Harbour in proper repair, can relieve the Board of its duty to report the matter to the Lord-Lieutenant.

Will the Board keep a lynx eye on the other harbours in the county of Dublin under its own control?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. T. H. Evans, National Library of Ireland, who was transferred from the Royal Dublin Society and appointed a permanent civil servant in 1878, having received a Civil Service certificate to that effect, was compelled in 1890 to submit to a deduction of 5 per cent. from his pay in order to entitle him to a pension; and that in April, 1904, the Treasury sent a letter to the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) to inform Mr. Evans that he would not for the future have to submit to this deduction; and, if so, whether the Treasury will take steps, under the circumstances, to refund the money deducted from Mr. Evans's pay through some error, having regard to the fact that other attendants appointed on exactly the same conditions were pensioned without deductions from their pay.

The deduction made from Mr. Evans's salary down to April, 1904, was properly made and there is no ground for refunding it. From the 1s April, he was placed on a new scale of salary from which no deduction was required.

On what ground was the deduction made? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that other men in exactly the same position as Mr. Evans have had the money refunded.

I under- stand that all the men are in the same position.

I beg to ask the Post- master-General, whether he can now say why certain adult messengers at Belfast receive extra pay for performing Sunday work while others of the same staff receive no remuneration for Sunday work.

I have now arranged for all but one of the adult night telegraph messengers at Belfast to be given full duties carrying extra pay for Sunday work. In the case in which exception has been made no alteration is warranted. The difference in treatment to which the hon. Member refers is accounted for by the fact that hitherto some messengers have not performed a full duty and have consequently been paid under an allowance which included remuneration for Sunday work.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government hold themselves bound, under the Suez Convention or otherwise, to allow a British vessel and crew to be forcibly conducted by their captors, against the will of the British owners, captain, and crew, through the Suez Canal.

There are two or three Questions down in the name of my hon. friend, and another Question was asked of the Under - Secretary for Foreign Affairs by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Pembroke. These relate really to questions of a very diverse character. Some of them relate to broad questions of international law; others relate to the particular questions which arise out of the fact that a vessel of the Russian Volunteer Fleet has made certain captures of British merchantmen in the Red Sea. The considerations connected with that question have only an indirect relation to the general questions of international law governing capture at sea. The difficulties — I may say the great difficulties, I do not at all wish to minimise them—arising out of these captures deal with a separate problem, one which has given His Majesty's Government great anxiety, and is still giving them great anxiety, but of which I may say that the signs somewhat portend, do portend, a favourable issue. More than that I think it would be inexpedient to say. As to the Question of my hon. friend with regard to the position of the Suez Canal, which does not touch especially the question of the Volunteer Fleet, I think I may say that in my judgment he has mistaken the purport of the Suez Canal Convention. There was no act of war, so far as I am aware, committed in the Suez Canal, and the Convention expressly provides that a prize shall be treated as a man-of-war, and that men-of-war are to have free passage through the canal. Therefore I do not think any special difficulty arises in connection with that branch of the question, or anything which in any way gives rise to a difficult or complex controversy between the two Powers.

Then I understand we are bound?

I think there can he no doubt whatever that we are bound to allow prizes of war to go through the Suez Canal. Indeed, when I say we are bound, I ought perhaps to remind the House and the public that the Suez Canal is under international management, and it is not for us as a single Power to say what the rules binding the Egyptian Government as the guardian of the Suez Canal ought to be. But in our view I may say quite plainly there can be no doubt that a legitimate prize may be taken through the Suez Canal without any breach of international arrangement.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury have His Majesty's Government consulted the Law Officers of the Crown and come to a decision upon the limits within which the right of search and visit by belligerent warships of neutral merchant ships should be exercised and the limits of the duty of merchantmen to submit to such search and visit. Are British merchant ships required to submit to anything more than search and visit of the ship, and examination of her crew and papers in order to ascertain her nationality, destination, and cargo, and, in case of suspicion arising from such examination to detention and transmission of the ship, in charge of a prize crew, to a Prize Court for adjudication. Are British merchant ships required to submit to the forcible seizure and removal of a portion of their cargo, at the discretion of the captain of the visiting warship, without any authority of, or adjudication by, a Prize Court. And, will His Majesty's Government afford such naval protection along the lines of trade where the right of visit and search is likely to be practised, as will protect British merchant ships from such unauthorised abuses in the exercise of that right as the forcible removal of their cargoes oil the high seas.

Perhaps my hon. friend will be content if I say that in the opinion of the legal advisers of the Government the international law is correctly stated, speaking broadly, in the second paragraph of the Question. As regards the third paragraph, I do not believe that it is sanctioned by the practice of international law.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the passage, in recent times, of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles by Russian vessels of war and Russian Volunteer cruisers equipped to act as vessels of war, His Majesty's Government will propose to submit to the Hague tribunal the question whether such passages are. or are not, consistent with the terms of the treaties embodying the public law of Europe with regard to those straits.

This question does touch on what I must, at all events at present, regard as forbidden ground. It does raise a controversy which I think will be better settled if the House will, for the moment at all events, content itself with what I have said.

I quite recognise the necessity for that Answer. I think I may forbear from putting the next Question on the Paper—"To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Russian volunteer cruiser "Smolensk," after taking by force from the German mail steamboat "Prinz Heinrich" thirty-one sacks of letters and twenty-four sacks and boxes of parcels said to be intended for Japan, subsequently detained by force the British steamship "Persia," and insisted on transferring to her the greater portion of the letters and parcels taken from the "Prinz Heinrich"; and, if so, what steps do His Majesty's Government intend to take in the matter"—unless my right hon. friend desires to say something on it.

No; I do not.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not desire to answer now the two latter inquiries in my Question — namely, "whether it is in conformity with international law that the same vessel can at one time fly the commercial flag and at another time assert the authority of a warship; and whether this transformation can take place on the high seas, or whether it is obligatory that a vessel holding a commission as a warship should be commissioned as such in a port of the nation to which she belongs?"

; This is a Question of general law which my hon. and gallant friend asks rue, and I am not sure that anything would be gained by any attempt on my part to reply to it. I would point out to him that in this Question he has travelled a little wide of what is the somewhat narrower question of the relation between the action of the "Smolensk" and the Petersburg" and the Treaty of Paris as modified by the Treaty of London.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state whether His Majesty's Government has decided to introduce next ession a measure for the Redistribution of Seats.

I do not think I can add anything to my Answer to a similar Question put by another hon. friend of mine.† I do not propose to anticipate the King's Speech for next session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Arsenical Poisoning, paragraph 166, in which they recommend the appointment of a special officer with suitable scientific knowledge, and adequate laboratory assistance, to make authoritative investigation where new risks to health are suspected, and also to advise how work under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act may be run on satisfactory lines; and whether, in view of the increase in lunacy and crime, attributed by the medical profession and medical officers of health to the unrestricted sale of patent spirit as whisky, he will act on the recommendation of the said Commission by the appointment of a suitable officer.

My right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board informs me that the recommendations of the Royal Commission are now engaging his careful attention.