In moving the Amendments which stand in my name on the Paper I need only explain that they are all drafting Amendments, save one to Standing Order 153, which proposes to enable tramway companies, like railway companies, to raise one-third of their capital by borrowing. At present tramway companies can raise only one-fourth of their capital by borrowing, but Committees of this House have been recently allowing them to raise one-third, and it is now felt that the time has arrived when they should be placed in the same position as railway companies. Power, however, is reserved to the Select Committee to refuse this right in any case if they consider it necessary. I do not think there are any other Amendments which require any explanation, and I shall be obliged to the House if it will pass them as they stand on the Paper.

claimed the right to say a few words on this matter. Here they had a long series of motions dealing with private business. He did not propose to take advantage of the forms of the House to divide on them, but he did desire to call attention to the accusation readily made against the Irish Members that they desired to bring the House into contempt by an abuse of its forms. If that were true, here was an opportunity for taking half a hundred divisions, under the forms of the House, but they allowed it to go by, as they allowed to go by endless opportunities afforded by private business for what was called obstruction.

said he heard with great satisfaction the hon. Member's repudiation of the charge that he and his colleagues desired to bring the House into contempt. But, if such charges were made, they were due to statements by colleagues of the hon. Member, one of whom, at any rate, had publicly avowed that it was the intention of the Irish party to degrade the House of Commons until such time as Home Rule were granted.

I deny that.

Oh, yes, it was said.

said the right hon. Gentleman had evidently made what was for him an unusual appearance at the time of private business in order to add fuel to the campaign against the Irish Members which was started at Blenheim. He was glad his hon. friend the Member for Waterford had repudiated the charge of bringing the House into contempt which had been laid at the doors of the Irish Members. For his part, he would never engage in any proceedings of the kind, simply because he did not think they would advance the interests of Ireland. If, when the Colonial Secretary brought his political career to a close, and began to write his last will and testament, the Irish Members were still in the House of Commons—which he sincerely trusted would not be the case—the right hon. Gentleman would find them in the same force and in the same strength as they had been when they were in alliance with himself. With regard to the proposed alterations of the Standing Orders, he only wished to observe that he was sorry that the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lords Chairman had not taken advantage of the opportunity and of the feeling which undoubtedly existed to really improve the Standing Orders, and put them into a more workmanlike shape. It was admitted the other day by the Lords Chairman that there was necessity for further improvement and revision, and he certainly had hoped that something would have been done to provide something in the nature of a digest of the Orders.

said the suggestion of the hon. Member was well worth considering, and he would consult with his noble friend, but he was very doubtful if the House would be content to leave the matter in their hands. It might be desirable to appoint a Committee to deal with the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the termination of the war in South Africa, and of the establishment of settled government in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, it is intended that the manufacturers of foreign countries shall have equal opportunities for trade with those of the United Kingdom.

The consideration of the customs tariffs has not yet been taken in hand, but it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to adopt any system of protective discrimination against foreign goods.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of the killing of Godefroy at St. Helena, an investigation before a coroner was demanded by the Boer prisoners, which demand was refused; and, if so, can he state why it was refused; whether, at the military inquiry which did take place, the friends of Godefroy were represented, and whether his representatives were allowed to cross-examine the military witnesses; whether the committee of Boer prisoners who communicated with the Governor in reference to this incident have sent in any statement; and, if so, whether such statement was considered by the court which conducted the inquiry; and whether he will allow the Member for East Mayo to have access to any correspondence which has passed between the camp committee, the Governor, and the President of the Court in reference to the shooting of Godefroy, and to the official record of the proceedings of the court.

The Report called for has not yet arrived. I am not, therefore, in a position to answer the question.

I give notice to the noble Lord that I shall on the Appropria- tion Bill demand an explanation of the unaccountable delay in the production of this Report.

What about your new colonial cables?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has now obtained information, as promised, from South Africa and if he can communicate to the House what were the exceptional circumstances connected with the compulsion of British colonists to witness the execution of their countrymen at Dordrecht; who gave the order for such compulsion, if it was sanctioned by the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, and, if not, whether the officer responsible for it has been punished; whether these colonists were convicted criminals or prisoners, under what penalty did they attend, and what object was gained by such compulsion; and if he cannot give the desired information at present, can he state when such will be forthcoming, and if the practice is in the meantime to continue, pending information being given to this House.

The Report may be expected within the next fortnight. The further point raised in the last paragraph was dealt with in my replies on Friday last to the questions put by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire.†

If the Report arrives during the recess will the noble Lord have it circulated among Members?

I cannot answer that without notice.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in reference to the despatch of General Dixoh on the battle of Vlakfontein, whether the sworn evidence mentioned by Lord Kitchener in reference to the alleged killing of British wounded has come to hand.

† See page 272.

No, it has not yet been received.

But Lord Kitchener refers to the affidavits as having been sent.

He said he would send them, and he has told us he was sending them, but they have not yet been received.

Is Lord Kitchener waiting for the rising of the House?

No; he is awaiting the arrival of the Report.

Will the noble Lord say is there any truth in the rumour of Lord Kitchener's return?

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the prison camps at Howick, in South Africa, an account is kept of all rations and clothing issued to each individual in the camp and debited against them; whether the same system is carried out in the other camps throughout South Africa; whether in keeping these accounts any allowance is made for the property of the individuals which has been destroyed or confiscated by the British troops, and whether any distinction is made between voluntary refugees and prisoners who have been brought to the camp by force and are detained there against their will.

Lord Kitchener's Report on the refugee camps in Natal has not yet arrived, so that I am not in a position to answer the question. I apprehend that the Report refers to the usual ration returns which are kept in every Government establishment where rations are issued.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will lay upon the Table of the House maps of South Africa coloured to show the districts in effective occupation of the British troops on 1st July, 1900, 1st January, 1901, and 1st July, 1901, respectively.

No, Sir. It is an unvarying rule not to publish, during a campaign, maps which indicate the positions of British troops in the field.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Herr Meyerbach, a war correspondent in South Africa for the Berlin Tagblatt, has been arrested by the English authorities as a spy and is about to be tried by court-martial at Middelburg; and whether any communication has been received from the Government of the German Empire, of which Herr Meyerbach is a subject, with reference to his arrest and approaching trial. I beg also to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Herr Meyerbach, who has acted as war correspondent in South Africa for the Berlin Tagblatt, has been arrested by the English authorities on suspicion of being a spy, and is to be tried by court-martial at Middelburg; whether he will be given the assistance of legal advisers in his defence; and, having regard to the fact that he is a subject of the German Empire, will he be allowed to communicate with the German Consul.

In reply to these questions, I have no information on the matter alluded to, and no communication has been received from the German Government.

Will the noble Lord send for information?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what progress has been made in the formation of the Royal Garrison Regiments, and what is the present position and station of the several battalions.

The first battalion is at Malta and numbers 989 all ranks, the second is at Gibraltar and numbers 1,035 all ranks, and the third is being raised at Warley and numbers 910 all ranks.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has received from the Dublin Trades Council a resolution pointing out the desirability of having samples of articles required by the War Department, and sent by Irish contractors, examined at Arbour Hill Receiving Depot instead of at Woolwich, and asking that workshops attached to military barracks should be more largely established in Ireland; and whether he can see his way to complying with this resolution.

This resolution was received, and a reply was sent on the 15th July expressing the inability of the Secretary of State for War to comply with it, as the stores required were not large enough to justify the creation of any local factory.

Is the noble Lord aware that the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland recommended the purchase in Ireland of goods obtainable there?

I am not aware of that.

Perhaps, then, the noble Lord will look at the evidence given by the right hon. the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland before the War Office Organisation Committee.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there is any intention on the part of the War Office to take steps with a view to the placing of a military camp on Seaton Links, near Aberdeen.

No, Sir; there is no such intention.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, seeing that the official Army List, published in accordance "with the provisions of the Army Act, 1881, Section 163 (d), is under the Act evidence of the status and rank of the officers therein mentioned, he can explain why Lieutenant-colonels of the Reserve of Officers, with rank of colonel in the Army, are deprived of their Army rank on recall to service.

The Army List under the Army Act, Section 163 (d), is evidence of the status and rank of the officers therein mentioned, and the Reserve officers are also shown therein, with the commissions they held when on the active list. On the recall of a Reserve officer to service he is dealt with under the King's regulations.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state what was the amount expended, under the Military Works Acts of 1897 and 1899, on defence works, barracks, ranges, and staff and contingencies respectively, from the 1st April, 1900, to the 31st March, 1901; what is the estimated expenditure under those headings for the current year; and what is the total amount in respect of which contracts have been entered into under the Military Works Acts of 1897 and 1899.

The accounts are not fully made up to 31st March, 1901, but the following is the approximate expenditure from 1st April, 1900, to 31st March, 1901:—Defences, £400,000; barracks, £500,000; ranges, etc., £250,000; staff, etc., £50,000. The estimated expenditure for the current year will be found in Command Paper No. 518 of 1901, but I have reason to hope that we shall make more progress than was anticipated, in which case the expenditure will be larger. The total amount authorised up to date for which contracts have been made is £5,691,670, but contracts involving a large amount are now under consideration, and will probably be accepted within the next month or so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what steps are being taken with regard to the issue of medals and clasps to the naval force employed in China during the recent operations; and whether he can give an assurance that the recipients of such medals and clasps will have the same treatment extended to them with respect to the presentation thereof as has lately been accorded to those who have served in the South African War.

The preparation of the medals and clasps for the naval forces in the recent operations in China will be proceeded with as rapidly as possible. I can give no assurance with regard to the presentation of the medals and clasps, as the matter is one which must depend on the pleasure of the King.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now prepared to publish the manner of calculating the rate of interest used in connection with the amount of Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company's annuities; whether it was identical with the process employed when the Indian Government terminated the lease and repaid the capital of the Seinde and Eastern Bengal Railway Companies; and, if not, what cause there was for altering the precedents of the past twenty years.

The Secretary of State has no knowledge of the manner in which the rate of interest was calculated by the Governors of the Bank of England in any of the cases mentioned.

Is the noble Lord not aware that a clause in the Scinde Railway Act, 1886, declares that "whereas the rate of interest to be used in calculating the said annuity has been ascertained in accordance with the provision…. And such annuity has accordingly been calculated and created by the Secretary of State"?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is prepared to accept the method and details of the recent Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company's repayment as precedents governing the approaching repayment in 1905 and 1907 of the capital of the Bombay Railway Company and the Madras Railway Company.

The procedure to be adopted, if the Government purchase by annuity, will be that which is prescribed by the contract, namely, a reference to the Governor or Deputy-Governor of the Bank of England to decide the rate of interest which shall govern the annuity. But, as I have often before stated, I have no cognisance of, or authority over, the method or details by or upon which the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank may arrive at the determination upon the point referred to them.

I beg to give notice that I shall bring this matter before the House to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the present salaries for the auditor of the India Office and of his deputy; whether those salaries have been recently increased, and, if so, when and on what grounds; what is the total cost of the auditor's department, and what relation that cost bears to the amount to be audited; what is the total number of queries raised by the auditor in the last five years, and what is the total sum involved in those queries.

The salaries of the auditor and of his assistant are respectively £1,200 and £800, rising to £1,000. They were increased to these amounts in February, 1900, on the ground of the importance of the duties performed, and with due regard to the salaries paid for services of similar importance elsewhere. The total cost of the auditor's department, which was created by Act of Parliament, is about £7,000 a year; the sums which he has to audit amount to nearly eighty millions sterling annually. The total number of queries raised by the auditor during the last five years is 1,270; but this fact gives no indication whatever of the extent or importance of the duties performed by him.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Public Works Department in Burma is insisting on taking over houses belonging to private owners in the Cantonment of Rangoon without paying the full and fair value of the buildings; and whether he will have the matter inquired into, and by arbitration or otherwise have the real value of the houses ascertained.

I have no information on the subject to which this question refers, but I will make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to Law No. 21 of 1901, passed by the Jamaica Legislature on 4th July, Article 2 of which empowers the Jamaica Agricultural Society and any affiliated society to appoint constables for the arrest of persons suspected of prædial larceny, who, under Article 3, may be imprisoned on evidence not necessarily on oath; on whom Article 4 throws the burden of proving their innocence; and who, in the event of conviction of a first offence, may, and on subsequent conviction must, under Article 7, in addition to or in lieu of imprisonment, be subjected to flogging with a cat-o'-nine-tails, with not more than eighteen stripes if under the age of sixteen, or thirty-six stripes if over that age; and whether he will advise the disallowance of this law by His Majesty.

The law in question has not yet been received; when it comes it will be most carefully scrutinised. To judge from the reports in the local newspapers, the provisions quoted by the right hon. Member are not correct, and the law contains a suspending clause, so that it does not come into operation until His Majesty's assent has been given.

I have read the Act.

I have not seen the Act. I have only read the local newspapers, so that I am not in a position to say wheher the statements in the right hon. Gentleman's question are correct or not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the petition presented on the 13th instant from the elected members of the Council of Government of Malta, urging that a Commission be appointed to inquire into the system of Government in Malta, the language question, and the question of taxes; whether he is aware that a representative meeting has lately been hold in Malta which expressed its condemnation of the despatch dated 30th July; and whether a Commission will be granted in accordance with the petition of the elected representatives of the Maltese people.

(1) I have no information with regard to the petition in question. (2) Yes. (3) No, Sir, I do not propose that a Commission be granted to inquire into the system of government in Malta.

asked whether it was intended to continue the government of Malta by Order in Council exclusively.

When necessary, yes.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information in reference to the reports that the British flag has been hauled down in Malta and that injury has been done to the statue of Her late Majesty.

I have no information as to either of those incidents, except what I have seen in the newspapers. No official information has come to me.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Mr. Wilfrid Blunt's Bedouin servants, three of whom were recently punished for assaulting officers of 11th Hussars, near Cairo, some time previously, by Mr. Blunt's directions, flogged two Greeks who went into his enclosure until they were insensible; and what steps, if any, were taken in this matter.

His Majesty's Government have no information of the incident mentioned. They understand that at the trial of the men accused of assaulting the British officers, the defendant's counsel mentioned that he had himself witnessed a case where two Italians who had trespassed on Mr. Blunt's property were bound and severely beaten in Mr. Blunt's presence. If the facts were as stated it was clearly for the sufferens to complain to the authorities or take legal remedies. It is not known whether they did so.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the proposal which the German Government are about to submit to the Reichstag raising the duties on English imports, and whether any steps are being taken by the English Government in the matter.

Copies of the proposed new German Customs Tariff have been received at the Foreign Office, and a statement has been prepared at the Board of Trade comparing the present and proposed rates, but I understand that the proposed tariff is still in the hands of the Tariff Committee of the Bundesrath, who will probably not report to that body till the end of the year. The matter is actively engaging the attention of the Commercial Intelligence Committee of the Board of Trade, who are I believe taking steps to consult the principal chambers of commerce.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what is the present position of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States for the establishment of an inter-oceanic waterway between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans; whether there has been any reply to Lord Lansdowne's despatch of 22nd February, 1901; and whether the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty are still in force.

There has been no formal reply to Lord Lansdowne's despatch of 22nd February, but unofficial communications between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States have taken place through Lord Pauncefote, who is at present in this country. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty is still in force.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as it is the intention of the Treasury to remit the coal export duty on all coal shipped this year under pre-Budget contracts, an approximate date can be given for returning the amounts paid on such contracts, and for passing the balances of contracts exempt from duty if shipped by the end of the year; and whether, if an approximate date for the latter cannot be given, the Treasury can issue regulations to avoid the loss to merchants by the payment of duty on account of pre-Budget contracts.

The remission, as I have already stated, can only apply to con- tracts fulfilling the conditions which I stated to the House on 25th of June. I cannot give an approximate date for all repayments in such cases; but much has been repaid already, and the Customs hope that all uncontroversial cases may be disposed of by 30th September next. In this, and in the completion of the work of passing the balances of contracts that are to be shipped duty free, much will depend on the degree in which contractors help the Customs by promptly and accurately furnishing cover contracts, and in arranging them so as to indicate the selling contracts to which the cover contracts respectively relate. The Board of Customs are using every exertion to hasten the work, especially in the case of the smaller and apparently needier merchants.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that some twenty or more betting bookmakers calling themselves turf accountants have transferred their business from Holland to Guernsey, where it is not illegal, as in England, to receive money on deposit for betting purposes, and that the advertisements of these bookmakers appear in English newspapers; and whether he can take any steps to promote the assimilation of the law in the Channel Islands to that which exists in England, so as to diminish the temptation to betting in this country.

I will bring this question to the notice of the authorities in the Channel Islands.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the guardians of the Hackney Union decline to produce the papers under which they detained Nurse Beatty as a lunatic; and will he, having regard to Section 82 of 32 Vict., c. 5, direct them to do so.

I have no knowledge of the papers referred to, not have I any authority to give directions to the guardians of the poor. I presume the reference is to Section 82 of the Lunacy Act, 1890.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in possession of further information in regard to the proceedings at the quarter sessions for Bolton, on 12th July, in the case of the Standard Arms beer-house; and whether, in view of the facts of that case, he will take steps to insure the observance by the justices of Bolton of the provisions of Section 158 (1) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882.

I am informed, as the result of inquiries, that the borough magistrates, although present and giving assistance as to the facts of the case, took no part in the decision of the court and did not act as justices within the enactment referred to. In view of that enactment, however, I cannot help regarding it as unfortunate that they took any part at all in the proceedings.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received information concerning the attacks that have recently been made on the open sea and in the mouth of the River Tyne on fishing boats returning to Cullercoats by a steam tug and other boats belonging to a Mr. Ewen, and whether he is aware that the fishing coble "Harold" returning from fishing was run into and almost sunk, that her sails and fishing nets were seized, and the men on board were in peril of their lives; whether it has been brought to his knowledge that the fishermen of Culler-coats are now obliged to arm themselves for their own protection; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of these attacks.

The Board of Trade were informed by the Admiralty on the 7th instant that, owing to the salmon fishery disputes off the mouth of the Tyne arising out of a claim to private fishing rights, two gunboats had been despatched to the locality. The Board have asked the Admiralty for further particulars.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has received any report respecting the imprisonment of the firemen of the steamship "Mab," at the Canadian port Rimouski; whether he is aware that these men refused to work, coal being part cargo to be shifted in the bunkers after one o'clock on Saturday afternoon; and that, although it is the custom on British ships for the firemen to cease work in port at one clock on Saturday afternoon, the master put the men in irons, and kept them lying on deck seven hours; and, seeing that this master has had trouble with his men on board other British vessels, whether he will cause inquiry to be made with regard to the treatment of the firemen of the "Mab" by the master.

Notice of the hon. Member's question was the first intimation I received of the case to which he refers. From inquiries I have made it appears that five firemen of the "Mab" refused duty and became violent, one even attempting to throw the master overboard. They were put in irons until the arrival of the police. In the district magistrate's court at Rimouski the men were convicted. One was sent to prison for eight days, and all forfeited two days pay. A counter charge was brought against the master by the firemen, but was dismissed. The Board of Trade have nothing recorded against the master.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received any report with regard to the condition of the steamship "Louisiana," when she sailed from Quebec on her last voyage; whether he is aware that when this vessel last left Quebec the master was compelled to jettison a portion of the deck cargo; whether he will ascertain from the master how many standard of deals were jettisoned; whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to ask the owners of this vessel to award compensation to the seamen who were imprisoned for refusing to proceed in the ship on the ground that she was unseaworthy; and whether the Board of Trade intends to take proceedings under the Merchant Shipping Act against the owners for sending this vessel to sea in an unseaworthy condition.

No, Sir, I have not yet received any report from Quebec with regard to the case of the "Louisiana." The owners, however, inform me that when the vessel left that port no portion of the cargo was jettisoned, but that certain deck cargo was discharged in port in order to remedy a list, after which a certificate of seaworthiness (of which I have seen a copy) was granted by the local authorities. As it appears that the seamen who were imprisoned refused to proceed to sea after the "Louisiana" was declared to be in a seaworthy condition, and as she was not sent to sea unseaworthy, the case does not appear to me to be one either for compensation or prosecution.

Arising out of the answers to these and various other questions relating to shipping matters, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a Departmental Committee will inquire carefully into these questions?

No, Sir, I do not think I can appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into these matters.

What Committee has the right hon. Gentleman decided to appoint?

Order, order! Notice must be given of that question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will request the Orient Steam Navigation Company to state the names of their vessels on which the stokers were drunken and mutinous, and the dates of the occurrences; whether the company prosecuted the stokers for the offences they are alleged to have committed; whether, on the discharge of these stokers, they gave them certificates of discharge, declining to report with regard to character; and whether they will state the names of their vessels on which they state they have sustained heavy losses, and the dates, in consequence of the wholesale desertion of their crews.

I have referred this question to the Orient Steam Navigation Company, who inform me that they do not feel called upon to supply the information for which the hon. Member asks.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Circular to surveying officers dealing with the under-ballasting of ships of the mercantile marine, which was promised more than four months ago, has been issued, whether he can state its terms, and whether any ships, and, if so, how many have been detained since the issue of the Circular on account of being unsafe through want of sufficient ballast.

The Circular to which the hon. Member refers was issued to the survey staff of the Board of Trade in March last. It is to the effect that if a vessel is in such trim as to be unsafe, the master is to be warned, and if no steps are taken to remedy the fault, the ship is to be detained. No vessel has been detained since the issue of the Circular on account of being unsafe through want of sufficient ballast.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the conditions existing between this country and Germany and France in respect of the Patent Laws, and whether the Government will in the next session of Parliament take steps to assimilate the law of this country to that prevailing in the countries named; and can he state what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to carry into effect any of the recommendations contained in the Report, dated January of this year, of the Board of Trade Committee on the working of the Patent Acts.

I understand the first part of my hon. friend's question refers in particular to the forfeiture of patents for non-working which is provided for by the law in France and Germany. The proposal to introduce a similar condition in this country was considered by the Board of Trade Committee, but was rejected by them in favour of other proposals having a similar object. With respect to the last part of the question, the Bill which passed this House yesterday was intended to give effect to one recommendation of the Committee; the other recommendations are under consideration. I may say that I hope it may be found possible to deal with the amendment of the Patent Laws before very long, but I am not in a position at present to give any pledge on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a letter from the Glasgow Fleshers Trade Association, consisting of 1,200 members of wholesale and retail meat traders, cattle salesmen, and farmers, supporting the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the communicability of tuberculosis from animals to man; and whether the Government have yet determined upon the appointment of such a Commission.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. I have received the letter referred to by the hon. Member. The apointment of a Royal Commission is still under the consideration of the Government.

Is there any hope of the question being immediately settled?

Yes, Sir; I think it will be settled very speedily.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the condition of two graveyards at Chatham, where coffins are open to public view, tombstones broken, and rubbish of all kinds deposited; and will he state who is responsible for this state of things.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. My attention has been drawn to the alleged condition of the graveyards referred to, and I am making inquiries on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Peabody Trustees have refused the offer of the Southwark Borough Council of 12½ per cent. for collecting the rates direct from the tenants in their buildings in the Blackfriars Road, although they undertake the same work in their other buildings in Southwark for 10 per cent.; whether he is aware that by this arrangement the tenants, many of whom are poor, suffer inconvenience and loss, the allowance made by the Trustees being less than the tenants are called upon to pay; and whether the Local Government Board can take steps to put in force the former system under which the rates were collected direct from the landlord.

I am aware that the Peabody Trustees, in conjunction with other owners of tenement property in Southwark, have declined to assent to a reduction by the borough council to 12½ per cent. in the allowance hitherto made to them in consequence of their paying the rates instead of the occupiers, and doing so whether the tenements were occupied or not. The whole of the tenants in the Blackfriars Road Buildings have agreed to pay the rates, and in consideration of their having to make these payments the Trustees have reduced the weekly rents to the extent as near as possible of the amount of the present rates, less 15 per cent. The Local Government Board have no power to take action for the purpose referred to in the last paragraph of the question. The responsibility for what has occurred must rest with the borough council.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rearrangement tells against the tenants and in favour of the Trustees?

No, no. When owners of property compound for rates they pay them on all the tenements whether occupied or not.

If I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that it is so, has the Local Government Board any power to interfere?

The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly satisfy me of that. I am thoroughly conversant with the law. Besides, I have no power to interfere. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the borough council.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state how many cases of small-pox were treated at the Metropolitan smallpox hospitals in each of the years 1898, 1899, and 1900; how many of those eases bore vaccination marks and bow many were unvaccinated; how many of the fatal cases in each year were vaccinated persons, and how many were unvaccinated; and how many cases were certified by medical men to be cases of small-pox and subsequently turned out to be not so suffering; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent such erroneous certification in the future.

I am informed that the number of cases of smallpox treated at the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board in the years 1898, 1899, and 1900 was five, eighteen, and sixty-six respectively. The number of cases which bore evidence of vaccination in each of these years was five, fifteen, and forty-nine. There were no deaths in 1898; in 1899 there were three deaths, all of them vaccinated cases; and in 1900 there were also three deaths, only one of which was a case bearing evidence of vaccination. The number of persons wrongly certified by medical men to be suffering from small-pox in these years was thirty-one, eighteen, and thirty respectively. I have no authority to take any steps as suggested in the second paragraph of the question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the decision of the English King's Bench Division affirming the conviction of Messrs, Pearks, Gunstone and Co., trading as Pearkes' Stores, for selling butter containing a large percentage of milk or water artificially introduced; and seeing that frequent complaints against this practice on the part of this firm have been made, can he state what steps the Board of Agriculture propose to take to prevent a continuance of the offence; is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same firm was yesterday, at Wolverhampton fined £36 for an identical offence?

Yes. Until the local authorities have failed to carry out the duty imposed upon them of prosecuting in cases of this kind, and have been declared in default, the Board of Agriculture cannot itself take proceedings. If the local authorities should fail in their duty as I do not think is probable, the Board will not hesitate to undertake it for them. Meanwhile our inspectors will communicate with the local authority in all places and they are numerous, when we know that there are branches of this or other firms selling a similar product, advising them of the legal decision just given, and of the necessity for giving effect to it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the latest agricultural returns account for only 86 per cent. of the measured area of Great Britain; and if the details can be given in the next Report of the 14 per cent. of land at present unaccounted for as non-agricultural, but which includes the increasing acreage used as garden plots and recreation grounds.

The agricultural returns for 1901 have already been collected. The gradual increase of the non-agricultural area is, of course, due to the increase of buildings, roads, public recreation grounds, allotments under one acre, railways, parade grounds, &c.—and to ascertain the precise area of land used for each of these purposes would involve a long and costly investigation. A Return was issued in 1895 showing the number and extent of holdings of one acre and under—and there has been no great change since then.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will grant a Return showing the quantity and value of Canadian cattle imported alive, slaughtered at port of landing, and dead meat, in the several years from 1890 to 1900.

I hardly think that a printed Return is necessary, but I shall be glad to furnish the hon. Member with all the particulars he asks for, so far as we have the information.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he intends to adopt any of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee besides those referring to a milk standard, and especially whether he intends to take any steps for ensuring that the addition of separated milk to whole milk can be detected.

We are preparing circular letters to the local authorities calling their attention to the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the adulteration of cream with gelatine or other substances, and to the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts "generally, with the object of pro- tecting the vendor whose milk is proved to be genuine though below the regulation limit, and of preventing milk being reduced to that limit if naturally above it. The suggestion of the hon. Member for earmarking separated milk by the addition of some innocuous substance is one which could not be carried into effect without further legislation. We also propose to direct the attention of local authorities to the desirability of a uniform procedure as to sampling and analysing the milk taken for examination, and to indicate what such procedure should be. The labelling of condensed milk would require further legislation. We have already made arrangements by which the vessels used in the testing of milk can be officially standardised at the National Physical Laboratory.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether an agreement-has been arrived at within the last few days between the Government and the National Telephone Company, and whether he will give the purport of the arrangement, if any, concluded.

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to a similar question a few days ago.†

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is now in a position to announce the result of the inquiry promised five months ago in reference to the giving of merit stripes to unestab-lished linesmen and mechanics.

The Postmaster General has carefully considered the question and is not prepared to sanction the extension of the privilege of wearing good conduct stripes to un-established servants of the Department beyond the limits laid down in accordance with the recommendation of the Tweed-mouth Committee in 1897.

† See page 287.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state what is the total cost of the Auditor General's Department, and what relation that cost bears to the total sum audited.

The cost of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department for 1899–1900, including pensions and expenditure on its behalf by the Stationery Office, Office of Works, and Post Office, was £80,786. The amount of expenditure in 1899–1900 on account of Voted Loan and Consolidated Fund Services which was audited by the Department was upwards of £123,000,000. The Department also audited numerous non-voted accounts, such as the National Debt Commissioners' Accounts, the Supreme Court Fund Accounts, etc., etc., as to which figures cannot be furnished without considerable difficulty and delay.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the delays on the part of the Post Office in delivering parcels though they are marked perishable and immediate; whether he is aware that such parcels are sometimes not delivered, and whether he will consider the advisability of enabling any sender of a parcel to obtain a receipt as is now done with registered letters.

If the hon. Member will give particulars of any parcels which have been delayed in their transmission by post or have not been delivered, the Postmaster General will cause inquiry to be made on the subject. In the case of a delayed parcel the label or the address portion of the cover should, if possible, be forwarded to the Post Office. With regard to the other point referred to in the question, the hon. Member seems to be under a misapprehension. As stated in paragraph 8, on page 8 of the Post Office Guide, a certificate of the posting of a parcel can be obtained at any post office.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if it has been proposed to remove the screen below the organ in Westminster Abbey in view of the coronation ceremony.

I understand that at the Coronation Committee a question was asked as to whether it was feasible to remove the screen temporarily, but no proposal was made, and the question was not discussed.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if the widening of Piccadilly has been already begun.

To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the congestion of traffic in Piccadilly takes place only for a few hours on a few days in the year; and whether, before any part of the Green Park is taken away, he will first try the effect of removing the cab stand and cab shelter from Piccadilly.

To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consent to remark the effect upon traffic of removing the pavement upon the south side of Piccadilly before cutting down trees in the Green Park to widen Piccadilly.

The answer to my noble friend is in the negative. I am now in communication with the County Council on this matter, and in the meantime all work will be stopped. My hon. friend the Member for Stoke says "that the block only takes place for a few hours on a few days in the year," but I would say that my own experience, as well as that of traffic experts, differs entirely from this; whilst the removal of the cab stand and shelter would in no way abate the congestion at Hamilton Place, which it is the chief object of the scheme to relieve. My hon. friend the Member for Stowmarket can hardly have seen the effect of his suggestion, which would cause the removal of all the trees now on the pavement, the majority of which will be saved under the County Council scheme, while the relief given to the traffic at Hamilton Place would be infinitesimal.

asked what was the use of widening Piccadilly for the purpose of traffic if they still left the trees on the south side.

It is proposed in the scheme of the County Council that the greater number of the trees shall stand on refuges in the centre.

Will the First Commissioner receive a deputation on the subject?

I shall be glad to receive a deputation of any Members of the House to-morrow to explain the scheme to them.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that, whilst the Rev. W. W. Mickimmin, Newry, Ireland, was addressing an open-air meeting in Dumbarton on the evening of Wednesday, 3rd July, a publican threw over him and others the contents of a bucket containing porter or some other liquor; whether, seeing that the Rev. Mr. Mickimmin lodged a complaint at the burgh police office, Dumbarton, against the offender, he can explain why no prosecution has followed.

I have inquired into the circumstances of this case. The reverend gentleman, who is a temperance lecturer and an Orangeman, persisted in holding a meeting in front of the publican's house, who is a Catholic, and made use of very insulting language in reference to the publican and his wife. His proceedings, which were renewed on a subsequent occasion, caused great obstruction and nearly entailed a dangerous riot. In the course of the second address the publican threw a bucket of beer and porter over him. Counter charges were lodged of assault and of obstruction. After consideration, Crown counsel directed that no proceedings should be taken on either charge. I think this decision was right. The reverend gentleman recovered a sum of 30s. in a civil action for damage to his clothes.

Will the Lord Advocate endeavour to instil a little of this common sense into the Irish Executive?

Then am I to understand that the sheriff decided both the civil and the criminal cases?

The sheriff decided that, although damage was done, it was not a case for a criminal prosecution.

But was not an assault actually committed?

Well, it was a case of practical proselytism.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he can state why the applications for allotments from residents in the parishes of Dunnet, Latheron, Thurso, and Wick, Caithness, under Section 26 of the Local Government Act, were refused.

The Local Government Board are informed that in the parishes of Dunnet and Wick land for allotments could not be obtained by voluntary agreement, and in the parishes of Latheron and Thurso ground could only be had to a limited extent. The parish councils of Dunnet and Wick were of opinion that the expense of putting the compulsory clauses of the Local Government Act, 1894, into force were too great, and accordingly no action was taken. In Wick the applicants did not press their applica-cations on hearing that compulsory steps would have to be taken.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware the Board of Education has directed the building of a new Board school at Prestatyn, that the new buildings of the national school afford accommodation for 247 children, and the old buildings for 158; and that the total estimated child population of the district of school age is only 210, and the average attendance at the national and board schools only 105; and whether the Board of Education will reconsider their decision.

May I also ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Board of Education have recently ordered a new board school to be erected at Prestatyn, Flintshire; and, seeing chat there are already three schools in this parish, the population of which is only 1,200, and that there is accommodation in the national school alone for 247 children, can he state what is the object of erecting a new school in addition to those already existing.

The Board of Education has not directed the building of a new school at Prestatyn, but the matter is still under its consideration. I am told the hon. Member's figures cannot be accepted as accurate.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of ascertaining the opinions of the ratepayers?

The usual course will be taken. No order will be made unless there is a deficiency of school accommodation, and that will be ascertained in the customary manner.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what measures of a permanent character the Government intend to adopt to preserve the public peace in the future in the Queen's Island, Belfast.

Thanks largely to the energy and discretion of the Lord Mayor of Belfast, the measures taken by the Government, in consultation with him and other local authorities, have had satisfactory results. With respect to future arrangements of a permanent character, I am afraid I must defer making any statement in the matter until I have had the opportunity, during the recess, of a conference personally with the Lord Mayor and others who are best qualified to advise.

I hope I am not to understand that because for the moment the riots have ceased the right hon. Gentleman will take time to deal with this matter. Experience shows that these riots crop up at most unexpected moments.

I did not mean to convey that impression.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a number of Roman Catholic coopers in the employment of the Anglo-American Oil Company, in Belfast, have been discharged from their employment on the ground that the company was no longer able to afford them any protection from attacks by workmen of other religions; and can he state what steps he intends to take in the matter.

The question, which only appeared on the Paper this morning, has been referred to the Commissioner of Police at Belfast for report. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat the question to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will make a further statement in reference to the sale of the Killclooney tenants.

For the reason stated by me on Thursday last,…I am not yet in a position to make a further statement in reference to this matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say when the Return relating to compensation for injuries to members of the Royal Irish Constabulary is likely to be distributed to Members.

The preparation of this Return entails an examination of the police records extending over a period of twenty years. Every effort will be made to expedite the completion of the Return, but I am afraid it cannot be ready for distribution under a month or six months.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of the Constabulary Force Fund on its division into benefit and reward branches in 1883, the total amount contributed to the benefit branch by compulsory deductions from officers and men from the18th June, 1883, to the end of 1900, and the amount disbursed to members of the force, their widows and orphans, during the same period.

At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. The date of the division of the fund into benefit and reward branches was the 1st April, 1891, not 18th June, 1883. The balance to the credit of the benefit branch on the 1st April, 1891, was £297,749 4s. 7d. The contributions to this branch, since that date, amount to £105,809 4s. 6d.; the disbursements from the same branch from the same date to £132,682 5s. 10d. The reward branch was opened without any balance on the division of the fund in April, 1891.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu

† See page 63.

tenant of Ireland whether a second memorandum has been issued by the Board of National Education in Ireland in reference to the recent resignation of the most rev. Dr. Walsh, Archbishop of Dublin, and whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of this second memorandum, together with copies of the minutes of all further proceedings of the Board with reference to this matter and the documents mentioned therein.

I must explain that when replying on August 8th, † the further minutes of the Board had not been brought to my notice; nor, owing to pressure of work, have I even yet had an opportunity of studying them. The hon. Member's question was before the Commissioners at their meeting held on Tuesday last, when it was decided that there was no objection to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of a second memorandum which was considered at the Board's meeting on 30th July in connection with the resignation of Archbishop Walsh, together with copies of the minutes of all further proceedings of the Board with reference to this matter. Steps will be taken to present these Papers to Parliament accordingly before the prorogation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an agricultural labourer named Michael Mahony applied for a cottage on the farm of a man named Noonan, at Coolinarny, in connection with the improvement scheme recently promoted by the Millstreet Rural District Council; that although Mahony and his father before him had, worked on this farm for forty years, Mahony was evicted by Noonan from the insanitary dwelling he occupied immediately after he had sent in his representation paper for a cottage; and that at the sworn inquiry the occupier represented that Mahony was an evicted tenant, and that consequently his application was reported on unfavourably by the Local Government Board inspector; is he aware that on the circumstances being subsequently

† See page 61.

placed before the Local Government Board they modified their order, and sanctioned the erection of the cottage provided a written consent was given by the occupier; has such consent been given; and, having regard to the provisions of the Labourers Acts, where cottages are proved to be necessary, can he explain why an order was made for the consent of the occupier to be obtained.

The facts are generally as stated. The Board could not consent to compulsory powers for acquiring a portion of the farm in question as a site for a cottage for Mahony without the consent of the occupier. But, if such consent were given, the Board would not object to the inclusion of the cottage in the Provisional Order. The rural council has been so informed, but so far no reply has been received. If the site is not included in the Provisional Order it will be open to the council to accept Mahony as a tenant for a cottage on some other site.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the present state of the law respecting tenants in towns in Ireland, he will consider the advisability of introducing into Parliament next session a Bill which would secure to such tenants perpetuity of tenure, compensation for improvements effected, the right of free sale of created interests, the fixing of fair rents, and which would provide machinery for facilitating sale and purchase as between landlord and tenant.

I cannot give any undertaking such as is suggested in this question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what price per hundred (126) did the Congested Districts Board obtain for mackerel during the years 1899, 1900, and 1901, respectively, whether the contract for purchase of fish during these years was given to one buyer or divided among several, was the contract price fixed for the entire year in each case, and was the contract advertised and open to competition, and, if not, can he explain why it was not so offered.

The prices varied at different periods of the years mentioned, and I am communicating details to the hon. Member. In 1899 the contract was given to one firm; in 1900 to two firms; and in 1901 to one firm. Every year circulars are sent to all fish buyers known to the Board, and an agreement is made with the firm offering the best terms for the fishermen. Tenders are not advertised for, but the arrangement made differs little from open competition.

Is it not desirable to advertise for these tenders?

I will consider that point.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of fish buyers intimated their desire to assemble at Arran, Cleggan, Blacksod, and other places during the mackerel season for the purpose of buying fish from the boats under the management of the Congested Districts Board, but found no opportunity of purchase owing to the fact that the boats are tied to a certain contractor at fixed prices, and will the Board change this system in future seasons so as to open these fishing stations to competing buyers with a view to obtain higher prices for the fishermen.

Yes, Sir; the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The arrangement referred to was made by the Board in order that the fishermen should be guaranteed a good price throughout the season.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state on what duty or duties are the steamers of the Congested Districts Board engaged, and, in view of the prices now obtained for fish on the west coast, whether the Board wil utilise these steamers for conveying fish to suitable markets during the mackerel season.

There is but one steamer at the disposal of the Board. It is usually employed in carrying fish barrels, timber, cement, fishing nets and gear. It also occasionally conveys members of the Board on tours of inspection, and at other times is employed in the work of protecting the fisheries. It is not intended to utilise her in carrying fresh fish.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three years ago the tenants on the O'Brien estate, in the townlands of Corglass and Cornakelly, signed agreements to purchase their holdings at sixteen years of the rental, can he state were these agreements lodged with the Land Commission, and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in carrying out the sale.

No agreements to purchase in the case of this estate have been lodged in the Land Commission.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state (1) on what grounds Major Fair was selected to hold the inquiry into the proposed amalgamation of Granard Union, (2) whether he is aware that, since his appointment as inspector of this Union, Major Fair has persistently found fault with the management by the guardians, (3) whether any report was received by the Local Government Board from him advising the Board to add the question of amalgamation to that of separating the five Cavan divisions from the Granard Union, (and 4) whether some opportunity will be afforded to those who oppose the amalgamation of placing their views before the Local Government Board before a decision is come to.

Major Fair was selected as being the inspector of the district comprising this union. He has from time to time reported adversely on the management of the union by the guardians, but the Board consider that these reports were fully justified by the facts. The Board considered it desirable that the inquiry held should embrace also the proposal of the Cavan County Council to alter the union by adding a portion of it to the Cavan Union. The answer to the last inquiry is in the affirmative.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to have the inquiry conducted by the very inspector who has several times reported adversely against this union?

Is it not Major Fair's desire to wipe out this union?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a memorial wreath placed by the Irish National Foresters upon the grave of John Martin, at Donaghmore Churchyard, has been destroyed, and what steps the police have taken to bring the persons who committed this act to justice.

The wreath was removed from the grave and the glass case enclosing the wreath was destroyed. The grave was not, however, injured. The police are making every effort to trace the offenders.

Is it a fact that part of the wreath was hung outside the door of the Protestant clergyman's house, presumably as a protest against his allowing the demonstration in the graveyard?

I was not aware of that.

How about the Union Jack being hauled down at the instance of the Irish National Foresters?

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

This is a ease of desecrating a graveyard, and not a question of the Union Jack.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of emigrants who left Queenstown and Moville respectively for the States or the Colonies during the months of May, June, and July, 1901, and the number for the corresponding months of last year.

The number of emigrants who left Queenstown and Moville in May, June, and July, 1901, were 7,911 and 1,121 respectively. In the same period of 1900 the numbers were 11,165 and 1,119 respectively—a reduction in the former period as compared with the latter of 26 per cent.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an opinion exists amongst the boards of guardians in Ireland that amalgamation of unions would be conducive to saving of the rates, and whether he will inquire the opinion of the Local Government Board inspectors on this matter.