I have to say that the amount in question has not been paid to the Chief Justice, for the very good reason that he did not attend any sitting of the Privy Council in the year 1901.

1. Was the Post Office Department advised of the abstraction of five dollars in the month of May or June last, from a registered letter posted at Seeley's Bay P.O., in the county of Leeds, by a Mrs. Coleman, addressed to Toronto ? Also of the loss of five dollars from a registered letter posted at Morton P.O., in the said county of Leeds, at about the same time, by a Mrs. Manuel ?

2. If so was the matter investigated, and by whom ? Was a report made by the party who made the investigation ?

3. Was the postmaster at Morton removed from office in consequence of an investigation made by the assistant inspector : or was the postmaster exonerated from blame and responsibility ?

4. Did the inspector report to the department the result of the investigation ?

5. Was the report withdrawn and replaced by another, in which the facts were not fully or properly represented ?

6. Was the postmaster and his assistant practically exonerated m the substituted reports ?

7. If the postmaster was not removed, was hts resignation called for by the Postmaster General or any other person ? If so, when and by whom, and for what reason ?

8. Did Mr. Judd and other persons of the village of Morton make representations to the department ? If so, did their representations agree with the report of the inspector ? If not, in' what respect did they differ ?

The POSTMASTER GENERAL, (Hon. Wm. Mulock). The department has no information as to the abstraction of five dollars in the month of May or June last from a registered letter posted at Seeley's Bay by Mrs. Coleman. Perhaps the question has reference to the alleged abstraction of one dollar from a non-registered letter posted by Mrs. Coleman at the office in question. This matter was referred to Inspector Merrick who reported that * personal inquiry lias been made at Seeley's Bay and Morton but no evidence was obtained which would lead me to suppose that the letter was tampered with at either of these offices, and I am of opinion that it left Morton in same condition as posted.'

With reference to the other inquiry, namely, the loss of five dollars from registered letter posted at Morton by Mrs. Manuel, this matter was referred to inspector who investigated and reported thereon. The inspector reported that in his opinion the loss occurred at the Morton post office, but he did not find who was the guilty party. His report showed the existence of more or less laxity which rendered it possible for persons other than those officially connected with the office to abstract a registered letter. The report of the inspector was not withdrawn or replaced by any other report. The postmaster was not removed nor was his resignation called for by the Postmaster General. The department has no knowledge as to whether any other persons called upon him to resign. No representations upon the subject have been made to the department by Mr. Judd or any other persons of the village of Morton. [DOT]

2. Upon whose recommendation was the change made, and what reasons were given for the sarnie ?

3. Were tenders asked for the new service ; and if not, why not ?

4. Who is the mail carrier on the route as at present constituted ; and what pay does he receive for such service ?

1. There has been no change made in the mail service between Armstrong's Corner and Round Hill, New Brunswick.

This answers 2 and 3.

4. The present contractor is Francis A. Wood, who is paid at the rate of one hundred and sixty dollars per annum.

1. The number of acres patented to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, up to 1st of March, 1902, is 9,404,572'51.

2. The number of acres patented to the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company, up to 1st of March, 1902, Is 1,002,003-26.

3. Yes. There is a temporary delay In the case of the Calgary and Edmonton Company, but patentry will, no doubt, be proceeded, with in a short time.