On behalf of the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. William Redmond), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any agreement has been come to between the Irish Government and the National Commissioners of Education with regard to the Christian Brothers' Schools?

The Chief Secretary is not a member of the House at the present moment, but I may say that we have had no time to consider this or any other question since we came into Office.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there would be any objection to lay on the Table of the House a copy of the correspondence which has passed between the late Lord Lieutenant and the Commissioners?

That question will be at once considered by the new Irish officials, but until they have had an opportunity of seeing the correspondence it would be premature to make any promise that we will make it public.

On behalf of Mr. William Redmond: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Committee to inquire into the grievances of the Post Office servants will consider the claims of the rural postmen for better wages and an eight hours day?

As the late Postmaster General stated on June 21, in reply to the hon. Member for Southampton, the Committee on Post Office Establishments have a discretionary power to examine any persons in the service of the Department, other than those belonging to the clerical establishments of the chief offices, who the Committee may have reason to believe have authority to make representations to them on the position and prospects of any classes of employés in the service of the Department. This, of course, covers the case of rural postmen. I beg, however, to add that, though the attendance of rural postmen may be spread over a longer period, their actual work is now limited to eight hours.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent, as Ecclesiastical Commissioner, whether the Church Estates Commissioners have sanctioned an application by the Vicar of Cowfold, Sussex, to let on building leases a portion of the glebe which, since the year 1804 has been let as allotment gardens to the occupiers of a row of cottages directly opposite, and standing on a narrow piece of ground between the road and the churchyard; whether a petition against the granting of such application has been presented to the Commissioners and to the Bishop of London (the patron of the living), signed by the county and district councillors representing the parish, all the members of the parish council, the church wardens, and almost all the owners and ratepayers of the parish; and whether, under these circumstances, the Commissioners will withhold their consent from the proposed building scheme, or from so much of it as will deprive the occupiers of those cottages of the privilege which they have so long enjoyed of renting allotment gardens which are virtually necessary for the enjoyment of their houses?

A proposal has been submitted for letting upon building leases certain portions of the glebe of Cowfold, Sussex, having a frontage to the village street. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, with the concurrence of the patron, cannot withhold their sanction if they are satisfied, after a full consideration of the circumstances, that the proposal will conduce to the permanent advantage of the benefice. The Commissioners will doubtless suggest that other suitable land shall be found for the allottees before they are disturbed.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a girl has been dismissed from Messrs. Swan and Edison's Works at Ponders End for joining the women's union, a branch of the Electrical Trades Union; whether the manager has stated that any girl joining the union will be dismissed; and whether the Admiralty mean to enforce the decision accepted by the Treasury in the McCorquodale case, that any worker employed on a Government contract should be at liberty to join a trades union?^*The right hon. Baronet further asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with regard to the strike of electrical workers at Ponders End, whether an answer had been received by the Admiralty from the company; and, if so, to what effect?

I regret that the Admiralty have not yet at their disposal information sufficient to enable me to reply to the questions of the right hon. Baronet. The Admiralty are in communication with the Edison and Swan Electric Light Company on the subject, and I hope shortly to receive their explanation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether anyone who is a wholesale wine and spirit merchant, and who advances money to publicans, can be allowed to sit and vote on the Watch Committee of a Town Council?

The members of the Watch Committee of a borough are appointed by the Town Council, under Section 190 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. I am aware of no legal disqualification which would prevent such persons as are referred to in the question being members of a Watch Committee. By Subsection 3 of Section 22 of the same Act it is enacted that—

"A member of the council shall not vote or take part in the discussion of any matter before … a committee, in which he has, directly or indirectly, by himself or by his partner, any pecuniary interest."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with regard to the case of Surgeon Lea, of H.M.S. Ringarooma, who, doubting the mental fitness of Captain Johnson for the Command of the ship, had him put on the sick list, whereupon the captain put the doctor under arrest, from which he was released almost at once by the senior naval officer of the port; what was the finding of the Court Martial convened by Admiral Bridge to try Surgeon Lea; whether he is aware that the Court ruled that they had not anything to do with the question of the captain's health, and refused to hear evidence on the point of his mental fitness, and also refused Surgeon Lea's offer to produce medical evidence; whether telegrams and reports have been received at the Admiralty from Sydney, where the Court Martial was held, and what decision has been come to on the question; what length of service has Surgeon Lea had; and whether it is a fact that his record is an untarnished one?

The papers have only just reached me, and I must have time to consider the evidence given at the Court Martial, and also to consult with my naval advisers upon the subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Return Navy (Shipbuilding Programme), of which Notice was given on the Order Book on 19th February, and which was ordered by the House 28th March, will be presented?

The Return in question has been prepared by the Admiralty in accordance with the prescript; but on examination the presentation of the figures was found to be somewhat misleading. I will consider in what manner the form of the Return can be improved so as to convey the desired information, so as to give satisfaction to the hon. Members interested.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that it is very little known by the public of the United Kingdom that, by the Coinage Acts, the bronze coins issued from the Mint are required to be struck of the following weights, viz.: the penny, one-third of an avoirdupois ounce; the half-penny, one-fifth of an ounce; and the farthing, one-tenth of an ounce; whether, in order that the public may understand that they enjoy the advantage of carrying in their pockets these divisions of an ounce (five farthings, or a half-penny and a farthing together making half an ounce), he will in future issues of bronze coins consider the advantage of having the weight of each coin stamped on its face; and, if he will also consider whether the diameter of the half-penny, which is exactly one inch, might with advantage be marked on the face of each coin?

The weight of the bronze coins and the diameter of the half-penny are correctly stated, but the hon. Member's addition is a little at fault, as it is not the case that "five farthings, or a half-penny and a farthing together," make half an ounce. The words should be "five farthings, or two half-pennies and a farthing" together. I do not know whether the object of the hon. Member in making the suggestion is that the coins in question should be used by the public as measures of weight and length. I think there would be obvious difficulties in such a course, and as at the present advised, I do not think it would be desirable to make any additions to the inscriptions on our coinage.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will at the same time consider the advisability of stamping upon the coins, in addition to their weight and diameter, where they come from, so that we may recognise whether they come into an empty pocket from a Peer or a Baronet. [Cries of "Order"]

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any financial provision will be made to give effect to the recommendations of the Department Committee (Educational) regarding the superannuation of teachers in elementary schools in England and Wales?

I am quite aware of the importance of this subject; but my hon. Friend will, no doubt, understand that nothing in the way of financial provision can be made without the previous passing of an Act of Parliament defining the nature of the scheme to be adopted. I find, on inquiry, that the subject has received much consideration from the late Government; but at present I can say no more than that the matter shall receive my early and careful attention.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, with regard to the strict wording of the Sheriff Court Act of 1838, Section 2, in relation to the necessary qualifications of sheriff deputes, it is his intention, following the precedent of 1887, to introduce a short Act to legalise the appointment of the hon. Member for North East Lanarkshire as sheriff depute of Aberdeenshire, Banff, and Kincardine?

I do not intend to introduce such a Bill, as I consider that the Gentleman referred to in the question possesses the statutory qualifications for the office to which he has been appointed. The case of 1887 was essentially different.

On behalf of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. T. LOUGH), I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Parliamentary Electors serving on board the Channel Fleet, vessels mobilising, port guard ships, and other vessels on Home service, will be given facilities to exercise the Franchise at the approaching General Election?

Yes, Sir; all facilities will be given as far as the conduct of the Service will admit.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would convey the information to the proper quarters in order that the men might be duly informed that they had the privilege?

said, there was every disposition on the part of the Admiralty to see that each voter should have all possible facility for voting, having regard of course to the requirements of the service and the safety of Her Majesty's vessels.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what is the exact nature of the obligations incurred with the French Government, in pursuance of which the Extradition Bill has been introduced; and by what means were such obligations contracted?

said, the statement he made in the answer previously given in regard to this Bill was influenced by the view taken by the Home Office. He had made further inquiries, and found in the Foreign Office that there were no treaty obligations to fulfil which required this Bill. Therefore, the statement originally given by him was made under a misapprehension.

Has there been any correspondence on the subject?

So far as I remember, this matter has not been the subject of correspondence.

asked the Leader of the House whether he could relieve the uncertainty which was still felt as to whether the borough pollings could take place on Saturday if the Writs were sent out on Monday afternoon and were not received by the returning officer until Tuesday morning.

Yes, I have made inquiries into the matter, and I am informed that if the Writs are received before 4 p.m. on Tuesday the polls might take place on Saturday, Saturday being in that case the earliest possible day.

Is it not possible for the Prorogation and the Dissolution to take place on Saturday?

I am afraid it would be impossible, or almost impossible, to carry out that plan. It is quite true that two Councils were held in 1892 on the same day, one for the Prorogation and the other for the Dissolution; but on that occasion there was no work to be done in the House of Lords before the Councils met. On this occasion the House of Lords must sit on Saturday, as they will have to pass the Third Reading of various Bills. After that has been done the Royal Assent will have to be given, and it would not be possible to do all that business in the House of Lords and to hold two subsequent Councils on the same day. But the hon. Member will have gathered from my previous answer that this will not affect the pollings taking place on Saturday.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he intended to explain to the House the precise terms of the mail contracts which were on the Paper for to-day.

The contracts and Treasury Minutes were laid upon the Table of the House a few days ago, but they have not yet been circulated. There would, no doubt, be some objection to taking these Orders to-day. I propose, however, to make a statement in regard to them, and if the House is satisfied with my statement the contracts might be approved to-day.

desired to ask whether it was intended to proceed with this Bill, and whether the Government were not aware that there was considerable opposition to it. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Well, he was opposed to it, and he was aware that several of his hon. Friends, who were not present, would have resisted it in a most determined manner had they been in the House. His hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was warmly opposed to it. No one had a wider knowledge and experience than his hon. Friend had of the law—["Hear, hear?" from the Ministerial Benches]—which he had found already quite drastic enough if enforced. [Renewed ironical Ministerial cheers and laughter, and cries of "Order."] At any rate, there was opposition, not only from those who believed that the law itself was properly enforced, but from those who felt that the conditions of this Bill were of so vague a character that they would have the effect of excluding poor men from the House.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that the Bill passed its Second Reading nemine contradicente, and that it was most carefully considered in Grand Committee, where it met with no opposition.

pointed out that, although there was no Division on the Second Reading, yet a Division, which was largely supported, took place on the question of adjournment, which was really the same thing.

asked whether the hon. Member was aware of the circumstances under which that Division took place? The only question was, whether the Bill should be sent to Grand Committee, and in the Grand Committee the only discussion that took place was as to whether the Bill should be further extended. No opposition was made to the principle of the Bill in the Grand Committee.

If many more questions are asked about this matter, I shall know all about the Bill. I think there has been no opposition to the principle of the Bill and no desire to minimise it, but that there was rather a desire to extend its operation. Under the present circumstances hon. Members will probably agree that half a loaf is better than n bread. I hope under the circumstances there will be no opposition to the Order for the consideration of the Bill, but if there is to be the kind of opposition that has been foreshadowed it would be impossible and, indeed, the Government would have no desire to force the Bill down the throats of hon. Members.

said, that it was understood to be a measure intended to meet the case of Dr. Herz, but if that were so it would be useless unless a provision were inserted for trying an accused person in his absence. He had spoken to the late law officers on the subject, and they had informed him that they saw no objection to the inclusion of such a provision. The text of the Bill dealt everywhere with fugitive criminals only, and he was not lawyer enough to say whether this would cover the case of a man who was willing to meet the charges brought against him. He did not know whether the Bill would really cover a case like that of Dr. Herz.

said, that while not disagreeing with the principle of this Bill, he desired to know a little more as to its history. The First Lord of the Treasury had stated the other day that the Bill had been introduced in consequence of obligations incurred with the French Government, but that statement had been to a great extent removed to-day. (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: "Entirely."] It was said it had been entirely removed, and that there were no treaty obligations and no correspondence on the subject between this country and France, but he thought it would be well for the House to know that there had been no pressure of any description used by one Government towards the other. The Bill as it stood could not possibly have any application to a case where a defendant was willing to meet the charge against him but was prevented from doing so owing to his health having declined. During the period that Dr. Herz had been in England his health had so declined, and, even if a charge could be heard in the particular place where the accused person resided, unless the Bill were so extended as to allow of the hearing of a case in the defendant's private residence it would not benefit either the French Government or Dr. Herz. If the system of espionage, and apparently the spirit of persecution could be done away with he had no objection to the extension of extradition. He would support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cardiff if it were moved.

said, that as the late Government were responsible for the introduction of this Bill, he might be allowed to say, first, that it was a wholly unfounded idea which had been put forward in some quarters, that this Bill was brought forward in response to pressure from any foreign Government. There had been no correspondence or communication between the British and French Governments on the subject. The Bill was, undoubtedly, suggested to the late Government by the case of Dr. Herz. Without going into the general question of the treatment of Dr. Herz, or the suggestions that he had been subjected to unreasonable espionage, he desired to state that, within the limits which the existing law allowed, the treatment of Dr. Herz, so long as the late Government were responsible in the matter—and he had no doubt that it was so still—had been, not only humane, but most considerate. Dr. Herz had from first to last been treated with indulgence, and there was no foundation whatever for the statement that, so far as the existing law permitted, he had been subjected to any hardship. There was, however, undoubtedly a defect, not only in the existing Act, but in our treaty with France, inasmuch as the treaty demanded that the inquiry should be held in London. He had, however, no doubt that a representation that this condition should be waived would meet with a response from the French Government. It had been said that the Bill would be inoperative to relieve Dr. Herz from the undoubtedly hard position in which he had been placed; but if the opinion of Dr. Herz's doctors were accurate—and he had no doubt that they were—he was not now and never had been while in this country in such a state of health that his examination could have been conducted at all without some danger to his health. He could not help thinking, however, that the health of Dr. Herz might possibly improve, and, if it did, and if this Bill were passed, one objection to the present law as applicable to his case would have been removed. He should object to the Government accepting the proviso unless it were safeguarded by an Amendment.

hoped that if this Bill were to pass the hon. Member would amend his Amendment before he put it on the Paper, in conformity with the conditions suggested by the late Home Secretary.

asked whether under this Bill Cape Colony and Natal would be able to extend their borders without reference to that House.

replied in the negative. The Bill was brought in by the late Government. It was intended to remove doubts, but not more than doubts, as to annexations which had taken place. Such doubts had arisen, and the Bill would remove them.