I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the desirability of abolishing the office of Cursitor to the County Palatine of Lancaster, now vacant; and whether as a considerable portion of the cost of writ of dedimus potestatem, charged to Lancashire county justices when qualifying for the commission of the peace, has been heretofore paid to the Cursitor, that charge can henceforth be discontinued?

Yes; but there are other duties besides the issue of writs of dedimus, such as the issue of writs for the appointment of coroners, and writs under the Church Discipline Act in the case of contumacious clergymen, which may make it convenient to retain the office. Should a new appointment be made, it will be under the express condition that the Cursitor is not in the future to issue any writs of dedimus.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department— (1) whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the stipendiary magistrate of West Ham to grant process for perjury against one Jordan, who it was alleged had falsely sworn that he had been assaulted by one Harris; (2) whether sworn information had been offered to the stipendiary to prove that Harris had not assaulted Jordan, and refused by the stipendiary; and (3) whether the stipendiary is correctly reported to have stated that his decision had been upheld by "a very friendly Home Secretary"?

At the hearing of the original case the magistrate was of opinion that the only blow proved to have been given by Jordan was given in self-defence after he was struck by Harris. As I stated in answer to a question put to me on the 26th March by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, the question was purely one of fact, as to which I did not feel justified in interfering with the magistrate's decision. He informs me that he refused to grant the summuns for perjury because he was satisfied upon the materials before him that there was not the slightest chance of a jury convicting. Of course, I have no jurisdiction to interfere in such a matter. The magistrate denies that he used the expression attributed to him in the last paragraph of the question. What ho said was: "You may be sure of the impartial consideration of the Home Secretary."

I beg leave to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the condition of the Army Medical Staff in India; whether the Medical Department is terribly undermanned; and whether adequate arrangements are made for a reserve in case of emergencies like the Chitral Expedition?

The establishment of the Army Medical Staff in India is considered sufficient for the requirements of the Army in peace and war, and there is no reason to suppose that it is "terribly undermanned" as assumed by my hon. Friend.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the first and second class fares charged by the South Eastern Railway Company and the London Chatham and Dover Railway Company for the conveyance of passengers from London to Calais and Boulogne are much higher than those charged by other railway companies for similar distances in England; if so, whether he will endeavour to bring about a reduction in these fares; whether he is further aware that each through passenger to stations beyond Calais is only allowed to take 56 1bs. of luggage without additional charge; and whether he will endeavour to secure an increased allowance of free luggage for such through passengers?

I have communicated with the South Eastern Railway and the London Chatham and Dover Railway Companies with regard to the hon. and learned Member's question. The companies urge, and it is the fact, that their first and second class fares to Folkestone and Dover are within the maximum powers of charge, and that no fair comparison can be made between any "similar distances in England" and those to the Continental ports mentioned. As regards the weight of luggage carried free beyond Calais and Boulogne, I am further informed that the arrangements now in force are not under the control of the English companies.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any Treaty obligation on Great Britain, as distinguished from a mere discretionary right, to interfere in the affairs of Armenia by making war upon or otherwise coercing the Porte in respect of the reforms demanded by the ultimatum lately delivered by England, Russia, and France to the Porte; and if there be such a Treaty obligation will he specify the Treaty and the particular article or articles creating such obligation, and lay a copy of such article or articles upon the Table of the House for the use of Members?

The Article of the Treaty of Berlin which is relevant to the point raised by the hon. Member is the 61st.

The question I have asked is, whether Her Majesty's Government in what they are doing are acting upon a sense of duty created by the Treaty or are they acting upon their own view of policy?

I understood the hon. and learned Member to ask what Treaty is relevant to the action which has been taken by the three Powers in relation to Armenian reforms. I have given him the Article of the Treaty of Berlin, which is certainly relevant to that action, and if he wishes me to give him an interpretation of it I can only reply that the Articles were very carefully drawn, and I must leave the words to speak for themselves.

I do not ask for an interpretation. What I want to know is, whether the Government are acting upon a sense of their duty created by the Treaty, or are acting upon a policy entirely of their own; and is there any objection why the particular Article should not be printed and laid upon the Table so that Members may be able to form their own opinion upon it?

The only objection to printing the Article is that the Treaty is well known, and is accessible in the Library. As regards the action of the Government, they have been acting with two other Powers, but the British Foreign Office have continually made representations to the Porte during the last several years, sometimes under one Government and sometimes under another, and the representations which have been made lately are only in continuation of the policy which has always been pursued by successive Governments.

In connection with this question, is it not a fact that Article 61 of the Berlin Treaty lays no obligation whatever upon this country?

The hon. Member must form his own opinion as to the whole scope of the Article.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government propose—and, if so, when—to make any statement as regards the action they have taken, and the action they propose to take, with regard to Turkey, and to the affairs of those Turkish subjects known as Armenians; and, when they propose to lay any Papers on the subject on the Table of this House, or in any other way to give the country information as to the policy they have pursued and are pursuing?

As has been previously stated, a project of reforms has been presented to the Porte by the Embassies of Great Britain, France, and Russia. The full text of the reply of the Sultan has only been received within the last few days, and till it has been considered by the three Governments, no further statement can be made. Papers cannot therefore yet be laid on the Table.

Is the project of reforms as published in the English papers the correct text of the document; and, inasmuch as the English translation of the document was telegraphed from Paris, was it supplied by an English official?

There is another question on the Paper as to that. The answer is, that, with the exception, of one or two errors of translation, the version in The Times was substantially correct; but, so far as I know, it was not supplied to the newspapers from any British authority.

As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman has replied to my later question, I wish to ask whether he is aware that the scheme of reforms published in the newspapers contained no fewer than 15 now sets of officials?

There is a later question in the name of the hon. Member on the Paper, and the hon. Gentleman had better ask his question in his proper turn.

The hon. Member is asking a question which arises out of a future question.

No, Sir. [Cries of "Order!"] I beg pardon. May I be allowed to explain that the hon. Baronet has just answered my question? He stated so. ["Order, order."] I am speaking to order.

The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs referred to part of an answer which he was going to give to the hon. Member; and it is out of question No. 19 that the further question of the hon. Member arises.

I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether he can make any statement as to when the Report of the International Commission is likely to be laid before the House?

The proceedings of the Commission are not yet closed; the official report is not yet received, and I cannot say when it will be. It is not expected that the inquiry will last much longer.

asked whether the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was aware that this scheme proposed to establish no less than 15 new sets of officials for the administration of some of the poorest provinces of Turkey.

I have stated that the scheme as published is correct. I admit of course, that it does include the appointment of some fresh officials, but I have not calculated the number exactly.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give the House some idea of the cost of carrying out the scheme?

said, that he could not answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government are aware of the benefit to health arising from the use of electric light in crowded rooms, such as barracks, &c., and the consequent saving of public money; whether any offer has been made by a public company to supply electric light in barracks at the same annual cost as hitherto paid for gas; if so, has such offer been accepted; if not, are the Government willing to reconsider the question; and whether any experiments with electric lighting are now being made in military works under the auspices of the Government?

I would assure my hon. Friend that barrack rooms are not always crowded. No direct comparisons as to improved health from electric light instead of gas have, so far as I am aware, been made, although the advantages of electric light are undoubted. Offers to supply the electric light to barracks have been made and declined, for the present, at Great Yarmouth and Dover. A succession of experiments in electric lighting has been approved, and plans for providing the light in Colchester Hospital and Cambridge Lines, Woking, are in progress.

May I ask whether medical officers have not often reported that gas in barracks is less wholesome than the electric light?

We all know the difference between gas and the electric light. I have no doubt the electric light may be ultimately introduced into barracks, but at present we are only feeling our way towards its introduction.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have any knowledge of negotiations being in progress between the Government of France and the Government of Russia, with the object of attaching the political condition of a more complete alliance between those two countries to the proposed financial arrangement whereby the whole or a large portion of the loan of £16,000,000 to be made to China by Russia is to be provided by French financiers; and whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of the existence of any convention or arrangement between Russia and China whereby Russia is to receive territorial or other advantages from China in return for the loan in question if so, whether he can say what those advantages are to be?

Her Majesty's Government cannot make a statement with respect to negotiations between other Powers to which they are not a party, but my answer must not be taken as implying that the suggestions made in the question are well-founded.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a number of gentlemen cadets, awaiting Commissions in the Royal Artillery after completing their education at the Royal Artillery Academy, are now attached to the Royal Artillery at various stations, and receive a special allowance of 4s. or 6s. a day according as they are given quarters or not; whether these young gentlemen have any proper military status and are able to perform any regular military duty as a return for the pay thus given to them; and, what is the reason, if any, why they should not be given Commissions as Supernumerary Second Lieutenants with the special rate of pay at present allowed them, so as to place them on a proper military footing and to enable them to perform regular military duty.

I fully appreciate the point. All I can say at present is that the question of giving these gentlemen rank is under consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade—(1) whether his attention has been called to the case of a Mr. Herbert Walker, a Royal Naval Reserve fireman, who was engaged in the port of Middlesbrough on 27th May last by the chief engineer of the steamship Mennythorpe to serve on that vessel, on condition that Walker had a Federation ticket; (2) whether he is aware that the master and engineer went to the Shipping Federation Office to get their crew, that the Shipping Federation official (whose name is Beresford) objected to Walker signing on the vessel although he had a Federation ticket, and was a Royal Naval Reserve man, and that this Federation official supplied another fireman in the place of Walker; and (3) whether he can state if the said Federation official is licensed by the Board of Trade to supply seamen, and, if not, whether he intends to take any steps to prosecute such official for illegally supplying seamen (under section 146, sub-section i., of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854)?

The only complaint which I have received is one contained in a letter from the hon. Member himself. I have inquired of the Shipping Federation what they have to say about the matter, and they answer as follows:—

"It is true that a fireman named Herbert Walker was informed by the chief engineer of the s. s. Mennythorpe, on or about 27th May, that he would be engaged as firemen on that vessel, subject to the Master's approval, provided his Federation papers were in due order. Walker was sent to the Federation office at Middlesbro' with the rest of the intended crew, that it might be ascertained whether their papers were all regular, when it was found that those of Walker were not in order, and that he had omitted to re-register his ticket and benefit book in accordance with the rules. On this being pointed out to him he became abusive, using foul language, and the engineer of the Mennythorpe, acting on the instructions of the Master, thereupon selected another fireman from amongst the men in attendance at the office in the place of Walker."

The Federation official is not licensed by the Board of Trade. As regards prosecution, I must refer the hon. Member to the very full answer given on this subject by my predecessor in the House on June 20th, 1893, in which the difficulties that beset the question and the position adopted by the Board of Trade are clearly stated.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that in this case the whole crew was supplied by this Federation, and, if this were so, is it not a breach of the Merchant Shipping Act for any person to supply seamen who is not duly licensed by the Board of Trade, and what steps does the Board of Trade intend to take in order to put down this illegal supply of seamen?

It is extremely difficult to answer this question, which is a long and complicated one, within the proper limits of an answer. All I can say, within the proper limits of an answer, is this: Some years ago a question arose whether the Seamen's and Firemen's Union should be allowed to supply crews, the members of the Union being persons who were not licensed by the Board of Trade. It was decided in this case that they should not be prosecuted, although they were not officially licensed. That decision was subsequently upheld in a case in which persons representing the Shipping Federation supplied crews, and upon those lines the policy of the Board of Trade has since proceeded. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to a very long answer given in the House in June 1893 by my predecessor, he will find the matter fully stated there; and I cannot add anything to what was said then.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware of the fact that this man was a Royal Naval Reserve man, and that Royal Naval Reserve men cannot get employment.

Order, order! The hon. Member is asking a question altogether different from that on the Paper.

said, that he should like to ask for some further information upon the subject.

Order, order! The question upon the Paper has already been answered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether several officers have been seriously ill, caused by the insanitary condition at Aldershot; whether he is aware that they or their friends have been put to large expense in obtaining private medical attendance; and, will he explain on what grounds the War Office refused to pay these expenses?

Among the cases that have occurred at Aldershot among officers, only those of enteric fever could be caused by insanitary conditions; and of this disease only four cases have occurred since November 1 last. The origin of the disease was, in all the four cases, stated to be doubtful. Any officer whose illness is distinctly traced to the insanitary condition of his official quarters is indemnified for any medical expenses he may incur, when an Army medical officer is not available.

asked whether it was the fact that in certain cases the War Office had refused to refund the expenses incurred by officers in the circumstances to which he had referred?

said, that the expenses to which officers were put were only made good to them under the conditions he had stated.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state when the Committee to inquire into the alleged grievances of postal employés will be appointed; also the names of those who will comprise it?

I am glad to be able to state that I have secured the co-operation of Lord Tweedmouth (Chairman), Sir Francis Mowatt, K.C.B., Sir Arthur Godley, K.C.B., Mr. Spencer Walpole, and Mr. H. Llewellyn Smith (Labour Commissioner at the Board of Trade) as members of the Committee. The Committee have held a preliminary meeting to-day.

asked whether the Inquiry would be a public one?

said, that he understood that the Inquiry would be a public one—that was to say, the newspaper reporters would be present, but he could not say that the public would be admitted.

asked what instructions had been given to the Committee?

said, that the terms of reference would be those which he had read to the House before the recess.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet considered the objections to the proposed new by-laws in respect of artillery target practice seawards in the vicinity of Plymouth Sound; and, if so, what conclusion he has come to thereon?

This question is not understood, as, up to the present, no objections to the proposed by-laws have been received at the War Office.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the fact that Sheriff Ivory has refused to the Militiamen of Harris, Uist, and Skye, now in training at Fort George, permission to record their votes at Inverness; and what steps will be taken to protect the rights of those voters now serving their country?

I have no official information in regard to this matter, but the officers in command of the Militia will doubtless see that the men are afforded the opportunities provided by law for exercising the civil right of voting.

I beg to ask the right hon. gentleman the vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Auditor of the Barnes School Board, at the annual audit last month, passed a payment for rent of a so-called parish room, although the Department, after prolonged correspondence, decided in their letter to the Board of 10th July, 1894, that the room in question is subject to the trust deed under which the adjoining school premises are held, and that the charge for rent could not be permitted to appear in the Board's accounts; and, what steps he proposes to take in view of the Auditor's action?

The decision of the Auditor is not subject to review by this Department, but is made subject to an appeal to the Local Government Board, which can, I understand, be made by any aggrieved person whose objections have been overruled by the Auditor. I have no knowledge of the decision of the Auditor in this case, but I will communicate with the Local Government Board on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as an example to the municipal and county constabulary authorities throughout the country, arrangements can be made to promote the comfort of the Metropolitan Police by supplying them with lighter clothing during the hot summer months?

This question has been frequently considered, and, as I stated on April 12, 1894, the opinion of the Commissioner and of the Chief Surgeon of the Police is adverse to the proposal. I will obtain a fresh Report on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government of British Columbia have made any application to Her Majesty's Treasury for the advance of the whole or any part of the sum of £150,000 authorised to be advanced to them under the British Columbia (Loan) Act, 1892, for transferring families from crofter parishes in the Highlands to British Columbia; and, if so, what has been the result?

No, Sir, the Treasury have not received any such application from the Government of British Columbia.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government propose, this Session, to submit to this House the Resolution relative to the House of Lords, as set forth by the Prime Minister in his speech at Bradford on the 28th October, 1894?

Yes, Sir.

Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will state what will be the business for Friday, and will give us in general terms the substance of the Motion he proposes to move on Thursday.

The Motion I propose to move on Thursday will be placed upon the Table to-night, but it will practically be the same Motion as that which I made on May 31st last year. I desire to make an arrangement by which there shall be a regular day each week appropriated for taking Supply, and that will be involved in the proposal which I shall make on Thursday. The particular day thus appropriated, however, may be subject to alteration. But supposing the House agrees with the Motion I shall move on Thursday, the business next Friday will be Supply.

asked when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take the Army Estimates?

I am not able to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question at the present moment.

said, that there would be an ordinary Sitting of the House next Friday.

asked whether the appointment to the Governorship of New South Wales had been made?

The hon. Gentleman must give notice of his question, which I am not able to answer now.

said, that he had put a question down on the paper on the subject for Thursday.