I rise to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months. The object of the Bill is to enable the Felixstowe Railway and Dock Company to run steam vessels between Felixstowe and certain ports on the Continent. One reason why I oppose the Bill is that it is not really what it pretends to be, but that it is an endeavour to obtain for the Great Eastern Railway Company powers which Parliament have already refused to confer upon that Company directly. The Felixstowe Company propose to charter, hire, and maintain steam vessels for the conveyance of passengers and goods between their dock pier and works at Felixstowe and Amsterdam, Dunkerque, Bremerhaven, Hamburgh, Altona, and Cuxhaven, or any other port on the River Elbe. The Great Eastern Company have obtained powers to run to Harwich, and from Harwich to Rotterdam and Antwerp, which powers they are now using; and one of my contentions, in opposing the present Bill, is that they do use those powers in a manner inimical to the general interests of the community. For in- stance, they are making use of their railway monopoly to carry goods by this route at such rates as render it impossible for any other lines to compete with them. Perhaps I may be allowed to give one or two figures to show the use which the Great Eastern Railway Company are making of the powers they possess of carrying goods by means of steam vessels. They are now carrying goods from Harwich to Antwerp and Rotterdam at the same rates as the steamers trading from Hull and other ports; but in order to do this they have to carry goods from the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire at low and unprofitable rates. For instance, I will take the cases of Manchester and Leeds. The distance from Manchester to Hull is 90 miles, while the distance from Manchester to Harwich is 229 miles, and yet the charge is the same in both cases—namely, 20s. a-ton — that is to say, that the Great Eastern Railway Company make use of their powers to carry goods by a line of steamers which entails their being carried for four times the distance than would be the case if the more convenient port of Hull were employed. At Leeds the same thing happens. The distance from Leeds to Hull is 50 miles, whereas the distance from Leeds to Harwich is 211 miles, or more than four times the distance, and in both cases the charge for railway carriage is 18s. 6d. a-ton. If Parliament is to continue to give facilities for the exercise of a railway monopoly of this character, the only effect will be to enable the Great Eastern Company to crush out private enterprize in regard to shipping, and to practically inflict great injury upon the manufacturing interests of the country. This Felixstowe Railway is a railway only 13 miles in length. It begins at a small village, and ends somewhere on the sea shore, at a place which is, perhaps, not generally known, but which is called Felixstowe. One of the reasons of the Company for seeking these powers is that when the dock is constructed there will be a great depth of water—about 23 feet—below the ordinary tides; but, at the same time, they are asking for powers to run steamers to places on the Continent that are eon-fined to a limited draught of water; and consequently the increased depth they propose to give, and which they set out as an advantage, will be, to the steamers which will have to run, of no advantage whatever. The traders, however, are already fully supplied by the General Steam Navigation Company, who are petitioning against this Bill. Not only are the General Steam Shipowners' Association Petitioners against it, but there are Petitions from the Corporation of Hull, and also from the Hull Chamber of Commerce and Shipping. Now, Sir, Hamburgh is one of the ports to which this little rail way asks to be allowed to run steamers. But there are aleady to Hamburgh from London some 10 steamers running per week, and 12 steamers a week from the ports of Hull, Goole, and Grimsby. There are also steamers running already from Harwich, which is the port from which this little railway proposes to carry on their trade. In point of fact, not only is the existing trade amply and satisfactorily served, but, in fact, there are at present more steamers running than there is profitable employment for. If this were a genuine Bill—genuine in this way—that it is precisely what it represents itself to be, my impression is that, judging from the Bill itself and the clauses which it contains, it would be looked upon as simply the measure which the Great Eastern Railway Company introduced in 1869, and which was refused by this House, which declined to give the Company the powers then asked for of running steamers to these Continental ports. They are now making use of this small railway of 13 miles in length to endeavour to obtain the powers which Parliament have already refused to grant to them. It may be looked upon as a somewhat extraordinary course that I should oppose this Bill upon the second reading; but I do so as a matter of principle. It appears to me scarcely right that any Company, especially such a small Company as the Felixstowe Railway Company, should introduce a Bill of this nature into the House of Commons; and one object I have is to save the expense of time and money which will be involved, if the Bill is sent to a Committee, in establishing that the object of the Bill is not what it pretends to be. I am glad to see the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) in his place. The noble Lord is one of the Directors of the Great Eastern Railway Company, and he will probably be able to throw some light upon the subject, and to inform the House whether my surmise is correct that this Bill is simply intended to be made use of by the Great Eastern Railway Company, and is, in reality, to enable them to exercise powers which Parliament has already refused to grant to them directly? I would say, further, that this is really a national question. The Great Eastern Railway Company are now running steamers from Harwich to certain ports under powers obtained from Parliament; and I wish the noble Lord to explain to the House whether these steamers are running at such a profit that it is desirable in the national interests to extend these powers to such great monopolists as Railway Companies, and by that means to crush out the existing private shipping enterprize—that private enterprize which has done so much to extend the maritime supremacy of England, and without which England would not have occupied her present position. I am satisfied that if this principle of giving exceptional powers to Railway Companies had been adopted in the past the trade of the country would never have been developed as it has been. I will not further trouble the House, I will only add that, as the whole question of railway management is about to be brought before Parliament, this is certainly not the time when it can be considered desirable to ask the House to confer upon a Railway Company such powers as those now asked for. I therefore beg to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.

Does any hon. Member second the Amendment?

I beg to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend, and in doing so I wish to say a few words upon the principle involved in the Bill, rather than upon any question affecting any arrangements between the Felixstowe Railway Company and the Great Eastern Railway Company. This Bill appears to me to involve a very considerable amount of principle; and I am sorry that there is no Representative of the Board of Trade on the Front Bench to explain what the views of the Board are in reference to the question and the principle we are asked to adopt on this occasion. The Bill proposes to give to the Felixstowe Railway Company the power of running steam vessels to a variety of ports named in the Bill, and to charge such reasonable rates or sums as they shall think fit. Now, that places enormous power in the hands of this Railway Company. Suppose that, in the course of the new railway legislation Parliament is about to adopt, we come to the conclusion that foreign cattle must be taken, on its arrival at the port of debarkation, at the same rates as are charged on home-bred cattle, this Bill, if it is passed, will enable the Felixstowe Railway Company to convey cattle for nothing, in order to equalize the dues upon foreign and English cattle, so far as the railway charges are concerned. Many of the Railway Companies possess at this moment the power of running steam vessels to Continental ports. The London, Brighton, and South Coast Company have, I believe, power to run vessels from Newhaven to French ports; the London and North Western Company from Holyhead to Kingstown, Dublin, and other parts of the Irish Coast, and other Railway Companies possess similar powers. Then, how far is this principle to be carried? If you are going to allow the Great Eastern Company or the Felixstowe Company to run steam vessels to all parts of the Continent, you cannot refuse the same privilege to the North Eastern Company and to other Companies which at the present moment have no power to run steam vessels, or to employ them, except in their own river and clock service. It certainly seems to me that if this doctrine is to go forward it must go forward at full length. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella) seemed to think the other night that we had come upon a new Free Trade era, and that every facility should be afforded for conducting the trade of the country upon the lowest possible rates, and without restrictions as to capital. If that is so, then this Bill ought to be passed; but if the principle is good in this particular instance it ought to be good all over the country. These are the reasons which have induced me to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull. I was anxious to have the opportunity of addressing the House, in order that I might call attention to the important principle involved in the Bill.

I merely wish to say a word in regard to the reference which has been made by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) to the Great Eastern Railway — namely, that that Company, with which I am connected, has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. It is neither for nor against it; and, therefore, the allusions made to that Company by the hon. Member for Hull have been made under an entire misapprehension. I have not read the Bill myself; but I understand that Clauses 4 and 5 refer to the Great Eastern Company; but they only relate to arrangements which may hereafter be made for traffic agreements, or for the participation by the Great Eastern Company in the joint exercise of some of the powers sought for under the Bill. I do not know with what object those provisions have been inserted in the Bill; but I do know that the Great Eastern Company has had nothing whatever to do with the matter.

I am unwilling, as a new Member, to intrude myself upon the House; but the extraordinary attempt which has been made upon this side of the House to stop the further progress of this Bill has induced me, as a resident in the locality which is served by the Felixstowe Railway, and one who is, therefore, naturally acquainted with it from the commencement of the undertaking, without having any personal interest in it, to I rise and say a few words in answer to I the arguments which have been brought forward by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), who have moved and seconded the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. Now, this railway is altogether an exceptional one. It has been made almost entirely with private capital; it has held out no inducements whatever for the investment of capital. It is now completed on contracts entered into with private capital; and all that the Com- pany ask is that, now the railway has been completed and the docks made, they should be permitted to enjoy those facilities for which they have been made, and for which the docks have been constructed. And who is it, and what is it, that seeks to interfere with the development of legitimate enterprize? It is certain vested interests. Similar vested interests have invariably sought to interfere with every new undertaking brought forward in this House on former occasions. I think that the House has expressed a strong opinion against any decided attempt to interfere with an important commercial undertaking; and I trust that to-day the House will be equally prompt to discountenance any attempt to prevent a Bill of this kind—a bonâ fide genuine Bill—from going before a Select Committee. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) has tried to throw some doubt upon the genuineness of the Bill; but I do not think that he succeeded. It is simply a Bill to enable the Company to hire and employ steam vessels, to make charges for the conveyance of traffic, and to make agreements with the Great Eastern Railway Company and the Steam Navigation Company for the interchange, collection, and delivery of traffic. There are also one or two minor powers contained in the Bill. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) has already answered one question which I intended to answer—namely, that the Great Eastern Railway Company have nothing to do with the Bill; and there are no powers sought for under the Bill which would confer upon the Great Eastern Company any advantages they would not be able to obtain for themselves. I am in a position to say that this is a genuine Bill of the Felixstowe Railway Company; and I do trust that the House will enable those who have bonâ fide invested their money in the untertaking to enjoy such reasonable facilities as they ask for in the Bill. I would further submit that this is not the place where the arguments and reasons which have been adduced by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) can be properly discussed. I have always understood—and if in ignorance I make a mistake I hope the House will pardon me—that a Select Committee of this House was the proper tribunal for considering points of this character—points which simply affect the question of competition and rival Companies. It is only before a Committee that the merits of the Bill can be fairly argued, and the arguments both in favour and against it can be thoroughly threshed out. Under these circumstances, I trust that these attempts to hinder and obstruct the progress of an honest, bonâ fide industrial enterprise will meet with that disapprobation which it merits at the hands of the House.

I also, as a new Member, venture to ask for the indulgence of the House while I offer a few remarks in opposition to this Bill, not only upon general grounds, but also upon the ground of the special interests involved and the special injury which may be inflicted upon the Port of Hull, and oven upon the Port of London, if the powers asked for by the Felixstowe Railway Company in the provisions of this Bill receive the sanction of Parliament. We have been asked to accept the statement that the Great Eastern Railway Company have no interest in the promotion of the Bill; but I think it would be difficult to convince the House that that Company are not very materially interested in it, and that they are not, at any rate, watching it with interested affection, in the hope that they may be able to obtain, under the provisions contained in the measure, powers which they had formerly sought unsuccessfully to obtain from this House. That such is the position of the Great Eastern Company in reference to this Bill appears to me to be absolutely beyond argument. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) says that the Great Eastern Company are not interested in the Bill. Now, let me take Clause 5, which provides that the Company, on the one hand, and the Great Eastern Company on the other, may, from time to time, make and carry into effect, alter, and rescind, agreements and contracts for participation by the Great Eastern Company in the exercise jointly with the Company of all or some of the powers conferred by the Act upon the Company and the Great Eastern Company, and shall have, and may exercise, all the necessary powers to participate in the exercise of the powers con- ferred by the Act upon the Company—that is, the Felixstowe Railway and Dock Company—by the Bill now sought to be read a second time. And what are the powers in question. They are powers to run steam vessels from Felixstowe to Amsterdam, Dunkerque, Bremerhaven, Hamburgh, Altona, Cuxhaven, and any other port or place on the River Elbe. In 1869, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) has reminded the House, the Great Eastern Company sought powers from Parliament to enable them to run steam vessels from Harwich to the Elbe; but the House very properly refused to grant them. Felixstowe and Harwich are practically the same thing; the little river, the Orwell, alone divides them; and, consequently, this Bill, if passed, will confer upon the Great Eastern Company powers which they previously sought to obtain, and which, if this Bill passes, will be obtained by the Company in a most circuitous, unfair, indirect, and underhand manner.

I rise to Order. I have stated distinctly that the Great Eastern Company have nothing to do with this Bill; and I therefore call upon the hon. Member to withdraw the statement he has just made.

I withdraw the statement with the greatest pleasure; but I certainly wish that the Bill had been drawn in a better manner, so that the public might have been able to understand who are really promoting it. What is it that the promoters say on the back of the Bill? They say—

"A Bill to enable the Felixstowe Railway and Dock Company to run steam vessels between Felixstowe and certain foreign ports, and for other purposes."

Now, I have made a special effort to find out who the shareholders of this Company are. I went to the ordinary channels of information; but I found that although the list of every other Limited Liability Company is allowed to be inspected at Somerset House, on the payment of a small fee, that in the case of Railway Companies there is no such right. Therefore, I can only form a judgment as to the real persons who are promoting the Bill; but, seeing who is to be benefited by it, I say, unhesitatingly, that the only people who can have an interest in the Bill are the Great Eastern Railway Company. [Cries of "No!" and "Order!"] I unreservedly withdraw any hint that they may have a pecuniary interest in the promotion of the Bill at this moment; but only let the Bill go through Committee and receive the sanction of Parliament, and it will soon be seen that the Great Eastern Company will manifest a lively interest in it. The Felixstowe Company own 13½ miles of railway, upon which £288,000 has been spent; and they have raised by share capital and debentures a sum of £174,000. Where the other £114,000 has come from I should like to know very much, and I think it is very probable that the Chairman or one of the Directors of the Great Eastern Company might throw some light upon the matter. From what has been said the House are to believe that it has been raised by private enterprize, so that I am prepared to admit that my opposition to the Bill on this point has somewhat fallen to the ground. After what has passed I feel bound to acknowledge that the Great Eastern Company have not that interest in promoting the Bill which I believed them to have when I first looked at the Bill; but the result is exactly the same. They already work the line for 65 per cent of the gross receipts, and now it is proposed to concede to the Company the right of running steam-vessels from Felixstowe to certain foreign ports on the Elbe. Everyone knows that it would be absolutely impossible for a little Company like this to work steam vessels from Felixstowe to the Elbe. This is one of the most out-of-the-way spots in the world, and there are already 10 steamers a-week from London to the Elbe, four from Grimsby, four from Goole, 12 from Hull, two from Newcastle, and two from Sunderland; and whatever claims the trade with the Elbe may have for the consideration of the public, it certainly cannot be said that it is inadequately supplied with shipping accommodation. In fact, there are lines of steam vessels trading there already weekly, fortnightly, and monthly; so that, quite apart from the question of principle which has been raised, and which I, for one, am very glad to see raised, at a time when the subject of railway legislation is attract- ing special attention—quite apart from the principle whether the Railway Companies should be allowed to own steam vessels or not—I think it would be a most unbusinesslike proceeding for the House to admit that the Great Eastern Company have no interest in the matter. It certainly would be most unbusinesslike to allow a Company who have already spent £114,000 more than they have been able to raise by share capital or debentures to embark upon a course which must entail the raising of a still further amount of capital, and must, in the end, result in ruin and disaster.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for West Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) will not think that I am discourteous if I make a very brief reply. In respect to the general question—namely, the conferring of powers upon Railway Companies to run steam vessels, I think it is somewhat late in the day to raise an objection now, seeing that several of the existing Companies do run steamers of their own. I do not know whether the Great Western Company still run their own vessels, or whether they have been stopped; but I believe that the London and South-Western Company do, and the London, Brighton, and South Coast. The South-Eastern, the London, Chatham, and Dover run to Calais, and the Great Eastern to Antwerp and Rotterdam. Therefore, the principle of allowing steam vessels to be run in connection with railways has already been sanctioned. My hon. Friend raises a special objection that the Bill is virtually promoted by the Great Eastern Railway; but that allegation has been repudiated by the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton), and I think we may trust the Committee on Standing Orders to see that no clauses are inserted in the Bill which would be in contravention of the Standing Orders of the House, and that no clauses would be sanctioned which would enable the Railway Company promoting the Bill to enter into improper agreements with any other Railway Company. If such clauses do exist in the Bill they will inevitably be struck out in Committee. Other points have been raised in the course of the debate, such as the question of competition; but if there is any serious question of competition the opponents of the Bill will be allowed to argue it befor the Committee, and submit evidence upon the whole question. All of the matters which have been referred to in the discussion are matters which cannot be considered by the House as a whole, but must go to a Committee. It is most undesirable that any Private Bill should be discussed in the House except upon general principles; and the kind of objection which has been raised to the present Bill is precisely that which should be considered by a Select Committee. For these reasons I hope that the House will consent to read the Bill a second time.

I only wish to say one word. It seems to me that this railway is in this dilemma. It either belongs to the Great Eastern Railway Company or it does not. Of course, I accept the statement of my noble Friend the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) that the Great Eastern Company have nothing to do with the promotion of the present Bill; but then we are placed on this horn of the dilemma. If these powers are given to the Felixstowe Company, how do they propose to establish and work the steam vessels they seek power to run? The other horn of the dilemma is, whether they would not be compelled to call the Great Eastern Company in to their assistance? If they have nothing to do with the Great Eastern Company, how is it that we find that Company working this small line of 13½ miles in length? I defy the Great Eastern Company to get rid of both horns of the dilemma.

Felixstowe and the whole of this railway line are in the division I have the honour to represent. The original Act constituting the Company who are promoting this Bill was passed in 1875, and by it the Company was authorized to construct a railway from the Great Eastern line at Westerfield to Felixstowe with a pier at the last named place, and it was incorporated by the name of the Felixstowe Railway and Pier Company. In 1879 another Act was passed, which authorized the construction of a dock and other works at Felixstowe, and the name of the Company was changed to the Felixstowe Railway and Dock Company. The rail- way has now been constructed for some time, and the dock is nearly finished; and the natural complement of the work is that the Company should have power to enter into contracts for the hire of steam vessels for carrying on trade from the dock and railway to Continental ports. That is the request now made to the House, and it is not an unusual request to make. In fact, the enterprize of the Company would be entirely frustrated, and it would be much more likely to come to the grief which my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) predicted for it if these powers are denied to the Company than if they are granted to it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed a doubt as to where the money is to come from. Now, most of the line passes through the single estate of a man of very large wealth, who is deeply interested in what is now going forward, both in connection with the railway and the dock. There is no fear, therefore, of the enterprize coming to grief. The statement that this Company is, by some manœuvre or false pretence, really acting on behalf of the Great Eastern Railway Company, has been most distinctly denied by the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton). I am also authorized to say, on behalf of the Felixstowe Company, that they have no connection whatever with the Great Eastern Company, except that the existing line is now worked by that Company on a lease which terminates in the present year. So far from the Felixstowe Company being made use of as a cat's-paw by the Great Eastern Company, it is in view of the possibility of having to enter into competition with the Great Eastern that the Felixstowe Company desires to obtain the powers of appearing before the Railway Commissioners, which the passing of the present Bill will confer upon it. As a new Member, I am not well acquainted with the usual mode of proceeding in regard to Railway Bills; but I am told that it is not customary to oppose a Bill on the second reading unless it raises some new principle. This Bill does nothing of the kind. It is simply to empower the Felixstowe Company to enter into arrangements for the hire of steam vessels, and similar powers have been constantly conferred upon Railway Companies. I think it would be altogether unjust of this House, sitting here in the interests of the public, were it to interpose difficulties in the way of extending trade and commerce, for the interest of the public certainly lies in increasing the facilities for carrying on the operations of trade. I have no wish to impute motives; but I cannot help thinking that the speech which we have heard from the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. C. Wilson) affords an indication that the fear in the minds of the opponents of the Bill is that a competition may arise in regard to the trade of the Port of Hull which they will find it difficult to meet. But we have all of us, in this country, in every kind of business, to face competition; and I would respectfully submit that it is no part of the duty of this House to put difficulties in the way even of the fullest and most severe competition. I hope that the House will adhere to the course it has hitherto pursued in regard to a Bill of this nature, and that it will allow the Bill to pass a second reading and be carried to a Select Committee, notwithstanding the interested opposition which, in a somewhat unusual manner, has been directed against it.

As a Director of the Great Eastern Railway, I rise to corroborate the statement of my noble Friend the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) that the Great Eastern Company have nothing whatever to do with the Bill now before the House. It is quite true that for some years the Great Eastern Company has worked the Felixstowe Railway, which was constructed through the influence of Colonel Tomline. It runs in great part through the estate of that gentleman, and is also connected' with the basin at Felixstowe; and the promoters of this Bill now ask apparently for powers under which they may be able to establish a sea service by steam vessels between Felixstowe and certain ports on the Elbe. So far as we—the Great Eastern Company—are concerned, we consider Felixstowe to be on the wrong side of the water. Our establishments are on the Harwich side, and we do not think that Felixstowe is properly situated for such traffic. We have nothing, I repeat, to do with the present Bill; and if the question comes to a division we do not intend to vote for it.

I shall be very brief in the remarks I propose to make, and I make them not as a new Member, but as an old Member; and I must confess that it is somewhat irregular, if not almost an act of impropriety, to discuss a question of this kind on the second reading of a Private Bill. The proper course is to refer it to a Select Committee, which is the only tribunal by which its merits can be fairly considered. The Standing Orders of the House prescribe that due notice shall be given to all parties whose interests are affected by the provisions of any Private Bill in order that they may get a fair hearing. Instead of providing a fair hearing, are we now, upon an ex parte statement, to shut the door of justice? What is the case that is sought to be made out againt the promoters of the Bill? It is contended that we are not to give shipping facilities to a small Railway Company owning a line of only 13½ miles in length, because by so doing we may prejudicially interfere with and disarrange the trade now carried on in the Ports of London and Hull. The hon. Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease), who seconded the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, is more interested, I presume, in the fortunes of the North Eastern Railway; and he seems to fear that some injury may be done to the great railway monopolies if this little Company is to have the power of chartering steam vessels in order to compete with them. I can quite understand that the North-Eastern Railway do not wish to be interfered with; and, so far as the Great Eastern Railway is concerned, we have been given to understand that Felixstowe form a better port than Harwich. [Sir HENRY TYLER: No.] I am told that there is a much greater depth of water; but still that is a matter of fact, which can be inquired into by a Select Committee, and any injury any traders or others may sustain by competition is also a fair subject for the investigation of the Committee. Certainly these are not matters which ought to influence the House in coming to a decision upon the second reading.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Why the increase of pay and allowances, sanctioned by the Royal Warrant of 25th June 1881, has been withheld from Inspectors of Army Schools in India on their promotion to the rank of Captain, while the higher rates have been authorised by special circular, dated 10th November 1882, for issue to Quarter-masters and Riding-masters; whether an Inspector of Army Schools was promoted Captain while serving in India, and did not obtain any of the pecuniary benefits allowed by the Royal Warrant, owing to no provision for their issue having been made by the officials in India; and, whether, if he had been serving in England, he would have received such pecuniary benefits, and if he will issue directions for this officer's case to be specially considered in India, with a view to the extra pay and Indian allowances being issued to him for the period he served in India as Inspector of Army Schools with rank of Captain, viz. from 14th February 1884 to 12th July 1884?

The clauses of Royal Warrants which affect "full pay and allowances or other pecuniary benefit" are expressly excluded from applying to India, unless special effect is given to them by the Secretary of State for India in Council. Shortly after the issue of the Warrant referred to, the question whether this special effect should be given to those of its clauses which affected the pay of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Army Schools was carefully considered by the Government of India; and it was decided, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State in Council, that the Regulations regarding the Indian pay and allowances of School Inspectors should remain in force. The clause of the Royal Warrant which gave the officer referred to the relative rank of captain applies in India as elsewhere; but it has not been the practice to regulate the rates of Indian pay and allow- ances by the relative Army rank conferred on officers of non-combatant Army Departments. The pay of these officers is fixed at consolidated rates in round sums, and is governed solely by length of service.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will be good enough to arrange with the Meteorological Council of the Royal Society, for the transmission daily to the General Post Office, of weather forecasts; if he will then cause so much of such forecasts to be telegraphed daily to every Postal Telegraph Station in the United Kingdom as is applicable to the district in which the station is situated; and, if he will further issue instructions, that such forecasts shall be posted up daily, in a conspicuous position outside the several stations, so as to be available for general information in the respective localities?

This matter of forecasts of the weather by Postal Telegraph was very carefully considered by Mr. Fawcett, who, on several occasions, in reply to Questions in this House, explained that it was not possible for the Post Office to distribute weather forecasts, either gratuitously or otherwise; because, if the Post Office became a purveyor of news, it would be acting in opposition to the understanding under which the Telegraph Acts were passed. It was contemplated that the Post Office should confine itself to the transmission of telegrams. Mr. Fawcett pointed out, at the same time, that the desired object might easily be secured, because the Meteorological Office is willing to supply the forecasts at a nominal charge to anyone who is willing to pay the expense of telegraphing, which need scarcely be more than 6d. for each message. If the persons interested in forecasts in each town or district jointly subscribed, the expense to each would be inconsiderable. To the exhibition of forecasts at the local post offices there is no objection, provided space is available, if the persons to whom the telegrams are addressed desire them to be so exhibited instead of being delivered.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in May 1885, three convictions were obtained, on the prosecution of the Treasury, against the Rhymney Iron Company, for the infringement of the Truck Act; whether the convictions were appealed against and affirmed, with costs, in December 1885; whether the said Company had been previously convicted for similar offences; whether, pending the appeal, the Rhymney Company kept their truck shop open; whether any other prosecution has since been commenced against the said Company; and, whether he will learn if the Rhymney Company still keep their truck shop open in defiance of the law?

Yes, Sir; two convictions were obtained on the prosecution of the Treasury against the Rhymney Iron Company in May of last year, and the convictions were affirmed, with costs, in December last. I have no information as to any previous conviction having been obtained against this Company. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to say that owing to statements that have been made to me recently, to the effect that the Truck Act is still being violated by this Company, though under an altered system, the Inspector of Factories has been instructed to endeavour to procure, and is at the present time engaged in procuring, evidence to be submitted to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who will decide whether the evidence will be sufficient to justify a prosecution.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the success said to have attended Pasteur's treatment for hydrophobia by inoculation, he will consider the propriety of appointing a Committee, consisting of about six persons eminent in medicine and science, who shall be instructed to communicate with M. Vulpian and the other members of the Committee of the French Academy of Sciences as to the exact position of the question; whether, in the event of such an inquiry seeming to them to be satisfactory, he would authorise this Committee to obtain the best investigation this Country affords as to the reliability of Pasteur's method, and to advise as to its applicability to this Country; whether the Government would provide such Committee with funds for the necessary investigations, the Committee itself being unpaid; and, whether he would inquire if such investigations might be carried out in the Brown Institution, under the guidance of the Committee, and with the co-operation of the chief medical officer and of the officials of the Brown Institution?

Sir, my attention has been called to the reported discovery by M. Pasteur of a cure for hydrophobia. The recognized eminence of M. Pasteur as a scientific investigator, and the great interest and importance which attach to the subject of his recent inquiries, seem to me to justify a careful and impartial examination of the results obtained. At present, the information on the matter in the possession of my Department is too vague and incomplete to afford materials for a full appreciation of M. Pasteur's process. I will consider how such an inquiry can be most satisfactorily conducted; and I will confer with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the question of the expense. I shall be glad to communicate privately with my hon. Friend, and hope to be able to arrange for such an investigation as may enable a just estimate to be formed as to the reliability of M. Pasteur's method, and its applicability to this country.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would have any objection to place himself in communication with the Foreign Office, with a view of obtaining from them copies of any official statements which had been made upon the subject?

I will endeavour to obtain the assistance of the Foreign Office, in order that we may place at the disposal of the Committee which may be appointed all the information in our power.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state by what principle the Local Government Board were guided in distributing the £15,000 voted by Parliament, that in almost every case the clerks of unions received a sum equal to, if not greater, than the total amount paid to the collectors in each union combined, having due regard to the fact that the greater part of the work was performed by the rate collectors, and that the 73rd section of the Act of 1850 insured a further remuneration to clerks of unions always paid them, whilst heretofore rate collectors had none, though having performed the duty; whether in the Armagh Union the clerk received £44, in addition to the remuneration of the Act of 1850, whilst eight collectors received £49 amongst them; whether in the Lurgan Union the clerk received £99, and remuneration under the Act of 1850, whilst three collectors received £90; and, whether in the distribution of the additional £2,000 voted by Parliament the inequalities will as far as possible be adjusted?

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to include in his answer to my hon. Friend, whether he considers it just to the ratepayers to require them to supplement a Government grant insufficient for the services rendered; and, whether he will consider the propriety of having a further sum provided to discharge the amounts still remaining due to the rate collectors?

also asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Clerks of Unions were the only officers whose duties obliged them to provide assistants whom they had to pay out of their own salary; and, whether the additional work thrown on them by the late Act had not obliged them in each Union to employ such assistance to a very great extent?

In reply to the Question on the Paper, the principle adopted by the Local Government Board in the distribution of £15,000 for registration work was explained to the House by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury some nights ago. It is true that the Clerks of Unions usually receive sums about equal to the amount paid to the collectors; but this seems only fair, as they have to deal with all the names on the Registry from the districts of the collectors. As my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury mentioned, collectors have in many cases received further remuneration for their work from the poor rates. The additional £2,000 voted by Parliament was for the payment of assistants to Clerks of the Peace, and no part of that money could be applied for other purposes. That, I think, meets the Question of the hon. Member. In reply to the other Questions, I must remind hon. Members that this was, after all, settled in the last Parliament, and it would be difficult now for us to overhaul the decision come to by Parliament after the passing of the Registration Act. I am informed that the average cost per head was considerably greater in Ireland than it was in Great Britain.

asked Mr. Attorney General, In consequence of very conflicting opinions and diverse decisions of county court and other judges, relating to their jurisdiction, in cases of dispute between members and persons claiming on their behalf against Friendly Societies; and, whether, under the 22nd section of "The Friendly Societies Act, 1876," and under their own rules, duly certified in conformity with the same, power is given to settle these without appeal to courts of law?

, in reply, said, the Question called attention to the fact that there wag a difference of opinion amongst County Court Judges and other Judges; and he would point out that if he were to answer the Question it would involve him in a condemnation on one side or other of those judicial opinions, and possibly of both. He could not usurp a judicial function which in no sense belonged to him.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the arrest of Mr. Stanley Weyman and his brother, at Aramitz, on December 14th, 1885, while in possession of Foreign Office Passports; and, whether the French Government have offered any and what explanation of the conduct of the gendarmes on that occasion?

The arrest of these gentlemen was brought to the knowledge of the Embassy at Paris by Her Majesty's Consul at Bordeaux on the 20th of December last, and on the 23rd of that month a strong representation on the subject was addressed to the French Government by Her Majesty's Minister at Paris. On the 1st of January the two commanding officers of the gendarmes of the Pau district called on the British Vice Consul at Pau, and expressed their regret that a misunderstanding should have led to the arrest of Messrs. Weyman. A reply was received by Sir John Walsham from the French Government on the 20th of February. It mentioned the apology made by the officers of the gendarmerie, and stated that the brigadier who had effected the arrest had been punished by eight days' confinement. No formal apology has been tendered on the part of the French Government, who have expressed their opinion that under the circumstances the conduct of the gendarme was excusable. Her Majesty's Government do not share this opinion; but before addressing any further representation on the subject to the French Government they await Mr. Weyman's answer to a letter addressed to him on the 27th ultimo by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, communicating the substance of the reply of the French Government.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state whether he will, in consequence of the present depression, permit such unions as may apply for delay to postpone the payment of the fourth instalment of the Seed Rate for another year?

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was so long delayed a reply to this Question, which involves matters of considerable importance. The Irish Government have had this matter for some time under their consideration. The loan stood on the 5th of last month thus—the amount advanced was £598,306, and of that £536,255 was repaid. This left a debt outstanding of £62,051, and of this there are amounts recovered in hand which leave the balance not actually recovered not more than from £35,000 to £37,000. These figures show that the loans so far have been admirably paid; and there is no doubt that the Boards of Guardians have generally made every effort to collect the outstanding rate. Nevertheless, in some instances, the instalments are overdue. In such cases the Act empowers the Local Government Board to impound the poor rates to the extent of the deficiencies. In view, however, of the exceptional distress prevailing in the country, and of the fact that such an inroad on the resources of the Unions might seriously embarrass the Boards of Guardians concerned, we have come to the conclusion that this impounding of the rates is a step not to be resorted to at present. The Treasury have, therefore, agreed to the following arrangement:—They will authorize the Commissioners of Public Works to accept the sums already collected by the Boards of Guardians as seed rate, and now in their hands, if paid over on or before the 1st of May next; and, further, not to press until the month of April, 1887, for the payment of the amount of seed rate which may now be uncollected and due to the Guardians by the purchasers of seed.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that the non-payment of this seed rate will interfere with the right of these people to vote at elections; and, also, when it comes due, it will be recovered as a charge against the individual, or against the Union?

I think that these are points which very obviously require that Notice should be given.

asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether any steps have yet been I taken to bring home responsibility to the contractors, brokers, or officials through whom bad hay, flour, biscuits, or other supplies were despatched to recent Egyptian or South African Expeditions; whether any case for the recovery of the price of articles not up to contract standard has been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown; whether any opinion has been given that in any case grounds for an action existed; and, whether, in any case, any compromise has been offered; and, if so, what?

There is no reason to suppose that the flour shipped in 1882 was not perfectly sound and good when it left this country; and there is no imputation whatever against the brokers through whom it was purchased. The reasons for its subsequent deterioration are now tolerably well known; but they could not have been foreseen when the Expedition was despatched. The opinion of the Law Officers has been obtained with regard to the contract for the hay complained of; but in the present stage it will be inconvenient to make any statement. I am not aware that it has ever been alleged that bad supplies of any kind were sent to the later Expeditions to the Nile, to Suakin, or to Bechuanaland. On the contrary, it is admitted that they were perfect in quality, and ample in quantity. Owing to the unexampled difficulties of the Nile route, and to the fact that to meet a military necessity the whaler packages had been made exceptionally light, there was some loss of supplies; but the military opinion is that the loss was due to the rough usage the cases were necessarily subjected to, rather than to defects in the packages.

asked Mr. Attorney General, If he can give any information to the House as to what proceedings are or will be taken in the Law Courts on the question of the legality of the junior Member for Northampton sitting and voting in this House, and to state when a decision is likely to be arrived at?

, in reply, said, that, the hon. Member having been kind enough to explain that the Question referred to the sitting and voting of the hon. Member for Northampton during the present Parliament, he had to state that there was no intention on the part of the Government of taking any steps in the matter.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the retiring gratuity of fifty pounds, recommended to be granted to the late Robert O'Flynn, National School Teacher, Newport, county Mayo, will be handed over to his widow?

I am informed that, according to the Report of the Registrar of Deaths, Mr. O'Flynn, whose widow is referred to in this Question, died a bachelor. The Law Officers of the Crown are of opinion that in the case of the death of a teacher before the Warrant granting the gratuity is completed there is no power to pay the amount to the personal representatives of the deceased teacher.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will consider the hardship of dog licences having to be paid by drovers in the exercise of their calling; and, if he will classify these persons with others engaged in agriculture, who pay no licence duty, and give them exemption?

When the Dog Licence was raised from 5s. to 7s. 6d. (41 & 42 Vict. c. 15, s. 17), the exemptions were at the same time increased to such an extent that the amount of revenue collected under the increased duty is less than when the licence was only 5s. In these circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not intend to recommend any extension of exemptions.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will consider the desirability of giving more complete figures with regard to quantities in the trade statistics of the United Kingdom, so that more accurate conclusions maybe arrived at than can be obtained from figures of value only?

(who replied) said: The Board of Trade are anxious to give the quantities as well as values of articles imported and exported, and they will endeavour to do so as far as practicable. There are great difficulties in the way, owing to the miscellaneous character of the trade of the United Kingdom, and the objection of merchants to declaring particulars which they can only ascertain with difficulty themselves.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the reason for the delay in vesting the Cappa (Kilrush) Pier, in the Town Commissioners of Kilrush, West Clare, under the Shannon Act of last year; and, if steps will be taken to hasten the action of the Irish Board of Works in this matter?

, in reply, said, the Board of Works had been in correspondence with the Town Commissioners of Kilrush about the Cappa Pier, and they were now awaiting a reply from the Commissioners to their last communication. There would be no delay in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the notice posted in the Enfield Small Arms Factory, announcing the intended reduction in the number of men employed there, stated that the step was rendered necessary "owing to the great reduction in the Estimates by the present Government;" and, if so, whether that is the usual form in which to make such announcements; and, in what manner it is ascertained which men shall be discharged when Government establishments are reduced?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the notice referred to was quite unusual in form; and the Superintendent, Colonel Arbuthnot, has expressed to me his regret that he issued it. I may add that the passage quoted by my hon. Friend is not accurate, because no Estimates for Army Services were left to me by my Predecessor, and, therefore, I could not reduce them. I have, however, already stated to the House that we do not intend to maintain a programme based on the recent rate of manufacture. There are certain definite rules regarding service, &c., according to which men are selected when discharges are necessary, and these have been found to work well.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the heroic conduct of several of the Islanders of Innistrahull, off the Coast of Donegal, on the occasion of the wreck of the schooner Leslie, of Glasgow, on Friday night last, the crew of which they rescued at the imminent peril of their own lives; and, whether he will consider the propriety of some recognition of their services?

My attention has been called to the wreck of the Leslie on Friday last. I have caused inquiry to be instituted into the case, in order to ascertain the nature of the services rendered by the Islanders, with a view to deciding whether it is one in which some recognition should be given. I have not got the particulars.

asked whether this was not the third crew rescued lately by those Islanders?

said, he was not aware of the circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home De- partment, Whether he can expedite the clearing of the ground and the excavations for the new police station in Upper Holloway, with a view of finding work for the unemployed?

In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that the purchase of this site cannot be completed till the 31st instant. No time will then be lost in commencing the work. The hon. Member will be glad to hear that the building of two new police stations has been commenced during the past fortnight, and a third (at North Fulham) will be commenced in a few days.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, in view of the diminished attendance in infant schools necessarily caused by the exceptional severity of the weather, he will consider the equity of making some allowance in the matter of average attendance to those managers of schools to whom, without any fault of their own, considerable loss is now threatened?

No provision exists in the Code by which the Department is empowered to make allowance for diminished attendance; but Her Majesty's Inspectors have instructions, at their inspection, to take carefully into account all exceptional circumstances which may put the school into an unfavourable position.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the unequal sentences passed upon two men, at different quarter sessions at Durham for the crime of sheep stealing at Darlington on October 4th 1885; the originator of the theft, an ex-policeman named Adams, previously convicted, who absconded (but was afterwards apprehended), receiving only two months' imprisonment from January 4th 1886, whilst his accomplice Barron, long out of work, and who confessed at the time to the part he had taken, was sentenced to ten months on October 21st 1885; and, if he will take steps to rectify this unequal punishment?

The fact of the inequality of these two sentences is a thing much to be regretted. I have most carefully gone into all the facts, and have come to the opinion not that Barron's sentence was too severe, but that Adams's sentence, owing to a miscarriage of justice, was far too light. I should not feel justified, for the sake of reducing what is undeniably an inequality of punishment, in recommending a remission of the severer sentence. I have communicated with the Chairman of Quarter Sessions with regard to the two cases.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any objection to laying upon the Table the Papers referred to in the following extract from Lord Randolph Churchill's speech at Manchester on the 3rd instant:—

"Lord Salisbury, setting aside altogether a Treasury Minute of Mr. Childers, which, to a great extent, cramped the efforts of our agents Abroad for fostering and encouraging British enterprise, sent special instructions to our agents Abroad that they were, on every occasion, to lose no opportunity of assisting British commerce, either in the person of individuals or in the form of co-operative effort;"

and, whether this statement is correct?

asked, whether the attention of the hon. Gentleman had been drawn to a statement made by a correspondent at Constantinople in The Times of that day to the following effect:—

"Ever and always the English Representative here sternly and indignantly refuses to give his support to any British subject's demand for a concession.… so much so that the English applicant frequently obtains his end through a foreign Representative, instead of his own, or more frequently is left out in the cold;"

and, whether this was the case?

I think that the hon. Member can hardly expect me to answer, without Notice, Questions referring to a matter which only appeared in this morning's paper. I would also beg to remind the hon. Member that our Representative, Sir Edward Thornton, has only been at Constantinople for the last fortnight. With regard to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I will take this opportunity of answering a similar Question which my noble Friend the Member for Stratford-upon-Avon Division (Lord William Compton) has put on the Paper. A diligent search has been made; but no trace can be found in the Treasury of the Minute referred to in the speech quoted by the hon. Baronet and the noble Lord. Should such a Minute ever be discovered, I see no objection to its being laid upon the Table; but I fear that I must damp the hopes of hon. Members by reminding them that, as Her Majesty's Agents abroad are entirely under the orders of the Foreign Office, it is hard to see how any such Minute can ever have emanated from the Treasury. With the exception of the Instructions sent to Her Majesty's Representatives in China and Japan—

"To support British commercial interests where foreign Representatives interfered to their detriment,"

and which were referred to in the letter addressed by the Foreign. Office to the London Chamber of Commerce on February 22, no Instructions whatever would appear to have been given by the Marquess of Salisbury to our Agents abroad relating to the promotion of British commerce. As to the steps which are being now taken by Her Majesty's present Government, I need only refer to the answer which I gave last Monday on this subject.

In reference to the answer of the hon. Gentleman to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I wish, with the indulgence of the House, on behalf of my noble Friend who is unable to be here this evening, to state that he made the statement with regard to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) on what he believed to be reliable authority, and he is confident that he can, if necessary, justify the substance.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the 19th November last, the constabulary at Ennistymon, county Clare, having arrested for drunkenness a man named Michael Cunningham, found upon him a loaded revolver, for which he had no licence; whether, after repeated adjournments, a prosecution instituted by the local Excise officer against Cunningham, for carrying the weapon without an Excise licence, was dismissed on the 24th ultimo, the presiding Justices, Mr. H. V. M'Namara and Mr. Thomas Lucas, explaining their decision by the statement that the case was peculiar, and that there was a point of Law involved as to which they could procure no direction from the authorities in Dublin; whether the same Justices have in several recent cases inflicted penalties upon poor farmers and herdsmen for having weapons required for the care of their farms and sheep, and did not in any such case apply for or await direction from Dublin Castle; what steps will be taken to apply the Law in the case of the bailiff Cunningham; and, whether the conduct of the Justices will be taken into consideration?

, in reply, said, the facts were as stated in the first two paragraphs of the Question, except Cunningham had a licence under the Peace Preservation Act. The point of law occurred at the first hearing of the case, and was raised by the Resident Magistrate. The matter was referred to Dublin; but, as there was no person there to give an opinion, the magistrates at last acted on their own view and dismissed the case. The Inland Revenue informed him that it was their intention to appeal in the case to the Quarter Sessions; but, owing to some irregularity, the appeal had to be withdrawn. Since then four persons had been fined at the same Petty Sessions for breaches of the Gun Licences Act; but the Bench on those occasions was not constituted as in the case referred to in the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can say when the rights of the claimants to the Eaton Bequest, in abeyance since 1876, will be inquired into and decided on; and, would he Lave any objection to give a Return of the several sums, left for charitable or industrial purposes, now locked up in the Court of Chancery in Ireland, showing the name of the testator, the date of death, the object of each bequest, and the amount, principal and interest, of the several sums so bequeathed, at the present time?

I am advised that it is not possible to name any specific time at which the claim or claims to the Eaton Bequest will be disposed of. The Crown and Treasury Solicitor is at present inquiring into them, and he has been requested to expedite the matter. There are no materials for giving the Return mentioned in the Question, nor any staff available for the purpose. There is a list published in the Accountant General's Office which gives a statement of the names and particulars of suits in which funds are lying dormant. But the particular object of each fund or portion of it—where there is any such—devoted to charitable or industrial purposes could only be ascertained by unravelling the history of each suit from the papers connected with it, and these papers are not under the control of the Court officials.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, "Whether a sum of only seven shillings a week is paid to the postman for the daily carriage of letters and parcels post between Ballinglen and Moyne, the distance travelled on foot being four statute miles each way, and for a similar service for three days between Moyne and Aughavanna three shillings and sixpence for five statute miles journey each way; whether he is aware that the mountainous and exposed character of the roads makes the duty, especially in winter, very severe; and, will he bring the matter under the notice of the postmaster at Dublin, with a view of having this man adequately remunerated?

, in reply, said, the facts were as stated in the Question, and he would lay the facts before the Postmaster Genera], in order to obtain for the man larger payment.

asked the honourable Member for Staffordshire (North Western Division) as a Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will consider the advisability of establishing electrical or telephonic signals to the Library, Reading Room, and other parts of the House, whereby Members may be informed of the business under discussion, and of the name of the Member addressing the House?

, in reply, said, the First Commissioner of Works would consider the proposal of the hon. Member, which was one of some magnitude, in consultation with the officers of the House.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the attention of the Irish Executive has been given to a Report in The Belfast Evening Telegraph of the 20th ultimo, of a speech delivered the previous evening, at a meeting in the Orange Hall Dundrod, by Mr. W. H. H. Lyons, described in the report as "D.G.M." of Antrim, who presided over the meeting; whether the following passage in the speech has been considered:—

"In the case of any rising in Ireland he would certainly recommend the loyal minority in the North to lay their hands on every priest in this part of the country as hostages, and let it be known that if a hair of the head of any Protestant in the South and West were touched they would make quick work of them, "bishops and all. (Loud cheers);"

whether Mr. Lyons is engaged in the public service as cess collector for the baronies of Upper Belfast and Upper Masscreene; and, what action will be taken in regard to him?

I cannot say whether this is a correct report of Mr. Lyons's observations, because this paper is not taken in at the Castle. In any case, whether the report be correct or not, in the capacity of cess collector, Mr. Lyons is a servant of the Grand Jury, and the Government have no control over him.

As Grand Juries make suggestions to the Government, would not the Government make a suggestion to the Grand Jury in this matter?

It does not follow that because the Grand Juries make suggestions to the Government that the Government should make suggestions to the Grand Jury.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a Mr. M'Garigle, general merchant, hotel proprietor, and courthouse keeper in Tulla, county Clare, has been boycotted by order of the local branch of the National League; whether Mr. M'Garigle was appointed to take charge of the court-house in 1883, on the resignation of a Mr. Colbourne who went off to America; whether Colbourne returned, after an absence of more than twelve months, and, if M'Garigle was not forthwith called upon to appear before the National League to answer a charge of "situation grabbing;" whether M'Garigle has entered into securities with the Grand Jury for a period of two years, and if his general business has been entirely ruined, whilst he and his family are subject to daily insult and annoyance; and, if the authorities will take any action to protect a public official and loyal subject of the Crown under such circumstances?

My attention was called to this case some considerable time ago, and the facts of it were pretty much as stated in the Question. I laid the case before my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, and he advised that there was no evidence of an actual breach of the law. I am glad to say that according to the last report which reached me there has been an improvement in the public feeling towards Mr. M'Garigle. He is receiving all necessary aid and protection.

asked whether the right hon. Gentle- man was aware that Colbourne lost his situation because he was incarcerated under the Coercion Act?

Yes; I believe that is so.

Is it a fact that Mr. M'Garigle was summoned before the Tulla Branch of the National League as alleged in the Question?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Government will take into consideration the disadvantages in regard to salary, increment of salary, retiring allowance, dismissal without adequate notice, and the disallowance of the privilege of private practice under which the veterinary surgeons constituting the staff of veterinary portal inspectors in Ireland are placed, as compared with the veterinary surgeons employed by the English Privy Council; and, whether the Irish Government will take any steps to amend the unequal treatment of these public-servants in Ireland and England?

The salaries of Veterinary Portal Inspectors in England and Ireland necessarily vary in accordance with the size and business of the ports at which they are engaged. In respect to the other matters mentioned in the Question, I find that the Inspectors in both countries are treated on very similar lines, except that in England somewhat longer notice is given for the termination of an engagement, and there is a limited permission to engage in private practice. I think it is worthy of consideration whether the services in both countries might not be advantageously assimilated in these respects.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he would take into consideration to afford relief, by extension of time for the payment of tithe rent-charge in Ireland, to persons who could show that they had not received the rents due for the gales in which tithe rent-charge was now claimed, or to accept payment thereof pro rata on the rent actually received?

The Land Commissioners do, in fact, extend time for payment to all payers of tithe rent-charge who satisfy them that they have not received their rents, and that they are not postponing their rent-charge—which is the first charge on the land except Crown and quit rent—to puisne charges. Other cases are examined on their merits, and such relief is given as the Commissioners think is required by the circumstances of the case; and I think that it is not desirable to alter the present system.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, How much money has been expended by Board of Works in connection with Teelin Pier, county Donegal, since it was first tendered to or handed over to the Grand Jury as a finished work?

, in reply, said, that £125 had been spent in completing the approaches to Teelin Pier, County Donegal, and £35 in removing stones; but nothing had been spent on the pier itself since its completion.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What quantity of work is now being performed for the War Department on the Continent; what contracts are running; what is the total of those contracts in money and materials; and, what proportions remain to be completed?

I cannot give this information to day, and its preparation would involve a good deal of detailed calculation. If the hon. Member thinks a good public purpose will be served I am ready to order the preparation of the information he asks for; but I must request a few days' Notice.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in case of an appeal to the Irish Privy Council against an improvement scheme sanctioned by the Irish Local Government Board, under authority of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 and 1885, the success of the appeal in regard to the merits of any portion of an improvement scheme leads to the rejection of the whole?

, in reply, said, the success of an appeal in regard to the merits of any portion of an improvement scheme did not necessarily lead to the rejection of the whole scheme. The Lord Lieutenant in Council might confirm the whole scheme, or might disallow it, or amend and modify it under terms and conditions set forth in the Order in Council.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that many Irish Members are without lockers for the accommodation of their Parliamentary Papers; and, whether he could provide an increase of lockers equal to the number of Members of the House?

(who replied) said, he was happy to say that steps would be taken to provide the additional lockers.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has yet had under his consideration the Memorial of the Civil Service Writers, presented to the Treasury in August last, supported by the signatures of 120 Members of Parliament; and, if so, whether he can state to the House the nature of his decision thereon?

(who replied): The Civil Service Writers' Memorial is before the Treasury. Its subject-matter, together with similar general questions affecting the Civil Ser vice as a whole, is receiving our careful consideration, and I hope it will be possible before very long to announce the conclusions arrived at.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland are aware that a sum of £1,800 has been expended at Listowel, county Kerry, under the direction of a local Committee, in the erection of schools, to enable the Presentation Nuns to meet the necessities of the town and district in regard to education conducted by the nuns under the system of the National Board; and, whether the Commissioners will apply their rules as to grants for the erection of school houses so as to enable the Committee to clear off a debt of £1,000 incurred by the erection of the schools in question?

, in reply, said, the Commissioners of National Education informed him that under these rules they had no power to make a grant to pay off a debt incurred in the erection of a school.

asked who made the rules?

said, he could not say whether the Commissioners made their own rules or whether they were made for them.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that James Brady, of Lisagavan, Kingscourt, county Cavan, served seven years in the Army, six of which was in India during the mutiny of 1857 and 1858, received a medal for same, got sixpence a-day pension for three years, with a penny per day for good conduct; whether he is now unable to work, being over fifty years old and in delicate health; and, whether this man will get the pension of sevenpence per day for the remainder of his days?

(who replied) said: There is nothing to take this case out of the usual course by which the man will be allowed a pension of 4d. a day from the time he reaches the age of 50 years, which will be in April, 1887. He should then apply for his deferred pension.

said, he had not been able to hear the answer, and he would have to put the Question on the Paper again.

repeated the answer he had previously given.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, When the Bill is to be brought in to enable the Secretary of State to issue India 3½ per cent. stock to the shareholders of the Scinde, Punjaub, and Delhi Railway; and, whether it is not important to shareholders, many of them trustees, that the Bill should become law by the 1st of May in order that dividends may be paid on the 30th June?

The Secretary of State already has the power to issue India 3½ per Cent Stock in redemption of the annuities created in purchase of the Scinde, Punjaub, and Delhi Railway. This power is given under Section 2 of the Act 44 & 45 Vict. c. 53, as modified by Part 2 of Section 25 of the Act 48 & 49 Vict. c. 25.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has read the Letter, dated 15th July 1885, addressed by Sir Hercules Robinson to the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, and inclosing Correspondence extending over the years 1884 and 1885, between the High Commissioner of the Cape Colony, the President of the Orange Free State, the Resident Commissioner in Basutoland, the Attorney General of the Cape Colony, and Mr. Van der Wath, on the subject of a horse forcibly taken from Van der Wath so far back as the month of November 1883 by one Bereng Letsea, and claimed as his own beast which had been lost, whereas it had been bought out of a district pound in the Orange Free State by Van der Wath; whether any reply was sent to the Letter of Sir Hercules Robinson by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, to whom he had referred the matter for instructions, or has been sent by the present Secretary of State; whether this horse case, which the the High Authorities of Cape Colony, the Orange Free State, and Basutoland had not been able to settle on the spot, has been settled by the interposition of the late or the present Secretary of State for the Colonies; and, whether he can suggest any loss complicated and dilatory method of administering the affairs of Basutoland than would appear to exist at present?

I have read the letter of Sir Hercules Robinson, inclosing correspondence extending over the years 1884 and 1885, on the subject of the horse forcibly taken from Van der Wath so far back as November, 1883, by one Bereng Letsea, which does not seem to have been a very valuable animal, as his outside price was only £10 5s. No reply to this letter was sent by the late or present Secretary of State for the Colonies; but no doubt the case formed one of the subjects of discussion at the interview which took place between Sir Hercules Robinson and the President of the Orange Free State at Bloemfontein last November, and as the matter has not been mentioned in any subsequent despatch, I am in hopes that it has been settled without the interposition of the late or present Secretary of State. But Sir Hercules Robinson is about to visit England very shortly, and if my hon. Friend thinks it worth while to pursue the matter further, I may be able, after communicating with him, to throw some further light upon the subject. With regard to the last part of the Question, no doubt the difficulties of administering a country like Basutoland are great; but I cannot suggest any bettor mode of dealing with such matters as those to which the Question refers than to leave them to be settled by Colonel Clarke, the Resident Commissioner in Basutoland, who has discharged his duties with ability and tact, and to the entire satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether a piece of land situated by the river in Fulham was presented and conveyed to the Board by the late Bishop of London for the purposes of a recreation ground; whether any offer has been made to the Board of any money for the purpose of providing labour for the laying out of that land as a recreation ground; and, whether the Board, in view of the large numbers of the unemployed in Fulham, will at once take steps to avail itself of any offer which may have been made or in any case will undertake to carry out this work of public utility?

In reply to the hon. Member. I beg to state that no such piece of land was presented and conveyed to the Metropolitan Board by the late Bishop of London. A little more than two years ago the Bishop offered to the Fulham District Board the meadow adjacent to his Palace at Fulham, and the District Board asked the Metropolitan Board to accept the land and lay out and maintain it as an open space. The Board went to see the locality twice, and gave careful consideration to the matter; but, in addition to the expense of laying out, it would have been necessary to expend a large sum in protecting the land from overflow of the river, and it was not considered expedient to comply with the request of the District Board. With regard to the second part of the Question, an offer was recently made to the Board by the Committee of the Mansion House Relief Fund of a sum of money to be devoted to certain works, among which was named the laying out of a public garden at Fulham on the ground referred to. The Board, however, were unable to accept this offer, not being in possession of any land at Fulham which could be devoted to the purpose, and I am afraid they are not in a position to come to any other conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any truth in the account published in The New-castle Daily Chronicle of March 5th, of several pitmen with their families being evicted from their cottages at the village of South Medomsley, in Durham, during the snowstorm of Tuesday last; whether it is a fact that the bailiffs were assisted in carrying out the evictions by the county police; and, whether, in the event of the account being a corect one, Her Majesty's Government can take any action to prevent the recurrence of such incidents?

asked whether it was true that the police, in assisting the bailiffs, used insulting language to the people, and brutal conduct to many of them, and caused serious damage to the furniture of those evicted by pitching it out in the snow?

I must have Notice of this last Question. It is impossible for me to have information on the subject. In reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. A. E. Pease), I have to say that the accounts which have been published do not give all the material facts of the case. The men have been on strike for upwards of three months; and I am informed that they had ample time, after the usual legal notices, to remove their families and furniture to houses provided for them within five minutes' walk. As a matter of fact, the warrants, which were issued on the 4th of February, were not executed until one day before the statutory time expired; and the Police Authorities report to me that the men had been advised to remove peaceably, but that their chief representative declined, declaring that "they were determined to put the county to all the expense and trouble they could." Under these circumstances, it is no doubt unfortunate that the last day was a stormy one; but the fault was clearly with the miners. The police constables were present to preserve order, but no complaint was made as to their conduct, and they appear to me to have behaved well. My hon. Friend is aware that I have no authority over county and borough police, still less over bailiffs executing a civil process.

gave Notice that he should, on the first opportunity, call the attention of the House to the proceedings in question.

asked whether there was any truth in the allegation that one of the men who was removing the goods became disgusted with the work, and declared that he could not proceed with it any longer, and that he was prevented from leaving the house by the police until the arrival of Inspector Oliver?

repeated that he had no authority over county or borough police. All he could do was to apply to the Chief Constable for information. He suggested that the hon. Member should give Notice of the Question?

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is within the scope of the Royal Commission on Trade Depression to inquire how far recent economic and agricultural disturbances may have been caused or aggravated by appreciation of gold, due to increased, demand for that metal for currency purposes in Europe and America; and, if he can say whether they have yet applied themselves to that branch of the subject?

asked whether the depreciation of silver would also be inquired into by the Royal Commissioners?

, in reply, said, he was informed by the Earl of Iddesleigh, the Chairman of the Royal Commission, that the subject to which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) referred was within the scope of their inquiry, and that they were applying themselves to that branch of the subject. With regard to the second Question, he asked the hon. Member to give Notice.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is true that arrangements are being made to remove H.M.S. Benbow from Victoria Docks to a Government dockyard for completion; and, if so, as a large number of men are at the present time engaged on the vessel, which cannot be ready for sea in less than 12 to 18 months, and considering that great dis- tress already prevails in the east of London, whether he could allow the work to be completed in the Victoria Docks?

I have to say that, in accordance with the contract, the Benbow will be delivered and removed to Chatham in the course of next summer. The work then remaining to be done in connection with the armament and equipment of the ships is of a character practically necessitating her completion in a Government Dockyard, provision for the cost of which has been made in the Dockyard Vote of 1886–7. Another largo armourclad, the Sanspareil, is building for the Admiralty by the same contractors, and is now reaching a stage of progress affording employment to a largo number of men.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the negotiations with the Spanish Government, with the view of obtaining fair treatment in respect of duties for British exports to that country or to the Spanish West Indies, are making such progress as to make it probable that further Papers on the subject will be shortly laid before Parliament; whether any negotiations are pending with the Government of the United States of America with reference to the difference between that Government and the Government of Her Majesty in the interpretation put upon the Most Favoured Nation Clause in the Commercial Treaty between the two countries; and, whether, in default of agreement, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to secure such a modification of the existing Treaty as will make it capable of being understood in the same sense by both parties to it?

Immediately after the present Government came into Office, Sir Clare Ford, Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, was instructed to take steps with a view to the removal of the impediments existing to British trade with Spain; but no such progress has been made as to render it probable that further Papers on the subject will be shortly laid on the Table. I may add that Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that any arrangement to be made ought not to be of a merely transient nature, and they believe that this is also the view of the commercial community in Great Britain. A Resolution to this effect was lately received by the Foreign Office from the Association of Chambers of Commerce. With regard to the hon. Member's Question as to negotiations with the United States, there is no disagreement with respect to the meaning of the existing Treaty which relates to trade between the British Possessions in Europe and the United States. The United States Government, however, are unwilling to extend its stipulations to the British West Indies; but Her Majesty's Government are expecting a further communication from Washington in reply to Earl Granville's despatch to Sir L. West of February 12th, 1885, which the hon. Member will find on page 20 of Commercial, No. 4, 1885.

asked the honourable Member for North-West Stafford, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is the fact, as stated by Mr. Newton, in a lecture lately delivered by him at the Royal Institution, that there are in the British Museum—

"A number of sculptures which have been buried in a cellar since the year 1852, which are defaced or begrimed with dirt, and utterly useless to anybody;"

whether these sculptures are of great value and archœological interest both on account of their intrinsic merit and of the inscriptions upon them; whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate proposing alterations or extensions at the Museum in order to allow of the proper exhibition of these ancient works of art; and, whether, in case no such alterations or extensions are to be proposed, consideration will be given to the question whether any of these objects could be sent for exhibition to provincial museums?

(who replied) said: The Newton Collection of sculptures are placed in a large basement room, imperfectly lighted; but they are kept in good condition, and are periodically washed by experienced masons. They were originally arranged for exhibition; but the room was found unsuitable for the admission of general visitors, and the light on one side has lately been intercepted by new buildings. They are examined by students, accompanied by a Museum attendant. A great part of these sculptures are known from engravings in the work entitled Museum Marvels, published by the Trustees, and they have been copied for publication by German Institutions. They form an essential part of the Museum Collection, and ought not to be separated from it. Proposed additions to the Museum buildings to provide for the proper exhibition of the antiquities in the basement have for same time been under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

asked was not the room in which the sculptures were so dark as to render artificial light necessary?

Basement rooms are generally imperfectly lighted.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for promoting intermediate education in Wales; and, if so, whether the Confiscatory Clauses of last year's Bill will be omitted in deference to the wishes of the Principality?

(who replied) said, the question was so intimately mixed up with the Educational Endowment Act of 1869 and the Amending Acts now under consideration of a Select Committee that the Government were unable to promise that a Bill would be introduced this Session until they knew what changes might be recommended by the Committee. In those circumstances, he could not say in what respect the Bill to be introduced would differ from that of last year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the pensions which he has recommended for Sir Edmund Henderson and other retiring officials of the Metropolitan Police, are pensions to which they are strictly entitled under the rules of the service, on the ground of age, service, &c. and have not been awarded or specially increased on account of their recent services?

The pensions to be awarded to Sir Edmund Henderson and Mr. Walker, the only other officer who has retired, will come strictly within the Rules of the Service. Mr. Walker's pension, coming wholly out of the Metropolitan Police Fund, has been already sanctioned by me. Sir Edmund Henderson's pension, coming partly and chiefly from the Imperial Fund and partly from the Police Fund, is still the subject of consideration with the Treasury.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to an application, made on the 19th February, before Mr. Justice Cave, by the trustee of the estate of Dr. Forbes Winslow, bankrupt, for an order directing the landlord of the bankrupt to deliver up to him certain cheque books, letters, counterfoils, and documents essential in order to enable the trustee properly to investigate the debtor's affairs, which were held by the said landlord under an agreement reserving to him "the ordinary rights of the landlord;" whether the application was made under Rule 259 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1883, which provides that no person shall, as against the trustee, be entitled to withhold possession of the books of accounts belonging to the debtor, or to set up any lien upon them; whether Mr. Justice Cave decided that cheque books, counterfoils, letters, and similar documents were not within the Rule, although they might furnish materials for making up an account, and that the Rule must be construed strictly; and, whether he is prepared so to amend the Law relating to distraint as to make it impossible to take away not only a non-trader's account papers, but the tools and instruments of a man's trade or profession, and the necessary furniture of his home?

It is not within the functions of the Board of Trade to deal generally with the Law of Distraint; but in any future amendment of the Bankruptcy Act I shall be prepared to consider whether, for the purpose of bankruptcy, any such amendment as that suggested is desirable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received the Report of the Inspector who held the inquiry, suggested by the Mansion House Council on the Dwellings of the People, into the immediate sanitary requirements of the parish of St. James and St. John Clerkenwell as far back as November 1885, and whether he will lay the same before Parliament; and, if he has not yet received the Report, whether, in view of the importance attaching to the inquiry, he will give instructions to the Inspector for its immediate presentation?

, in reply, said, the Report of the Inspector who held the inquiry suggested by the Mansion House Committee into the dwellings of the people had been received, and would in all probability, when he had read it himself, be laid on the Table.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether "provisional" appointments have been made in the major and minor establishments of the Post Office; and, if so, whether they are made under the condition that, on the ratification of a provisional appointment, service shall account for the full appointment from the date of the making of the provisional appointment?

Provisional appointments have been made to the major and minor establishments of the Post Office, in connection with the introduction of the 6d. rate for telegrams. The services of the officers so appointed will count from the date of their provisional appointment in those cases in which the appointments are made permanent.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Who is the keeper of that part of the Royal Palace of Westminster which is known by the name of the Victoria Tower?

, in reply, said, the Victoria Tower, Westminster, was under the control of the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether all fines and penalties imposed in courts of justice within the Metropolitan limits, which in other places go to the treasury of the county or borough in aid of local rates, are paid into the National Exchequer; and, whether he can state what was the amount of those fines during the year 1885?

The general principle is that the fund which bears the expenses in connection with the Courts receives the fines which are imposed. In London, as the salaries of the police magistrates and the expenses of providing and maintaining the Courts are borne by the Exchequer, all the fines imposed with the exception of a few, go to the Exchequer. The amount paid to the Exchequer for the year 1885 was £10,981.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether complaints have been made to the Post Office authorities as to the charge of one penny upon wrappers enclosing poll cards and circulars at Parliamentary elections; and, whether, considering the statutory limitations now placed upon the expenses of Parliamentary elections, the Post Office will consider some modification of their order, and admit of these circulars being transmitted for one halfpenny?

, in reply, said, this was not the case with his own election circulars, and it was only a matter that required a little consideration on the part of the candidate and his agents. The question had been considered by the Post Office, when it was found the regular charge could not be altered.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury have received several representations from Ireland, England, and Scotland, urging the desirability of establishing a telegraph and signal station on Tory Island, off the coast of Donegal; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the same?

Several representations have been made from time to time for the establishment of a telegraph and signal station on Tory Island. The Post Office has no monopoly of the business of signalling ships, which is altogether outside the action of the Telegraphs Act. It is a business which is mostly undertaken by the Committee of Lloyds. Some time ago that Committee made an offer to establish a signal and telegraph station on Tory Island, and the Postmaster General expressed his readiness to grant a licence upon nominal terms for establishing telegraph communication with the main land; but the Lloyds Committee, owing to difficulties in the way of laying and maintaining the cable, did not proceed with the work. I do not think that I can hold out any hope that the Government will undertake to establish a telegraph and signal station on Tory Island.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information as to the progress made by the Zanzibar Delimitation Commission?

The Commission has been at work since the 10th of December, when its first meeting was held; but as it was then agreed that its proceedings should be kept secret, I am unable at present to give any further information.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Consul at Zanzibar has communicated any information relative to further annexations made by Europeans since November 1885, on the Zanzibar Coast or in Eastern Africa; and, when further Correspondence with Her Majesty's Government on this subject will be presented to Parliament?

No European Government has assumed the protectorate of any territory since the date named by the hon. Member, and it is understood that no annexations will be made while the Delimitation Commission is sitting. It is not proposed to present further Correspondence until after the Commission has finished its work.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When communication and information relating to commerce, received from Her Majesty's Consuls at Zanzibar and on the Mozambique Coast during the past twelve months, will be presented to Parliament?

The Slave Trade Blue Book about to be laid on the Table will contain all the information on commercial subjects which has been received from Zanzibar. No information has been received from Mo- zambique, the Consul having been granted leave to recover his health.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the extent to which sec. 23, 10 and 11 Vic. c. 109, by which it is provided that married persons, being both above sixty years of age, shall not be compelled to live apart in workhouses, has been allowed to remain a dead letter, he will urge upon the Boards of Guardians the necessity for complying with the requirements of the Act?

Last November my Predecessor at the Local Government Board sent a Circular to Boards of Guardians on this subject. I am informed that in a good number of cases in which provision has been made, as suggested in the Question, the aged couples prefer not to live together. But if my hon. Friend has any evidence as to any particular case he has in view in which such provision has been refused, I will take care that special representation be made to the Board of Guardians.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the First Lord of the Treasury's Letter to Lord de Vesci, inviting information and expressions of opinion on certain Irish public questions, Whether he is aware that Count de la Poer, Chairman of the Clonmel Board of Guardians, Mr. William Malcolmson, Chairman of the Carrick-on-Suir Board of Guardians, and other chairmen of boards of guardians in Ireland, have prevented the boards over which they preside from responding to the invitation of the Prime Minister, by refusing to allow any Resolution to be moved on the subjects referred to in the Prime Minister's Letter; whether such Resolutions have been moved and carried at many meetings of Irish boards of guardians, and also at meetings of town councils, grand juries, and other public bodies; whether Count de la Poer and Mr. William Malcolmson have also refused, at meetings of their respective boards, to allow guardians representing the interests of tenant farmers to offer a Resolution on the injury done to the agricultural class by the sale of butterine as butter; and, what steps will be taken to secure that no chairman shall prevent the board over which he presides from affording information requested by the head of the Government, or from dealing with questions regarded as concerning the interest of the ratepayers?

I am informed that the Chairmen of the Boards mentioned in the Question declined to put certain resolutions to their Boards. I do not know whether other Chairmen have acted similarly; but, of course, I am aware that other Boards of Guardians and public bodies have adopted similar resolutions. The Local Government Board are not informed as to what happened with respect to the resolution on the injury done to the agricultural class by the sale of butterine as butter. There is no power in the Local Government Board to compel Chairmen to put resolutions of the kind, nor do I think it would be advisable to seek such powers. Whatever action is advisable would appear to me to be in the hands of the Boards themselves.

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether, in view of the want of employment in South London, there is any immediate prospect of the proposed new street from Great Dover Street, Borough, through to Tabard Street, and the buildings for the re-housing of the working classes in connection therewith being proceeded with?

I beg to inform the hon. Member that the Board hopes to commence the clearance of the remainder of the houses acquired for the new street within a month of the present date. A contract will be entered into immediately afterwards for the construction of the street itself. When this work is completed artizans' buildings will be commenced upon the land to be devoted to that purpose.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Is it a fact that a gentleman has been appointed by the Board of Works to pay the wages, &c. on the piers being built at Ard and Mason Island (Galway) who lives a distance of twelve or fourteen miles from the works, and who has to be paid ear hire and travelling expenses each time he goes to and from the works; and, if so, how much travelling expenses are paid to him each time; if another paymaster under the Board, who is paying the wages at another work in the same locality, lives within a mile or two of Ard and Mason, whose travelling expenses would be comparatively trifling if he had been appointed to pay at these works; if the gentleman who pays at the Ard and Mason works is obliged to drive past the very door of the other paymaster when going to Ard and returning; and, if any satisfactory explanation can be given why the Piers and Harbours money should be so unnecessarily expended?

, in reply, said, the facts stated in the first part of the Question were substantially correct. The extra expense involved in the present arrangement amounted to about £2 out of a total estimate of £1,670. The Commissioners of Public Works, after careful consideration of the case, decided in their discretion to employ the present paymaster, who was already performing other duties which did not require his whole time.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether an epidemic of yellow fever has recently visited Port Royal, and what number of cases have been reported from H.M.S. Urgent; and, whether any facilities exist for removing men in the Naval Service from Port Royal to a sanatarium or hill station, similar to that occupied by the Military at Newcastle, Jamaica?

I regret to have to say that since October, 1885, 19 cases of yellow fever have been admitted into Jamaica Hospital from the Urgent, of which number four have terminated fatally. Besides these, an officer who was on board waiting to join the Wye was attacked and died. There has been one other case—from the Tyne. There is no "sanatarium or hill station" attached to Jamaica Hospital; nor is it thought by our medical advisers that any such establishment is necessary for such cases of infectious disease, as Port Royal is so swept by the sea breezes that it is considered more healthy than a hill station. I am informed that troops with yellow fever are not moved to the hill station occupied by the military at Newcastle, Jamaica, as suggested in the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether John M'Namara, who resides at Golden Island, in the barony of Brawney, county Westmeath, applied to the Board of Works in July last for a loan for the purpose of erecting a house on a tenant's holding; whether his rent was paid, and all necessary notices served, and formalities required completed, and the security offered believed to be ample; whether the tenant and his family are at present located in a dilapidated and almost ruinous hovel on the holding; and, whether the Board granted the loan?

(who replied) said, an application for a loan of £50 was made in July, 1884. Subsequently delay had arisen owing to disputes as to rent and sureties, and an appeal was brought forward by the landlord against the rent fixed by the Land Commissioners. Until the appeal, which was still pending, was settled the matter could not be proceeded with.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, with a view to the greater usefulness of the Post Office Savings Bank, he would undertake to bring in a Bill, during the present Session, to extend the limit of amount that can be legally deposited therein within any current year, and also to extend the limit of amount that may stand to the credit of any depositor in the said Post Office Savings Bank?

(who replied) said, that the Postmaster General was not at present able to give any undertaking in regard to this matter. A proposal of this kind was introduced into the last Parliament, and he might remind the hon. Member that it was strongly opposed on both sides of the House. The subject would, however, receive his consideration.

asked the honourable Member for Staffordshire (North Western Division), as a Junior Lord of the Treasury, If he could state what were the acts of insubordination alleged as a cause of William Brightwell's dismissal from his employment as a gardener at the British Museum; what were the dates of such acts; whether any complaints in regard to idleness or insubordination had been made against him before he gave evidence at Bow Street Police Court; what was the evidence of the alleged idleness assigned as the cause of his dismissal; and, will he lay the evidence on both cases before the House?

, in reply, said, that there had been complaints with regard to Brightwell before he had given evidence at Bow Street Police Court. The Earl of Morley had considered the case, and fully indorsed the decision of his Predecessor at the Office of First Commissioner of Works.

asked whether William Brightwell was not several weeks out of employment after his arbitrary dismissal, and whether employment was not given to him out of compassion at the House of Commons at the instance of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?

said, Brightwell was now employed at the House of Commons, and might have been so employed immediately on his dismissal from the British Museum if he had chosen. The interval between his dismissal and employment at the House of Commons was due to no fault of the authorities. He was now employed at a lower rate of remuneration. The matter had been thoroughly investigated by the First Commissioner of Works, and upon that investigation he took his stand. He must ask the House to take it from him that no partiality of any kind whatever had been brought to the consideration of this question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the condition of the harbour of Girvan, in Ayrshire, and to the complaints of fishermen that heavy dues are exacted from them under the Provisional Order granted for the construction of the harbour; the original condition being that a depth of four feet would be maintained at low water, whereas the depth at low water does not now exceed two feet, that portions of the quay have fallen in, and that the harbour is in an unsafe condition; and, if he would take immediate steps to inquire into the case, and have the defects complained of remedied?

, in reply, said, that the complaint to which the hon. Member referred had only lately been brought under his notice, and he had given instructions to have it inquired into.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware that the Board of Trade Report on the Manchester Ship Canal Bill states that—

"The conditions contained in Clause 3 of the present Bill are in accordance with Standing Order 167;"

and, whether it is intended to extend in future Standing Order 167, which is explicitly confined to Railway, Tramway, and Subway Companies, to other Bills?

, in reply, said, he was aware that the Report of the Board of Trade stated, and with perfect accuracy, that the conditions contained in Clause 3 of the Manchester Ship Canal Bill were in accordance with those contained in Standing Order 167. He had no intention of proposing to extend the Standing Order to other Bills.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in consequence of the decision of the House on the Second Reading of the Bill authorising the Manchester Ship Canal Company to pay interest out of capital, he intends to take steps to amend Standing Order No. 167, so that it may apply to Companies other than Railway, Tramway, or Subway Companies; and, if so, whether Standing Order No. 156 will still hold good, or whether he intends to amend the Joint Stock Companies' Acts, so as to abrogate the rule that no dividend shall be payable except out of the profits arising from the business of the Company?

, in reply, said, he had already stated that he did not propose to extend Standing Order 167 to other Bills. Standing Order 156 would still hold good, inasmuch as it did not appear to him to have any bearing upon the question. He had no intention of amending the Joint Stock Companies Act, so as to abrogate the rule that no dividends should be payable except out of the profits arising out of the business of the Company.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true, as stated in a telegram exhibited in this House yesterday, that—

"Notwithstanding recent telegrams from War Office, sixty viewers and ninety workmen were discharged from the barrel department of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield today;"

and, whether there is any foundation for the rumour, which the same telegram says is prevalent there, that one thousand hands in similar small batches will shortly be discharged?

In answer to my noble Friend, I am unaware of the existence of the telegram referred to, and I do not know how such a telegram came to be exhibited in the House. No discharges have taken place at Enfield, and none are at present contemplated. On inquiry, I find that a few men have been temporarily put out of work in consequence of the part of the manufacturing process in which they were engaged being for the moment too far in advance of the rest. This may be the origin of the report.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the last general election some voters were prevented from exercising the franchise, and very many others were put to most serious inconvenience by the very long distances they had to walk to the poll; and, whether he intends to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the appointment of polling places in counties?

(who replied) said: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that I am not aware that any complaints have reached the Home Office with regard to the inconvenient arrangement of the polling districts during the last election. The polling districts in counties are fixed by Courts of Quarter Sessions; and they are the authority to whom any representations should be addressed. I can say nothing now as to any intention to legislate on the subject.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Middlesex House of Detention and the Middlesex House of Correction, both situate in the parish of St. John and St. James, Clerkenwell, and occupying an area of about eleven acres, are no longer wanted for the purposes of prisons; and, if so, whether the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury will, in accordance with Clause 3 of "The Houses of the Working Classes Act, 1885," recommend Her Majesty, without further delay, to sell and convey that site, or any part or parts thereof, to the Metropolitan Board of Works, at a fair market price, for the purposes of the said Act?

(who replied) said, he had answered an identical Question the other day. He was now considering what was the best means of disposing of the sites under the Act of Parliament, and no unnecessary delay would be allowed to take place.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Schedule of railway plant, stores, and other material purchased for the Suakin and Berber railway now lying at Woolwich and other places; if he can state approximately its cost; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to dispose of it; and, if so, how, and when?

I should have no objection to present a Return of the Suakin and Berber railway plant, now lying at Woolwich and other places, if the hon. Member moves for it; but he will know, from his own experience at the Treasury, that the interest in and value of these voluminous and detailed Returns are rarely proportioned to the great cost and trouble their preparation entails. The approximate cost of these materials has been £320,000; and it is proposed to use them as opportunity occurs in constructing any railways that may be required for military or War Department purposes.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Report of the Trinity House, on the experiments made at South Foreland, to ascertain the best illuminant for lighthouses has been objected to by shipping authorities, harbour boards, and others, on the ground that its conclusions are seriously erroneous, and that the experiments were not fairly made; and, whether the Board of Trade, in view of the correspondence which has taken place between that Board and such shipping and other authorities, will refer the report for examination to some competent scientific gentlemen quite independent of the Trinity House, and will submit their observations thereon to the House?

The only person who has, so far as I know, objected to the Trinity House Report, on the ground that its conclusions are seriously erroneous, and that the experiments were not fairly made, is Mr. J. E. Wigham, the well-known gas engineer and manufacturer, of Dublin. Applications—five in all—have been received from certain harbour authorities and shipowners asking for inquiry into Mr. Wigham's statements, but expressing no opinion as to the conclusions arrived at, or the manner in which the experiments were conducted. I have to-day received a Report, which I have not yet been able to read, from Mr. A. G. Vernon Harcourt, F.R.S., who, at the request of the Board of Trade, was present at many of the experiments, and who is a competent scientific authority, and quite independent of the Trinity House. I also expect Reports from the representatives of some Foreign Governments who attended the experiments. Until these Reports are considered, I am not in a position to come to any final decision upon the points at issue between Mr. Wigham and the Trinity House. The Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses advise me that they concur in the conclusions of the Trinity House Report; and their engineers, who have had several opportunities of witnessing them, report that, in their opinion, the experiments have been conducted in a spirit of the most perfect fairness and impartiality to all parties.

said, that there was no intention of making any reduction.

inquired, Whether the Returns relating to the prevalence of distress would be in the hands of Members in time for the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. Dawson)?

, in reply, said that the Return had already been laid on the Table "in dummy." The greater part of the information had been for some time in the printer's hands; but he was still waiting for some important replies. He hoped, in the course of a day or two, to be enabled to place the whole of the information in the possession of the House.

I have given Notice of an Amendment to this Vote, and I do not know whether the Vote itself is not capable of a still larger reduction than that which I am about to propose. The Committee will see that the Vote is divided into three heads—for palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, palaces partly in the occupation of Her Majesty, and palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty. Now, in regard to the first head—namely, the palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, they may be looked upon as national monuments, and therefore ought to be maintained, although, with respect to Buckingham Palace, I do not see why there should be a large Estimate for maintaining it, seeing that it is generally empty. I do not find, however, that there is any Estimate for Buckingham Palace, although there is one for the Royal Mews at Pimlico. I do not know what is in that Royal Mews; but I suppose it is horses, and that it contains those cream-coloured horses which only come out when Parliament meets and there is a Conservative Government in Office. The item which appears in the Estimate for the Royal Mews at Pimlico certainly appears to be a large sum. The next item is for Windsor Home Park, and the sum put down for that is £1,020. Now, I presume that this Home Park produces something; but there is no statement in regard to what it produces. Surely it goes to somebody, and I would ask to whom? It seems to me quite ridiculous that we should have to pay for maintaining the Home Park, and that the results of the expenditure upon the Home Park should not go into the Public Treasury. Then there is a sum in regard to Windsor Royal Kitchen Gardens. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] An hon. Gentleman says "No;" but here is an item for the cost—£217. I am not aware that the country gets anything in return from these Windsor Kitchen Gardens. If people have vegetable gardens, let them pay for them. Then there is a sum of £341 for Frog-more House and Grounds. They cannot be said to be in the personal occupation of Her Majesty, and I think there must be some mistake about that. The same remark applies to White Lodge, Richmond Park. I should like to know whether Her Majesty ever goes there, and what portion of the year she spends there? Next we come to the palaces partly in the occupation of Her Majesty. St. James's Palace is one of them, and as there are State rooms there, I suppose we must allow that item. I come next to the palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty; and the first item is an additional Vote for St. James's Palace, for the residence of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, for Clarence House, and for other residences of Members of the Royal Family. That Estimate amounts to £1,622. I find, further, that the Vote includes items for rent. I certainly do not know why rent should be paid for portions of the Royal Palaces; but there is an item here of rent—£440, and another item of £212, and two items for fuel, gas, and water—£3,678 and £290. Of course, Clarence House is technically regarded as part of St. James's Palace. But the House has provided for the Duke of Edinburgh, who has £25,000 a-year; and it seems to me that when the House has given him £25,000 per annum, aud provided him with a house, it is perfectly preposterous that he should call upon us to keep the house in repair, and pay his gas and water rates. The next item is for Kensington Palace. The same remarks apply to that. One of the Royal Family lives there, and there is a charge of £218 for fuel and water, making the total Estimate for Kensington Palace £1,034. The next item is Hampton Court Palace; and I think we ought to allow that, because it is more of a National Palace than anything else, and possesses picture galleries which are thrown open to the public. The next item is Kew Palace and Kew Buildings at Kew Green, and Kew Royal Observatory. I make no objection to those items; but the next is an item for Hampton Court Stud House. I have more than once asked Questions with regard to that establishment. I presume that a stud is productive, and if we have to pay for it, I think we ought to have some foals there. Where do the foals go? Nobody has ever yet been able to give me a reason why we should keep up that stud house, or explained what benefit we derive from keeping it up. We do not get a foal; and nobody who understood business would have a stud of that sort. We have to keep the stud and maintain the building, and yet we derive no benefit whatever from it. The next item I make no objection to—namely, Military Knights' Houses, Windsor Castle. It is only right to allow that. But now I come to an item for Pembroke Lodge, Thatched House, and East Sheen Cottage, Richmond Park, Bushey House Gardens and Stables, Upper Lodge and Paddocks, Hawthorne Lodge and Hawthorne Cottage, Waylands, and the Park Carpenters' Cottages in Bushey Park. Now, I do not know who lives in these houses; but they are all provided for under the head of Royal Palaces. At any rate, I do not see the necessity for keeping up these Palaces merely for the pleasure of spending large sums of money upon maintaining them. I suppose that certain persons are allowed to live in them; but I do not know who they are. It is only reasonable that with a Monarchy we should have a Palace in London, and another in the country. But why keep up a number of Palaces which are not in the occupation of Her Majesty, or even of Her Majesty's Family, for which we are called upon, year after year, to vote considerable sums of money? Let them be sold or let; but do not let us waste our money in keeping them up. I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to explain the reasons for keeping up these Palaces; but, in the meantime, I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £8,274. That will include the items for those portions of St. James's Palace not occupied by Her Majesty, but used as residences by the Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke of Edinburgh, Kensington Palace, Kew Palace, Hampton Court Stud House, Windsor Kitchen Gardens, &c. So far as Kew Gardens are concerned, I have often been to Kew, but I never saw the Palace; but it is a red brick house, I am told.

My hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) asks what is the reason why we should maintain these establishments? Now, the reason why we should maintain them is, that an arrangement was made, upon Her Majesty's accession to the Throne, by which a considerable reduction of the Civil List was effected on the understanding that the Palaces and Pleasure Grounds belonging to the Sovereign were to be maintained and kept up at the cost of the nation. I see that the Civil List was reduced, first of all, from £1,750,000 to £510,000, and then, in 1838–9, it was still further reduced to £339,000. As far as I can see, we have really no option in the matter, because we have entered into an undertaking to maintain these Royal Palaces. With regard to the particular items to which my hon. Friend has called attention, the first is the Royal Mews at Pimlico. Now, I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that the building in question is of great size, and that it necessarily involves a great deal of expenditure to keep it up. He asks if it is used for horses? Of course, from its title, he must know that it is used for horses. There are no less than 100 horses employed in the Royal service, lodged there, and there are also 230 persons quartered in the building. I do not think, therefore, that the Vote for the Royal Mews can be looked upon as excessive. Then, in regard to the Kitchen Gardens at Windsor, I do not know whether my hon. Friend objects to the maintenance of these Royal Kitchen Gardens, or to the sum proposed for that purpose.

I object to their maintenance altogether, as a rule.

Well, the Gardens in question come within the grounds of the Royal Palaces which were undertaken to be provided for by the arrangement of the Civil List, to which I have already referred. They supply the Royal Palaces, to which they are attached, with fruit and vegetables. Then, with regard to St. James's Palace, my hon. Friend objects to that part of the Vote which is required for the maintenance of portions of the Palace occupied by the Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke of Edinburgh. With regard to Clarence House, I wish to point out that the Duke of Edinburgh has spent a considerable sum of money from his own private resources in improving and repairing this residence. I have no doubt that that is a circumstance the Committee will take into consideration in coming to a decision on the matter. Then, with regard to Hampton Court Stud House, the hon. Member seems to think that a stud house is a source of profit to the owners of it. There are many hon. Members, however, who will agree with me when I say that an establishment of this kind is not always a profitable one to maintain. This establishment is under the management of the Master of the Horse; and as the hon. Member is anxious to know what becomes of the foals which are reared there, I promise, for the information of the hon. Member and in order to satisfy his curiosity, to make inquiry, so that it may be seen what is done with these animals. In reference to the objection raised with respect to Frogmore, I have to inform the hon. Member that it is used for the reception of Her Majesty's guests when Windsor Castle is full. The other residences referred to come under the head of "Grace and Favour Residences"—that is to say, houses as to which Her Majesty may exercise the right of allowing to be occupied by some Member of the Royal Family.

There appears to be some slight misconception, either in my own mind or in that of the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee. I understand him to say that the Civil List was reduced very much on the accession of Her Majesty to the Throne. I have gone into this question over and over again; and I have now to point out that the reduction mentioned was purely fictive, and was obtained by omitting items which were formerly included in those going to make up the Civil List and transferring them to other places where they appear in the accounts. Not only has there been no reduction at all, but there has been an absolute increase. This fact was illustrated by the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Staffordshire (Mr. Leveson Gower) who has just sat down. The Civil List is now put down at £385,000; but that result can only be arrived at by omitting a large number of items, amounting to several hundred thousand pounds, which were formerly included in the Civil List. At first the Civil List included the whole Civil List expenses of the country. At present it includes the allowance to Her Majesty; but the other costs of Her Majesty and of the Royal Family, which were formerly included in it, are now separated from it, so that the Civil List stands at a higher figure now than it has ever done since the Revolution of 1688, with the exception of one extravagant period during the Reign of George III.

I agree entirely with the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Staffordshire (Mr. Leveson Gower) as to the condition under which Her Majesty's Civil List was settled. I am quite aware that these Palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, and others not in her occupation, are charges which fall upon the public Exchequer under an Act of Parliament. I, therefore, agree that the Committee are not in a position to repudiate the obligations which were incurred at the time the Civil List was settled. An idea prevails, however, and I think a very proper idea, that it might be well that another opportunity should be taken—I hope the day may still be long distant on the demise of the Crown—of reconsidering, in a new Civil List, the conditions under which the present Civil List was settled. I think it would be open to the Parliament of that day to make new arrangements which, without being detrimental to the Sovereign, may be of great advantage to the taxpayers of this country. My complaint is not exactly upon the ground taken up by my hon. Friend who has moved the reduction of the Vote (Mr. Labouchere); but it has reference to the excessive charges always incurred in the maintenance of Royal Palaces and buildings in the occupation of individuals who contribute nothing to meet the expenses of their maintenance, but who, through a Department of the State, come to the House of Commons and ask for payment from the taxpayers. I would ask hon. Members whether, on looking through the columns giving the details of the Vote for the ordinary maintenance and repair of these buildings, they have not been struck by the fact that private buildings in the country never cost anything like the amount of expenditure incurred in the ordinary maintenance, nor would public buildings involve such an extravagant outlay if the persons enjoying the buildings had to pay for the repairs themselves. I remember, in a former discussion upon this matter, that an eminent authority upon such questions said most distinctly that great mansions belonging to the nobility never cost anything like the amount expended in the maintenance of the Royal Palaces; and he pointed out that the money voted by the House for these purposes was altogether excessive. I do not know whether my hon. Friend who defends this Vote has really any control over the expenditure in these matters; and I should like to know whether there is any hon. Gentleman upon the Treasury Bench who is prepared to get up and say to the Committee that he accepts the responsibility of this expenditure? Can the Treasury justify the expenditure, or will they tell us that they have secured a proper control over it? I should certainly like to see some hon. Gentleman get up and take this responsibility upon himself. My hon. Friend the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) alluded to the Royal Mews at Pimlico. The amount asked for the maintenance of the Royal Mews is £1,220 for ordinary repairs and maintenance. Now, that seems to me to be a preposterous sum. The hon. Gentleman told us—what is, no doubt, the fact—that these Royal Mews are not only places for keeping horses in, but that they are really a private rabbit warren, in which a large number of persons live. I think it is altogether wrong that the House of Commons should be called upon, year after year, to vote large sums of money for the maintenance of the Royal Mews. Therefore, if my hon. Friend goes to a division upon the rejection of this Vote I shall support him, simply on the ground that I believe this large sum for the maintenance and repair of this building is an excessive sum; and I have no hesitation in saying that if proper pressure were brought to bear upon the Government we should have the expenditure reduced. My hon. Friend who defends the Vote represents, I presume, the First Commissioner of Works. Now, I venture to maintain that the First Commissioner of Works ought to be in this House. The policy of putting the First Commissioner of Works, as head of one of the great spending Departments, in a House which does not control the Expenditure of the country, is altogether contrary to the course which should be pursued by a Government anxious to promote economy. I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) in his place; he was First Commissioner of Works under the late Government, and I challenge him to give the explanation I am now asking for. However economical the House of Commons may feel inclined to be, if we are to have the heads of the great spending Departments in the House of Lords, where the taxpayers are not represented at all, we shall never have any real control over the expenditure. I have no desire to carry the matter further; but although I take other grounds than those of my hon. Friend for supporting the reduction of the Vote, if my hon. Friend presses his Motion to a division I shall certainly go with him, as a protest against what I believe to be an unnecessary expenditure.

I wish to ask a question in regard to one item in this Vote—namely, the item for fuel, gas, and water on page 3. The sum put down for that service is £3,678, as compared with a total amount last year of £3,858, and showing an apparent saving of £180. Now, as a matter of fact, the year before last this item figured as £1,981, and the expenditure, as shown by the last Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, amounted to £1,842; so that the present Estimate is almost precisely double the actual expenditure of two years ago. When I come to examine the items set forth in subsequent pages in the Estimate, I find that the item for Windsor Castle was last year only £470, but is raised now, without any explanation, to £1,083, or something like 250 per cent. and another item for Hampton Court Palace, which was last year £373, has now suddenly jumped up to £1,262; being between three and four times as much as last year. The difference between these two items is very considerable, and so startling that before the Vote is passed I hope the hon. Gentleman in charge of it will give some explanation to the Committee.

Does the hon. Member move to reduce the Vote?

I do not wish to take that course if any reasonable explanation can be given.

I must remind the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that the charge for fuel, gas, and water constantly varies, and that must necessarily be the case. To some extent the variation may be attributed to the varying cost of the materials, although, no doubt, more gas and fuel may have been used, and more money expended, in one year than in another. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that this sub-head shows a reduction of £180 upon the Estimate of last year, and endeavours will be made to reduce the amount still further. Efforts have already been made to increase the sources of the supply of water, and I am happy to say that in some instances it has been found possible to do so. I am sure that every endeavour will be made to improve our resources in that respect.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has done his best to vindicate the Vote; but I am simply asking him for an explanation in regard to extraordinary charges contained in it—namely, the charge for Windsor Castle, which was last year £470, and is now £1,033, and the charges for Hampton Court Palace, which were last year £373, and are now £1,262. Now, allowing the Board of Works the utmost latitude which the most generous Treasury could possibly sanction, I do think that such a remarkable increase for these two services require some special explanation. So far from the Vote being reduced, although the figures are as the hon. Member has stated, yet they do not quite tally with the Estimates of last year; because, although the sum last year was put down at £3,358, the sum expended was really only £2,250, so that, instead of there being a diminution of £180 this year, there is really an increase over the Estimates of last year by £1,488.

My hon. Friend is quite correct in saying that there has been an increase during the past two years. The expenditure in 1880 was about £2,000; in 1881, £1,800; in 1882, £1,900; in 1883, £2,000; and last year, £2,250. It will be seen, therefore, that the sum has constantly varied. But this year the additional expenditure, I am informed, is in connection with Hampton Court Palace, and it has been occasioned by the improvements in the supply of gas; and in making better provision against fire by securing a more abundant supply of water it has been found necessary to construct large tanks.

What is the explanation in regard to the increase in connection with Windsor Castle?

I can offer no explanation upon that point; but it seems to me that the whole Vote for Windsor Castle is less this year than last.

There are some small items here which, although they do not amount to a great deal, require, I think, a little explanation. I refer to the items for rent. It is difficult to understand how £10, in the shape of rent, has to be paid for Windsor Castle; £25 for Windsor Home Park, and other sums of the same character in regard to the other Palaces and Pleasure Grounds. I would, therefore, venture to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to give the Committee some explanation in reference to these items in the Vote. There are some other items of rent which come on later in the Estimates, and probably the explanation given in reference to these items will afford some explanation as to those which still remain.

I have no doubt that the Members of Her Majesty's Government who have defended the Vote have given all the explanation which they are able to give, or of which they are possessed; but I hardly think that hon. Members will be satisfied with the explanation given, and I think the replies we have got have proved very conclusively how useless it is for the Committee to discuss the Estimates in the form in which they are now presented to us. If we call in question some particularly glaring instances of extravagance, some outlay which hon. Members cannot understand, the Secretary to the Treasury makes the best explanation he can, and says he will inquire into the matter; but nothing more is ever heard of the subject alter the Vote is passed. We had a signal example of that in the annual Question put by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) respecting the foals reared at the Hampton Court Stud. I believe there are some foals, because I have seen notices of the sale of them in the newspapers. I would point out to the Committee how much more advantageous it would be if there were a Select Committee of this House sitting in one of the rooms upstairs who would call before them the heads of Departments, and all who are re- sponsible for the spending of money, so that they might be able to give some satisfactory explanation of the different items of public Expenditure included in the Votes. If no satisfactory explanation of the Expenditure were forthcoming, then the Committee of Supply could, with confidence, disallow the Vote. At the present moment hon. Members are very much in the dark. There is a strong desire on the part of the Committee to give full effect to principles of economy in the Expenditure of the country; but when we question a particular item, and point out its extravagance, the Secretary to the Treasury and his assistants can give us no explanation. What we have been experiencing during the last half-hour forms a conclusive proof of the inability of the Committee to discuss the Votes which are brought before them, and shows the necessity of having a Select Committee appointed by the House to examine the Estimates beforehand with power to call the head of every Department before them.

Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the late First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) will come to the assistance of the Government, and be able to give the information asked for. The right hon. Gentleman, who has always performed in a satisfactory manner all the work he has undertaken in the House, may have better information in regard to the items included in this Vote than hon. Gentlemen now upon the Treasury Bench have yet had time to attain. But there is another suggestion I would also make, and that is that it would be well if in some things a Liberal Government would take a leaf out of the book of their Conservative opponents. Some years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith) was Secretary to the Treasury, he made a statement on going into Committee of Supply. In introducing the Estimates the right hon. Gentleman made a long and general statement, pointing out the difference and variations made in the Estimates for the year; and I have no hesitation in saying that the explanations which the right hon. Gentleman gave were most useful to the Committee, and tended materially to shorten the dis- cussion of the Estimates in Committee. A Liberal Government had never adopted that plan; but, in my opinion, it is the right and proper plan to pursue, and it is the plan adopted in every other country with which I am acquainted. It is an invariable practice in other countries to explain the Civil Service Estimates; and I venture to hope that before an other year comes round, if Her Majesty's Government are still in Office, the Secretary to the Treasury will undertake to make a statement to the Committee. It would be an economy of time, because the Committee would at once have pointed out to them all the heads of Expenditure on which there is any variation, and the Committee would be able to do their work more thoroughly than they can do now. As to the appointment of a Committee to go through the Estimates beforehand—

The question raised by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) is altogether apart from this Vote, and it would not be regular to pursue it further.

Then I will do no more than express a hope that the matter will be considered by Her Majesty's Government; and I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) will be able to give an explanation in regard to these Estimates, if Her Majesty's Government are unable to do so.

I had no time to rise before the hon. Member rose himself, immediately after the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) sat down, or else I intended to rise at once to give an explanation, as far as I could, of the points to which attention has been called. The explanation of the term "rent" referred to by the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) is a very simple one. These are old quit-rents, and the items appear in the Estimates year after year. There is no question as to the liability of the country to pay them. With regard to the general question, I can only express my entire agreement with the hon. Member for Forfarshire and the hon. Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid). So long as the present slovenly, haphazard, inconclusive, unsatisfactory, extravagant, and foolish system is adopted, I can only do my best in answering such questions as may be put to me. I hope the House will discover some better mode of dealing with the Estimates; and, for my own part, I should be very glad to make such a general statement as that which has been referred to as having been made some years ago by the right hon. Member for the Strand (Mr. W. H. Smith), when he was Secretary to the Treasury.

In answer to the challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid), I must confess that I do not bear in my recollection all the items which were brought under my notice when I was First Commissioner of Works, and which I was required to consider in their preliminary stages before they were ready to be submitted to the House. If the hon. Member could only see the piles upon piles of Papers in the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Works connected with these Estimates, he would, I am sure, excuse me from bearing the whole of them in my memory. These piles of Papers are sent up to the Treasury along with our request that investigation should be made, especially when there is any increase proposed in any particular Vote, or even when there is a proposal for a reduction. The Treasury, I need scarcely say, applies a very strict and severe scrutiny to any proposal for an increase, although they are always ready to take immediate advantage of any opportunity for effecting a reduction. I can only say that while I was in the Office of Works all the Estimates that were sent up to the Treasury were most closely, and even most severely scrutinized; and I regret that it is not in my power to enter into details in regard to every item which may now be subjected to the criticism of the Committee.

Perhaps the Committee will allow me to explain. I had no desire to cast any reproach against my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury; but what I meant to say was that the Secretary to the Treasury, having the work of the Office of Works thrown upon him suddenly, and in addition to his own, could hardly be expected to know the details of the work of the Department as well as my right hon. and learned Friend opposite, who was in Office at the time the Estimates were prepared. I appealed to my right hon. and learned Friend, because I believed that he was in the best position to give information to the Committee; but, in doing so, I had no desire to reproach my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who does his work so ably and so admirably.