asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will inquire into the cases of Philpots and wife, and Edwards and wife, aged paupers of the Hastings Workhouse, who against their wishes are separated; and, if the Local Government Board will consider the advisability of taking steps to alter a long-existing arrangement at the infirmary of the Halstead (Essex) Workhouse, by which invalids, both on the male and on the female side, are placed in a small day ward with idiots and imbeciles?

I will inquire into the circumstances of the case, and if the Guardians have not provided proper accommodation I will see that the matter is attended to. I have at present no information as to the arrangement alluded to, at the Halstead Workhouse; but the matter will receive my attention.

, in rising to draw attention to the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards the close of the previous day's Sitting, that it was intended to devote a sum of £200,000 towards the repayment of 5 per cent which had been deducted from the coupons of the Egyptian bondholders, said, that although the announcement of the noble Lord was undoubtedly of a startling character, it had not received the discussion which its importance demanded. He was inclined to believe that this sum was offered as a sort of bribe to the bondholders and the Foreign Powers, at the expense of the British taxpayers, for the purpose of securing a sullen acquiescence on their part in the British occupation of Egypt. His contention was that the surplus out of which it was proposed to make the payment was not a real, but a sham surplus. He asserted, without fear of contradiction, that it was a sham surplus obtained by borrowing. There was, however, something much more serious beyond. He was afraid that the Egyptian fellahs had been very much squeezed in order to keep up a very severe revenue system, and that no allowance had been made for the depreciation of agricultural value. It might be possible in future years to make Egypt pay; but it could only be done on one condition, and that was that the expense of defending Egypt from foreign and other enemies was placed upon the British taxpayer. Such a course would, in his opinion, be most unjustifiable; but as long as the necessity existed it was improper to say that any surplus existed in Egypt. The expense of the British occupation of Egypt and of the employment of the military there was very large indeed. The extraordinary charges on account of Egypt exceeded £1,000,000; and, taking other matters into consideration, the cost would amount at least to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 per annum. But we gave even more than that, because the Egyptian Revenue was swelled by the Customs duties and the cost of the transport of the Army by railway. All these things involved the expenditure of British money, and the cost of the movement of British troops in Egypt was a very large item indeed. If hon. Members would inquire into the matter, they would find that, in truth, not one farthing of the £200,000 paid in by Egypt was a reality; and, in point of fact, the major part of the money came from the pockets of the British taxpayer. He was sure the Secretary of State for War, of all persons, must be most anxious to substitute an Egyptian Army for the British Army, now suffering so much in health and costing so much. But if an Egyptian Army was to be substituted, somebody must pay for it. At present the Egyptian Budget only allowed for an expenditure upon a Native Army which would be altogether inadequate for the defence of the country. He failed to understand why we alone of all the nations of the world should be required to pay for the defence of Egypt, surrounded as she was by warlike tribes always ready to pounce upon her. Other countries had quite as much interest in the defence of Egypt as this country, and ought to contribute to the necessary expenditure. The arrangement by which we received £200,000 for the expense we incurred in the defence of Egypt was not an international arrangement that bound us for any time, but was an arrangement during pleasure, which might be put an end to at any moment. In the present circumstances of Egypt we were bound to put an end to the arrangement, which was a most shameful one towards the British taxpayer, who had to pay an unreal surplus where there was no real surplus at all. Any surplus whatever ought to be applied to the relief of the burden upon the British taxpayers and to the cost of the Army engaged in the defence of Egypt, instead of being handed over to the bondholders. The bondholders were in the position of creditors to a bankrupt estate, and they should be bound to pay the cost of keeping the estate going. They were not entitled to receive the interest of the debt due to them in full, while others were paying for the defence of the country from which they derived all the benefit. Even if there were a real surplus, which he entirely disputed, it ought to be devoted to the relief of the British taxpayer from part of the burden imposed on him in defending the country. The announcement of the noble Lord, therefore, that the sum of £200,000 was to be surrendered in order to repay the 5 per cent deducted from the interest on the coupons of the bondholders was most startling, and it altogether reversed the principle laid down by the late Government, that the creditors in possession should pay something towards keeping the concern going. The principle was asserted by deducting the 5 per cent; and if we gave up that we should get absolutely nothing. To his mind, it was evident that it was only a bribe to foreign financiers to induce them to give a sullen acquiescence to our continued occupation of Egypt.

The question which the hon. Gentleman opposite has raised is, no doubt, one of the highest importance, and I make no complaint whatever against the hon. Gentleman for having given expression to his views in this House. At the same time, I must point out to him that today at half-past 12 he is simply repeating word for word what he stated earlier in the morning at half-past 2; and, moreover, that that which he stated at half-past 2 was completely and ably answered by my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs(Sir James Fergusson). The hon. Gentleman seems to forget, or to be callous to the fact, that he, although a typical representative of "dear old Scotland," has been pouring volumes of censure on the head of the late Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. He has censured without stint, and without any measure whatever, the occupation of Egypt, the financial arrangements of Egypt, the Soudan Campaign, and everything connected with Egypt. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: I always did so.] I must take entire issue with the hon. Gentleman upon that point. I was a close attendant in the last Parliament, and I have no recollection of hearing on the part of the hon. Gentleman anything so unlimited in the shape of censure. He is forgetful, or callous to the fact, that for neither the occupation, of Egypt, nor the financial arrangements of Egypt, nor the Soudan Campaign, nor anything connected with Egypt, is the present Government in the least responsible. The whole responsibility for the arrangement which the hon. Member holds up to execration as being the most infamous arrangement ever made by any country rests with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, of whom the hon. Gentleman professes to be so warm a supporter. Having made these remarks, I will now pass on to the particular point which seems more than any other to exercise the mind of the hon. Member. He declares that the repayment in 1887 of 5 per cont on the coupons deducted from the bondholders in 1885 would be an act of gross iniquity. It is not my business to pronounce an opinion on that matter. It may be so; I cannot say. All I have to point out to the hon. Member is that neither the Egyptian Government nor Her Majesty's Government have the slightest option in the matter. They are bound by international engagements with the Powers—engagements, again, concluded by the late Government and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. If the late Government—or, I would be more correct in saying, the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian's second Government—made a bad bargain, that is no affair of the present Government. All that we have to do with is this—they entered into solemn and binding engagements, with the consent of Egypt, with the European Powers, and these engagements it is our duty to carry out, and we are not at liberty to repudiate engagements which are disagreeable to us, and to insist on carrying out only those which are pleasant to us. Our duty is to carry out all our engagements with Foreign Powers. The case stands thus—the Egyptian Government are bound to the Powers by the Declaration and Convention of the 17th and 18th of March 1885, and by the Khedivial Decree of the 27th of July, to keep the charge on the yearly Revenue for administration expenditure within £5,237,000. It is absolutely out of the power of the Egyptian Government, or of Her Majesty's Government, to increase the expenditure for administration over and above that sum. As a matter of fact, it is limited by Treaty; and any surplus on the year's receipts is to be paid over to the Commissioners of the Public Debt for the purpose of making good the deduction of 5 percent from the interest on the several Egyptian loans sanctioned by the Convention. Again, I would entreat the hon. Member to recollect that we have no power to escape from that engagement. Egypt is bound next year, if there is a surplus over this £5,237,000, and must automatically repay the deduction of 5 per cent on the coupons. We have absolutely no power in the matter. But I must point out to the hon. Gentleman what the alternative would be, because it may be considered by many persons that we have made a good bargain in the matter. What is the alternative of our not paying? Suppose the Egyptian Government goes to the Great Powers and says that it is unable to pay? In that case the only alternative is an International Commission to examine into the finances of Egypt. The hon. Gentleman is quite as entitled as I am to form an opinion upon that subject; but I will state to the House that, in my opinion, and in the opinion, I believe, of all my Colleagues, the alternative of an International Commission would be a much greater evil to Egypt than the course now proposed to be taken. An International Commission might certainly represent in a very direct and aggressive manner the interests of those bondholders from whom the hon. Member is extremely anxious to protect the people of Egypt. From the whole tone of the hon. Member's remarks it is obvious to me that he has not examined the subject with that care which he should have exercised if he felt himself entitled to make such a sweeping condemnation of the course pursued by the late Government. He cannot have examined the legal position and obligations of Egypt to the Powers. He cannot have reflected for a moment on the absolute obligation imposed upon this Government by our presence in Egypt to support the Egyptian Government in fulfilling these obligations towards the Powers of Europe. At this period of the Session, I do not think it is desirable to enter into an elaborate review of the whole of this most melancholy story of our intervention in Egypt. We are not in any way responsible for anything that is taking place, and we cannot be held responsible. I certainly, for one, am not responsible, either directly or indirectly, because I have protested against the course which this country has pursued in reference to Egypt from beginning to end. But, being in Egypt, and having incurred enormous responsibility by our being there, the Government are perfectly determined to fulfil all the responsibilities and obligations imposed upon them by the Convention. We are bound to do so by honour and duty alike; and we will not give up our work or withdraw from our mission in Egypt until these responsibilities and obligations have been altogether and faithfully fulfilled.

said, he had intended to call attention to the oppressive conduct of the Medical Staff at the Post Office; but as the Postmaster General was not in his place, he would call attention to the subject upon some stage of the Appropriation Bill.

said, that he had also intended to put a Question to the Postmaster General on the subject of the results which had been obtained from the introduction of 6d. telegrams. When the Post Office Vote was taken at 3 o'clock in the morning, it was not to be expected that every Member of the House would be in his place; but when the Report was brought up it might have been anticipated that some observations would be made. However, as the right hon. Gentleman was not present, he would defer his remarks until the second reading of the Appropriation Bill.

said, that as the Postmaster General was at that moment in his place, he would take the opportunity of putting the Question to him which he had intended to put on the Report of Supply. He wanted to know what had been the financial result of the introduction of 6d. telegrams? It was now nearly a year since the cost of telegrams was reduced; and he thought it would be for the convenience of the public and of the House if the right hon. Gentleman would state whether the result had been satisfactory or not? He believed there had been a great increase in the number of telegrams sent; but he wished to know whether there had been any actual increase of revenue? It was desirable to know what the total result of the change had been; and whether the total income derived from this source had resulted in an increase or in a loss to the revenue?

said, he must apologize to hon. Gentlemen for his absence at the moment when the Report of Supply was brought on. He had not expected that the Resolution relating to the Post Office Vote would have been reached so early. He was afraid that he could not at present give a perfectly complete reply to the right hon. Member for Bradford; but he might say that the estimate of last year of the receipts from the 6d. telegrams had been exceeded. It would be indiscreet to say that this increase would continue, or even that the number would be maintained, because it might have been due to special causes. The experience of the Department was too recent to enable a conclusive opinion to be formed; but, as a matter of fact, during the first part of the year it appeared as if the estimate of loss, which had been fixed at £20,000, would be exceeded. But—owing, perhaps, to the General Election and other causes—the number of telegrams had been materially increased during the last quarter, and during the last 12 weeks he believed the number was more than 1,000,000 a-week, the largest number under the 1s. system having been 750,000 in one week. But he could not strike a balance of profit and loss, or say whether the recent increase was due to the action of only temporary causes, until he saw more of the results of the financial year. Of course, this great increase had entailed increased expenditure; but he must refrain from giving any speculative opinion upon the matter for fear that he might mislead the House. On the whole, he might say that the experiment which had been made in reducing the price of telegrams to 6d. had, it appeared to him, borne fruit more speedily than was anticipated. He was inclined to hope that, instead of exceeding the estimate of loss as was at one time feared, the loss due to the new system in the present year would certainly fall short of the estimate; and that, in fact, there was every reason to hope that, in a comparatively short time, the revenue would be equal to the expenditure.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to say what the percentage of increase in the telegrams had been in the course of the year—what, for instance, was the percentage in the increase of the number at present over the number last year before the rate was reduced?

I will endeavour to obtain the information.

I told the right hon. Gentleman privately that it was part of the information I should ask for.

said, that he was sorry that he had been unable to obtain the information, and that he was, therefore, prevented at that moment from giving it; indeed, he was afraid it would be impossible, for the purpose the right hon. Gentleman desired, to attempt at the present moment to give any comparison between the number of telegrams received in any one week in the present year with the number received in the corresponding week last year before the reduction came into operation. He could only promise that he would make an endeavour to procure the information which the right hon. Gentleman desired.

said, he would repeat the Question on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill.

said, he desired to call the attention of the House to the conduct of the medical staff of the Post Office, which he alleged to be oppressive so far as the employés were concerned, and injurious to the public interests. Public attention had been prominently called to the subject by the death of Mr. Billinghurst, an official in the Telegraph Department of the Post Office. The Postmaster General, when his attention was called to the case, said that it was a most melancholy occurrence, and he quite agreed with the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. The right hon. Gentleman, however, went on to say that, in his opinion, no blame attached to the medical staff of the Post Office in the matter. He was at direct issue with the right hon. Gentleman on that point; and what he wished to ascertain was whether it was really true that no one was to blame in the matter, or whether the death of Mr. Billinghurst—and he was afraid the deaths of other officers similarly situated—were not the probable consequence of the system which now prevailed among the medical staff of the Post Office? He had been at great pains to make personal inquiries into this particular case and into others, and he was satisfied that there was ample justification for an inquiry. It was obvious that this was not a Party question. He was sure hon. Gentlemen opposite, equally with himself, would condemn any act that partook of the nature of oppression or cruelty to a public servant. He admitted at the outset that the medical staff of the Post Office had difficult duties to perform, and he did not pretend that the office was either easy or pleasant. But the emoluments were not inconsiderable, and the members of the staff were not precluded from taking private practice. He therefore thought that it might be fairly demanded from the staff that there should be a careful and discriminating system of examination—a system which should, on the one hand, be thoroughly efficient, as far as the public interests were concerned, and should not, on the other, be oppressive towards the public servants. The practice at the Post Office was this. When an officer was absent from his employment for more than a day he was compelled to forward a medical certificate; and the complaint he (Mr. Pickersgill) had to make in the case of Mr. Billinghurst arose from the fact that in that instance the medical certificate sent to the Post Office had been ignored. He had been in communication with several eminent medical men, and one of them frankly told him that there were medical practitioners in London and elsewhere who would give a certificate without any real examination of the patient, and really upon the ipse dixit of the patient himself. Therefore, it was not to be expected that the medical staff of the Post Office should necessarily accept every medical certificate submitted to them. At the same time, they ought to be guided by the etiquette of the Profession, and whenever a medical certificate was forwarded to them they were bound to exercise the greatest possible care, first, as to summoning the patient to the Post Office, and, secondly, in examining him when he presented himself. Until the medical officer of the Post Office did that he was not entitled to ignore the medical certificate. He had not only made a personal inquiry into this case, but also into several others, with which, however, he would not trouble the House. He would, however, mention that in one case where the patient had a certificate that he was unfit for duty, all that the medical officer of the Post Office did was to look at his tongue and feel his pulse. Now, he maintained that an examination of that kind was not only unprofessional, but dangerous. Mr. Billinghurst died on August 9. He had been absent from duty from July 10 until the 23rd, and he received a medical certificate from a doctor at Dalston, which was duly forwarded to the Post Office. On the 23rd he attended by order of the Post Office to be examined by the medical officer of the Department. He was seen by Dr. Sinclair, and Mr. Steet was also in the room, and what took place was only known to those two gentlemen. The account given by Mr. Billinghurst to his father, mother, and brother—an account repeated by him on his death-bed, and therefore invested with all the solemnity of a dying declaration—was that Dr. Sinclair told him he was making a fuss about nothing, and that he must resume duty at once. Mr. Billinghurst said that he was too weak; and, to quote his own words, he had a regular row with the doctor, when he obtained an extension of leave from Friday until Monday. He regarded his return to duty on Monday as compulsory, and exhibited the greatest possible concern about it. It was only fair to say that the medical officers of the Post Office gave a different account of the interview. They said that Mr. Billinghurst told them he was feeling much better, and would be able to resume duty on the following Monday. Well, it would be unbecoming in him (Mr. Pickersgill) to charge officers of the Crown with any deliberate misstatement. He would not do it, but would simply leave the conflict of evidence which had taken place upon this matter as he had stated it to the judgment of the House. It was not disputed that from the Monday on which he returned to duty—that was to say, from Monday, July 26, to Saturday, July, 31—Mr. Billinghurst was on duty. On the Tuesday he consulted the medical officer again, and again on the Friday; and then on the following Monday, August 2, which was a Bank Holiday, Mr. Billinghurst was taken by his father in a cab to consult Dr. Edward Clapton, of London Bridge, and from him he obtained a certificate of unfitness for duty. On the Thursday in that week Mr. Billinghurst was ordered to attend the medical officer of the Post Office, if able to leave the house. It would he as well to point out that the medical officer had seen Mr. Billinghurst only on the previous Friday, and that, subsequent to the Friday, he had had in his possession a certificate that Mr. Billinghurst was unfit for duty, signed by a man so eminent in his profession as Dr. Edward Clapton. In these circumstances, and carefully weighing both sides of the question, he (Mr. Pickersgill) had no hesitation in saying that the summons of August 5 requiring Mr. Billinghurst to attend at the Post Office, if able to leave the house, was a most injudicious, harassing, and unprofessional act on the part of the medical officer of the Post Office. Mr. Billinghurst did not attend, but sent a certificate from Dr. Wadsworth, of Dalston, who had stated that on August 6 Mr. Billinghurst was in a dying state. On August 9 the medical officer of the Post Office asked the dying man to forward a certificate of the nature of the fever that he was alleged to be suffering from, and the reply received was that Mr. Billinghurst had already died of typhoid fever. Of course, he (Mr. Pickersgill) did not for a moment desire to maintain that the medical staff of the Post Office were so inhuman as knowingly and wilfully to harass a dying man; but what he submitted to the Postmaster General, and what he wished to force upon his attention, was this—that it was the natural and probable consequence of the present careless system of the medical officers of the Post Office that there should be a recurrence at not unfrequent intervals of what the right hon. Gentleman himself styled "melancholy events." He desired also to point out that this system was not only oppressive to the staff, but that it was also very injurious to the public interest, and he would tell the right hon. Gentleman how it was so injurious to the public interest. Men of excellent character were to his knowledge harassed by the medical officers, with the result in one case that a gentleman who, if he had been simply allowed a few days' additional leave, would have been entirely restored to health, by being peremptorily ordered to resume duty had a relapse, the consequence being that, instead of being absent for only a day or two, he was obliged to remain away for a very long period. In this conspicuous case an officer occupying a very fair position in the Service and of excellent character—as his superior officers would testify—was peremptorily ordered by Dr. Field to resume his duty; he resumed it under protest; was at the head office for a day or two, and then was absent in all about 50 days. As to this Dr. Field, he had asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) the other day under what authority he was employed at the Post Office in a medical capacity, because his name was not to be found in The Post Office Directory as on the medical staff. The right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to reply that the appointment was made under the authority of his Predecessor. It made no difference to him (Mr. Pickersgill) who was Chief of the Post Office—his action would be the same in any case. Dr. Field was employed at the Post Office for five weeks, and paid—let particular attention be given to this—at the rate of £3 3s. a-week out of a sum of £100 provided for the purpose of remunerating substitutes for medical officers under leave. The duty of Dr. Field, it was said, was to perform all the duties attaching to the post of the medical officer whose place he was taking. Well, during his five weeks' engagement Dr. Field actually did order the officer alluded to to resume duty, and that gentleman was obliged to obey, in spite of his most strenuous protests. With these facts in view a strong appeal must be made to the House. Was it right that this tremendous power of ordering an officer to resume duty, in spite of his protest, backed up by a medical certificate, should be placed in the hands of a person who was only occasionally employed at the rate of £3 3s. a-week? The Postmaster General had been most careful to say that Dr. Field had to perform all the duties attaching to the office of the gentleman whose place he was taking. Was it not, then, a most astounding thing that a person receiving £3 3s. a-week was called on to discharge all the duties of an office, the ordinary emolument of which was no less than £983 per annum? He (Mr. Pickersgill) asked hon. Members—and especially those amongst them who belonged to the Medical Profession—what kind of medical man could they get for £3 3s. a-week? And suppose they could get a medical man competent to discharge these important duties at the rate of £3 3s. a-week, then he charged the Postmaster General with a scandalous waste of public money in paying a gentleman no less than £983 per annum to discharge the duties. He objected to this item of £100 for substitutes altogether, and if he were in Order he should move the reduction of the Vote by that sum. Without the sum of £100 the cost was enormous, being no less than £2,627. The permanent staff comprised four medical officers and one dispensing assistant; and yet, in spite of this large staff, the country was asked to pay £100 to provide substitutes for these gentlemen whilst they were absent on annual leave. Speaking as an old Government official, so far as his experience went there was no parallel case. He appealed to the Postmaster General to say whether, when any of the clerical secretaries of the Post Office, or when any of the chief permanent officials were away on vacation, he came to the House and made application for a sum to enable him to provide substitutes? Certainly not. These gentlemen went away annually; but those who remained at home distributed among themselves the work of their colleagues who were on leave, so that the duties of the Office were carried on satisfactorily, without the employment of anybody in the shape of a substitute. This item of £100 seemed to him, at all events in the absence of further explanation, to bear upon it all the marks of a jobbing transaction; and, in conclusion, if he were in Order, he begged to move to reduce the amount by the sum of £100.

It would not be in Order to put the Motion. The Question before the House is that leave be given to bring in the Bill. The hon. Member moves to strike out an item; but he cannot do that on the introduction of a measure.

said, he would content himself with the observations he had made, while expressing a hope that the Postmaster General would at the last moment modify the statement he had submitted the other day, that no one was to blame in the matter. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that such words as those, spoken with all the authority of the Parliamentary Chief of a Department, were calculated to produce a bad impression and a considerable amount of dissatisfaction among the subordinate officials of the Department; and, furthermore, were calculated to inspire in the minds of the public some doubt as to the equity of the right hon. Gentleman's administration.

said, he cordially concurred with every word which had fallen from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill). Representing, as he (Mr. Isaacson) did, a large East End constituency, where a great number of Post Office officials resided, he could assure the House that a spirit of dissatisfaction existed among the people with regard to the manner in which the Medical Department of the Post Office was conducted. He did not intend to detain the House with any special remarks of his own, because the hon. Member opposite had fully stated what was required to be done; but he did hope and trust that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to make a most searching inquiry into the lamentable case to which the attention of the House had been directed. He was not sorry that the hon. Member had been unable to move the reduction of the Vote, as that would have had the effect of somewhat retarding the progress of the Bill; but he hoped that, after the Recess, the Postmaster General would be able to find time to give them an ample account of what had been done during the vacation in the matter of investigating the Post Office medical arrangements, and bringing about a more satisfactory condition of things.

said, he could not find fault in any way with the course that had been taken by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pickersgill) in dealing with this question, in which he took such great interest. No doubt, the hon. Member had a right to speak on behalf of the Post Office Service, having a considerable number of friends in it; and his large acquaintance with the duties of gentlemen in the Postal Service entitled his opinion to considerable weight. In connection with this question of the Medical Department of the Post Office, however, the hon. Member had, perhaps, been a little swayed by the very natural sympathy he felt for the officers of a Department with which he had been himself connected to take a more favourable view than he otherwise might have done of the complaints which had reached him to the detriment of the Medical Department. With regard to the case to which the hon. Member had first referred—the case of Mr. Billinghurst, who had been a very valuable officer, and whom the Department was very sorry to lose—he had given the hon. Member all the information it was in his power to give the other day; and he thought the hon. Member would, see that in the conflict of testimony, which he himself admitted, it would ill-become him (Mr. Raikes) to concede that there was any case proved against the Medical Department, when that Department stoutly maintained one view of the question, and it was, unfortunately, now impossible to substantiate the other.

There is no conflict as to the summons to the Post Office on August 5. That is admitted by the medical officers; and I submit that it was a most injudicious and unprofessional act.

wished to point out that the treatment Mr. Billinghurst had been receiving at the hands of the Post Office medical officer had not been for the malady which ultimately caused his death. He had been suffering from another disorder; therefore the Post Office Medical Department could not be to blame for not having taken count of the illness which proved fatal. There had been no reason to suppose that this gentleman was suffering from typhoid fever until the news was received that he had died of it. The malady which ultimately caused death might have resulted from previous ill-health; but, so far as he (Mr. Raikes) knew, there was no material at the disposal of the medical officer to lead him to believe that Mr. Billinghurst was at that time likely to suffer from so serious a com- plaint. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the weight which should be attached to medical certificates; but he (Mr. Raikes) was glad to recognize the fact that the hon. Member saw that it was absolutely necessary that there should be supreme authority in the shape of a medical officer for the Service, and that it would be impossible to conduct the Service if the certificates of outside medical men, however eminent they might be, were accepted as final. It was no doubt the fact that misunderstandings had arisen in some cases owing to the wording of one of the Circulars which were sent to public servants who were ill. He did not consider this wording altogether satisfactory, and he had therefore made some addition to it to render it quite plain that these persons should not be put under, so to speak, compulsion to appear, if their state of health rendered it impossible. This alteration had already been effected in regard to the Circulars issued to some Departments, and he would take care that it should be rendered general and universal. He would rather not re-argue this question over again, because he did not think that he had really anything to add at this moment to what he had said before in regard to it. The hon. Member himself would readily admit that it was quite possible for a medical officer to make a mistake, bonâ fide, looking at the large number of employés there were in the Post Office. Considering the circumstances of the case, it was very natural that small mistakes should, from time to time, occur on the part of even the most careful medical officer; but he was inclined to believe, from the nature of the evidence they had before them, that the number of mistakes which had occurred in the Post Office was extremely insigficant considering the extent of the Department, the number of persons employed in it, and the great diligence the medical officers were bound to exercise among so many in order to keep persons up to their work. With reference to the case of Dr. Field, he was informed that the gentleman who desired leave of absence from the medical officer had suffered from a complaint which, though it might have been very painful, was, at any rate, not regarded as very serious—that was to say, from a troublesome boil. From a manuscript record of the case in question it appeared that, in consequence of the complaint from which the officer applying for leave of absence suffered—which was of a kind usually very transitory in its character—lasting for a considerable period, repeated intervals of leave were allowed. Dr. Field had desired to see this gentleman, because when he assumed the duties of medical officer he found that the patient had already been allowed five weeks' leave. This was considered an unusually long period of absence on account of so simple a complaint as a boil. He (Mr. Raikes) was inclined to think the House would accept that view. Various other periods of rest were allowed the patient; and, on the whole, this gentleman had had no serious reason to complain of having been treated with harshness or want of consideration. As to the general question of the Medical Department of the Post Office, the hon. Gentleman was of opinion that if the Chief of the Department received £983, that it was inconsistent to allow for substitutes who undertook the duties of those medical officers absent on leave so small a sum as £100—or £3 3s. per week in each case. No doubt on the face of it it did appear so; but, at the same time, in the interests of the British taxpayer, whom they all represented in the House, he thought that if, where a substitute was required, they could get the work performed by an able man for a small sum they would hardly be justified in increasing it. They believed that at the present time they received sufficient medical service of the most valuable kind for the remuneration which was paid. With regard to the salary of the chief medical officer, it was one of the highest attainable in the Department, and was, in the case of the gentleman now holding the office, the result of a long career in the service in which he was now chief. It was inconsistent on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite to suggest the abolition of the £100 appropriated to medical substitutes; and, judging from the tone of the hon. Gentleman's observations, one would rather have expected him to urge the Postmaster General to take steps to raise the amount. As to the duties of medical officers on leave being divided amongst their colleagues who remained at the Office, it would be impossible in this Department to adopt the practice which prevailed in other branches of the Service, for the reason that there was always likely to be a call upon the full strength of the Department. Owing to the enormous number of employés in the Post Office the work with the medical officers could never be said to be slack. Noctes atque dies patet atri januœ Ditis. He would not undertake to make a change in the direction of abolishing the £100 provided for substitute services; but he could promise the hon. Member (Mr. Pickersgill) that he would carefully and closely investigate the present position of the Medical Department. He had hardly had time as yet to make himself familiar with every branch of the large Department of which he had assumed the charge; but he would undertake to, as early as possible, investigate the status of the gentlemen who were employed as substitutes in the Medical Department, in order to see whether or not it was desirable to make any change in the arrangements. He assured both hon. Gentlemen that any individual case of grievance, or any case of maladministration in the Post Office, which they thought proper to communicate to him, should receive immediate and careful attention at his hands.

called attention to certain grievances connected with the trammel net fishing in Bantry Bay, which had been brought under his notice, and which, he trusted, the Chief Secretary for Ireland would find a means of remedying. It appeared, according to the information which reached him, that there were certain hours for setting and taking up nets, and the complaint was that trawlers interfered with the trammel nets, sometimes accidentally, but sometimes, there was reason to believe, wilfully. He thought it was desirable that this matter should receive attention, and that some regulations should be adopted which would prevent or diminish the inconvenience under which the trammel net fishermen now suffered. He desired, further, to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the fact that the local fishermen in Bantry Bay complained of being deprived of loans, or of difficulties being thrown in the way of their obtaining them, through the intervention of a gentleman named Payne, who was a local magistrate. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet would find means to remove the obstacles, which at present, there was reason to believe, existed in the way of these poor men obtaining the assistance which the Legislature intended them to receive, and which was so beneficial and even necessary to them in the successful prosecution of industries which it was desirable to foster by every practicable means.

said, that he was necessarily ignorant of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member, of which he then heard for the first time. He did not quite understand what it was that the hon. Member desired to have done in order to remedy the grievances of which the hon. Member complained on behalf of the trammel net fishermen. All that he could at the present moment do was to promise to call the attention of the Fishery Board and the Inspector to both the points which had been raised by the hon. Member, in order that they might carefully inquire into the matter, and take steps to remove any ground of complaint which might be found to exist.