asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Board of Trade has any authority over the Railway Companies in the matter of level crossings; and, if so, whether, in view of the large proportion of fatal accidents connected with railways occurring at level crossings, he will take such steps as are needful to secure the safety of railway servants and the public at these dangerous places?

Special powers are, in some cases, conferred upon the Board of Trade by the Private Acts of Parliament authorizing the construction of railways. Powers are also conferred on the Board of Trade by the Railway Clauses Act, 1863, Section 7, to direct a Company to carry the turnpike road or public carriage road either under or over the railway by means of a bridge or arch, instead of crossing the same on the level. This provision only affects level crossings authorized since 1863, and confers no powers with regard to foot-path crossings.

asked, whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that a great proportion of railway accidents occurred on level crossings; and whether he did not think that the Board of Trade should apply for further powers in the matter?

I am aware that a great many accidents have happened lately at level crossings, and the attention of the Railway Companies has been directed by the Board of Trade to the danger that exists. Further than that, in the present state of the law, the power of the Board does not go.

, asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the headmaster (Mr. Quinn) of the National School, Tandragee, is the correspondent of the Nationalist newspaper, the Morning News, of Belfast, and that he attends the Petty Sessions Court during school hours, to report its proceedings to that paper?

(who replied) said, he had to inform his hon. Friend that the Commissioners of National Education had fully investigated the charge against Mr. Quinn, and found there was no ground for it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Will the Land Commission Blue Books be arranged in future to show leaseholders' rent fixtures separately?

(who replied) said, the Land Commissioners had informed him that the Blue Books issued by them would show the rents fixed in the cases of leaseholders separately from those fixed for yearly tenants' valuation lists in the Land Commission Court.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as the Land Commission Courts require applicants to produce, at the hearing of their cases, certificates of the valuation of their holdings, to enable them to fix a fair rent, and, as the copies of the valuation lists furnished by the Commissioner of Valuation to clerks of unions do not show the value of land separate from buildings, it is the fact that the correct valuation of such buildings cannot be given in the certificates by clerks of unions; and, whether, therefore, as buildings, as a rule, are in Ireland erected by the tenants, arrangements can be made in the Valuation Office to show the valuation of buildings separately; and, if so, would the Land Commission object to alter their forms accordingly, as the valuation of buildings and of land are now lumped together therein?

(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners report that the practice which exists of requiring applicants to produce a certificate of valuation of their holding has been adopted for the very purpose of enabling the Court to ascertain how much of the gross Poor Law valuation is on the land and how much on the buildings. The Commissioners believe that the certificate of the Clerk of the Union is but a copy of the valuation furnished by the Valuation Office, Dubblin; and that the valuation books, as furnished to Clerks of Unions, do not distinguish the value of the land from that of the building. To alter the form of originating notice by specifying that the valuation should be that of the land alone would not be, in the opinion, of the Commissioners, an advantage; as in such cases, by reason of the trouble of getting the separate valuation in the first instance, the applicants would, in most instances, leave the originating notice incomplete. If the Valuation Office adopts the practice of supplying the information as to the separate valuation of land and buildings, in such case the Land Commissioners would be prepared to make an alteration in the form requiring each to be given, as the information would then be within the reach of applicants. The Commissioner of Valuation states, in another letter, that arrangements can be made at the Valuation Office to issue certificates to all applicants at a small fee, showing the area and valuation of land and the valuation of buildings separately.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he has entered a nolle prosequi in the case of the "Queen v. Sub-Inspector Somerville and Constable Ward? "

I have to say yes, Sir. It was done at the last Cork Assizes.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, If Mr. Fitzgerald, from the Board of Works Office, who visited Stowmarket recently to inquire into the sitting accommodation of the County Court, has made his Report; if it be true that a deputation of tradesmen, consisting of the leading men of the town, waited upon Mr. Fitzgerald to protest against the inadequate provision made for suitors, and recommending that the local Institate Hall be hired; if a Report of the complaints made has been furnished to him, will the same be laid upon the Table of the House; and, if it has been decided to hold all future Courts at the Institute instead of the old Courthouse?

Mr. Fitzgerald did recently visit Stowmarket officially, and while there he was waited upon by an informal deputation of merchants and others, who complained of the inadequate accommodation provided for the County Court in their town, and requested that the local Institute Hall should be hired for the purpose. Mr. Fitzgerald reported to me on the 30th of last mouth in favour of that suggestion; and I at once applied to the Registrar of the County Court for his opinion upon it. Unless the Registrar should raise any objection, which I do not at all anticipate, the desired change shall be made with as little delay as possible.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the reports are correct that the Slave Trade is still active in Morocco and the other towns of that State, and that the slave dealers have quite recently hawked their human victims about the streets, chiefly children and young negresses, offering them for sale; and, whether the Government will use its influence with the Sultan of Morocco to check this practice?

Her Majesty's Government regret that the Slave Trade still exists in Morocco, and that an open market for the disposal of human beings is held twice each week in Morocco city. The presumption, therefore, is that the trade is also active in the Provinces. Her Majesty's Minister has standing instructions to do what he can in discouragement of the practice; but active interference with it is not possible.

asked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, as representing the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the Board propose to remove the church called St. Mary-le-Strand, which so much blocks the way in the Strand, and is understood to be in a dangerous condition? And also a further Question in regard to the payment of compensation.

, in reply, said, that the only action that the Board had taken with regard to the church referred to had been to serve a danger notice on the rector and churchwardens based on the report of the district surveyor, to render the building safe. Some few years ago, several schemes were under the consideration of the Board for widening the Strand at this point, and forming a now communication with Holborn; but no particular plan had been decided upon, and, owing to financial considerations, no action had been taken on the proposals. The Board were not in possession of any facts with regard to the numbers of persons who used the church; and as to the Board making any compensation in the event of the church being done away with, that was rather a matter which would be dealt with in any proposal for widening the Strand.

asked, whether it had been considered that, if money was expended in repairing the church, it would be less likely that it would be acquired for widening the street.

said, the question bad only been considered generally in the way he had stated in connection with, schemes for widening the Strand.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he is aware that three cemeteries are being projected in East Ham, in defiance of the Local Authorities and the residents, although there are, in the immediate neighbourhood,—namely, West Ham, Manor Park, and Forest Gate, six cemeteries already; whether he will inquire if any necessity exists for these additional cemeteries, and as to the persons by whom they are projected; and, if the proposed cemeteries are found to be unnecessary, whether the Local Government Board has any powers by which the inhabitants of the districts can be protected from the nuisance and depreciation of property which must arise from the opening of new cemeteries in addition to those already existing there?

(who replied) said: I have received notice of the projected promotion of two cemeteries in East Ham. I have also received objections to their establishment from local bodies and residents. I understand that there are in the neighbourhood of East Ham numerous cemeteries which afford abundant accommodation for burials. As there is no closing order for East Ham, neither the Home Office nor the Local Government Board have any legal power to prevent the formation of the proposed cemeteries; and, therefore, it is not proposed to hold any Government inquiry into the matter.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the circumstances in connection with the Local Government Bill, with a view to the Local Authority having a voice in such a question?

Yes; I think it is a question well worthy of consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is aware that the Colonial Secretary for Natal is recently reported to have said, in the Legislative Council of that Colony, that

"It had always been understood that the annexation of Zululand would give the Colony an opportunity of getting rid of a large number of Natives;"

My attention has not been drawn to the report in question; but it has, undoubtedly, been for some time contemplated that a portion of the Native inhabitants of Natal, who came into the Colony from Zululand, during the troubles in that country and who are now overcrowded would seek to return, and might be accommodated in Zululand. The great necessity, however, of preserving peace and good order in Zululand, will render Her Majesty's Government specially careful not to sanction any scheme of transfer of Natal Natives to Zululand unless there is ample room for them. Any such scheme of transfer would have to be submitted to, and approved by, the Governor of Zululand before it could be carried into effect.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he is aware that the pouches issued to a Cavalry regiment, intended to carry 20 rounds of ball ammunition, were found, on a recent occasion, to be of such inferior workmanship as to give way in the stitching in many instances under the weight of only 10 rounds; whether, on the Report of the Commanding Officer upon these pouches (specimens of which were sent with the Report to Woolwich), the whole regiment was supplied with new pouches, which, on being examined and tested by the Commanding Officer, were found to be quite useless, and incapable of holding the ammunition they were intended for; and, whether, on a further Report being made to this effect, the Officer Commanding was ordered to retain these pouches?

(who replied) said: Not long since the ammunition pouches of a Cavalry regiment were found of an obsolete pattern, and were exchanged for new ones. The new ones were complained of as being too small to contain the required ammunition. On investigation, it was ascertained that this arose from the cartridges not having been put in the pouches in the manner laid down by regulation. As the same pouch is in general use in Cavalry regiments, and was found, on examination, to be quite serviceable, the regiment in question was directed to retain the supply.

asked the Secretary of State for War, When the Militia will be supplied with the valise equipment in place of the knapsack, the latter having been discarded by the Line 15 years ago?

(who replied) said: The exchange of the Militia knapsacks for the valise equipment involves considerable expense, and can only be made gradually. About 85,000 have been exchanged; and it is hoped that the condition of the store will allow of good progress being made during the present year.

asked the Lord Advocate, What are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to emigration from the Highlands of Scotland?

The Government have had under their serious consideration a scheme of crofter and cottar emigration for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland which has been drawn up by the Secretary for Scotland. Some points of difficulty have arisen in the course of the negotiations with regard to the security offered for the payment of the interest demanded on the capital proposed to be advanced by the Government so as to insure the Exchequer against loss. The Secretary for Scotland hopes to overcome this difficulty by obtaining, if possible, a guarantee from Local Authorities, or otherwise, for the additional security required; and if this very desirable object can be attained the Government will be ready to carry out the proposed scheme next Session, and, if necessary, to introduce legislation for the purpose.

asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if his attention had been called to the correspondence between the Foreign Office and the authorities of the United States with regard to the emigration of crofters to the United States of America, and also to a letter which appeared in the correspondence from Messrs, Henderson Brothers?

I am not able to answer the Question at all, except to say, in regard to the answer I have given, it does not relate to any emigration to the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that Ridingmasters and Quartermasters promoted from the ranks, and with more than 25 years' commissioned service, have, though strongly recommended by their respective Commanding Officers for the rank of major, been recently passed over in favour of officers of seven, 10, and 14 years' service; and, whether there is any, and what, objection to the promotion to the rank of major of officers who have risen from the ranks?

There is no objection whatever to the promotion of officers who have risen from "the ranks to the rank of major, and many cases have occurred in which such promotion has been given. But, as I have already fully explained to the House, it was decided upon the Report of a Committee which inquired into all the alleged grievances of quartermasters, that promotion to the rank of major should not be by seniority, but by selection, to fill some of the more important posts held by these officers.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the relieving officers of Districts Nos. 1 and 2 of the Belfast Poor Law Union are also acting as Assistant Registrars of Births, Marriages, and Deaths in their respective districts in contravention of the General Order of the Local Government Board of the 2nd of August, 1847; and, whether each relieving officer of this union resides within his own district, as directed by the Local Government Board Circular of the 16th of July, 1847?

(who replied) said: The relieving officers of Nos. 1 and 2 Districts of Belfast Union act as Assistant Registars of Births, Deaths, and Marriages for Nos. 3 and 4 Registration Districts respectively. The Local Government Board Order of August 2, 1847, has been rescinded. The General Order of December 18, 1882, which is now in force, does not require these officers to devote their whole time to the duties of their office. The Clerk of the Union reports that all the relieving officers live in their respective districts, with one exception—the relieving officer of No. 1 District. The Local Government Board will communicate with the Guardians in reference to the case of this relieving officer.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is true that the authorities at the Mint are issuing sots of the new coins complete, of which the current value is £9 5s. 3d., at the price of eleven guineas? Also, when the new 6d. coins were likely to be issued?

A large number of applications were received by the Deputy Master of the Mint for "proof" sets of the coins of the new designs; and it has been usual hitherto, in cases of new coinage, to prepare such "proof" coins and sell them to the public. The Treasury accordingly authorized the Mint to prepare such "proof" sets in the present case. Much additional labour was involved in the preparation of these coins, which had to be struck with great care in the medal presses (not the presses used for the ordinary Jubilee coins); and a charge of about 25 per cent above the nominal value of the coins had to be made to cover the cost of the manufacture of these "proof" sets. The ordinary coins are, as the hon. Member is aware, obtainable through bankers at the nominal price. As to the new 6d. coins, they are not being issued any further, on account of the objection raised to them that they may be made to resemble half-sovereigns if they are gilded. But there is a large stock still of old dd. pieces, and also of new 6d. pieces available. As to the gold pieces, the last intimation I had from the Mint and from the Bank of England was that there was a considerable stock of all the coins available. I am most anxious that the public should have access to the coins. There is some difficulty in finding the necessary machinery for supplying them; but I will give every facility I can.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that a firm of tobacco manufacturers in the North of Ireland have supplied some of their customers with tobacco containing over 35 per cent of moisture, contrary to the new Customs and Inland Revenue Act, and that influence is being brought to bear to prevent a prosecution; and, whether, if the law is not enforced in this case, other manufacturers will be similarly treated under similar circumstances?

I am not aware that a firm of tobacco manufacturers in the North of Ireland have supplied some of their customers with tobacco containing over 35 pel1 cent of moisture. I may say, however, that 12 tobacco manufacturers in Ireland have been found to have such tobacco in their possession. All these cases have been treated alike, as have similar cases in England. The manufacturers in question have all received a warning; but it has not been thought necessary as yet to proceed to a prosecution in any case. When laws are passed enacting changes in manufacturing processes, a certain discretion is always exercised in the first month or two before severe measures are adopted. In no case has any influence been brought to bear to prevent prosecution.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these cases there are in England?

The Question referred to Ireland; and, therefore, I made particular inquiries as regards Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know how many cases are in England, I will make the necessary inquiries?

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he will take into consideration the desirability of nominating to the Thames Conservancy Board a Member of Parliament representing a river-side constituency, there being no representative of the Conservancy in the House of Commons?

It would, no doubt, at times be of some advantage that the Board of Conservators of the Thames should be represented in the House; but, in view of the provisions of the Thames Conservancy Act, it would be practically impossible to lay down any hard-and-fast rule such as is indicated by the hon. Member.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Cappamore constabulary recently pulled down by force a banneret from the house of Mr. Martin Ryan, Towerhill, County Limerick, on which were the words "Evictors, come on;" whether Mr. Ryan, on same day, expected to be evicted by the Sheriff; and, whether the words on the banneret constitute a breach of the law; and, if not, by whose authority the police acted?

(who replied) said: The Constabulary Authorities report that on the 25th of August Martin Ryan, who had adopted the Plan of Campaign, was to have been evicted. He had barricaded his house, and in the evening fastened on the outside of the house a piece of calico with the words, "Plan of Campaign;" "Evictors, come on;" "No surrender." The words did constitute a defiance of the law, and were calculated to lead to disorder, breach of the peace, and obstruction to the law. The police sergeant, in the discharge of his duty, properly removed it.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, by paragraph 489b of the Royal Warrant of the 10th June, 1884, the Head Masters of the Royal Military Asylum, Chelsea, and of the Royal Hibernian Military School, Dublin, are to receive £250 per annum on appointment, rising by quinquennial increments of £25 to £350, so that after 20 years' service they should reach the maximum; whether, by the same Warrant, the second and third masters of the Royal Hibernian Military School are to receive £150 on appointment, with biennial increments of £5 to 180, so that after 12 years' service the maximum should be reached; whether the paragraph mentioned was inserted at the instance of Lord Morley's Committee in 1872, to remedy the anomalies and grievances then existing; whether the Head Master of the Royal Military Asylum, Chelsea, has got the full benefit of the Warrant, while the Head Master of the Royal Hibernian Military School has got but one increment, after 41 years' service; whether the second master, Royal Hibernian Military School, has also been given but one increment, though having upwards of 16 years' service, thus receiving less than either the third or fourth masters there, or the second, third, or fourth masters at the Royal Military Asylum; whether all other officials of both establishments have got the benefit of their service; whether this grievance has been repeatedly laid before the War Office Authorities since 1873, endorsed by the Board of Governors of the Royal Hibernian Military School, and hitherto ignored; and, whether payment will be made of the arrears accruing since the 1st April, 1874, when the Warrant took effect, amounting respectively to £165 for the Head Master and £85 for the second master, up to the 1st April, 1887; and, if not, why is the Royal Warrant made effective in every other case, both as to military and civilian officials, and not with reference to these?

(who replied) said: The masters of the Royal Hibernian Military School referred to in the Question had, according to their years of service, received the full benefit of the Warrant.

In consequence of the unsatisfactory answer of the hon. Gentleman, I shall call the attention of the House to the hardships endured by those officials when the proper Vote comes on.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction exists amongst the junior officers of Inland Revenue, owing to slowness of promotion and consequent loss of salary; whether their complaints have become more urgent in consequence of the scheme of re-organization which took effect on the 1st September instant, and which entails the abolition of a large number of appointments in the higher grades of the Service, thereby injuriously affecting promotion; whether, with reference to a statement made in this House by a Member of the Government on 12th April, 1886, that assistants of Excise attained the rank of ride officer after about five years' service, there are at present many assistants of almost seven years' service, whilst others, at the ordinary rate of promotion, cannot expect to attain the rank of ride officer until after nine or 10 years' service; whether, in the recent re-arrangement of salaries, assistants of long service have received no practical acknow- ledgment of their claims; and, whether, with a view to allay the prevailing discontent, and maintain the efficiency of an important branch of the Revenue Service, the Government propose giving any compensation to those whoso prospects have been injured, and who are suffering the disadvantage of deferred promotion?

The statement made on the 12th of April, 1886, conveyed the facts as they then were. It was, however found, on a recent revision of the Excise Establishment, that, owing to a large diminution in the number of brewers, a less number of officers was required for the service of the Revenue than formerly. This led to the re-organization which took effect on the 1st instant, by which the number of stations to which assistants would be promoted was reduced. As a set-off against this unavoidable disadvantage, the Treasury sanctioned an increase of salary being given to the assistants after three years' service, and another after six years'. In the rearrangement of salaries a small advantage was given to assistants of long standing. The reduction in the staff was the result of altered circumstances; and the best compensation was given to officers for deferred promotion that those circumstances allowed, due regard being-had to economy of administration. In estimating the effect of the recent reorganization upon the prospects of assistants, it must be remembered that if the places to which they can be promoted are fewer under the new system, the salaries of those places are higher.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Commissioners of Prisons are taking any measures for the systematic extension of the voluntary visitation of female prisoners by ladies under such arrangements as are admittedly working so satisfactory at Oxford, Worcester, and one or two other gaols?

Yes, Sir; the system is being extended by the Prison Commissioners as far as they are able. When an application is received for the appointment of lady visitor, the name is submitted for the approval of the Commissioners; and written instructions are then forwarded to her, in order that her benevolent functions, the value of which is fully recognized, may be carried into effect in the most systematic and useful manner, and with the co-operation of the Prison Authorities.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he is aware that the fishermen pilots on the cruisers detailed for the protection of the drift fishing boats on the North Sea, were last year insufficiently paid by the Government, and that the boat owners were obliged, at their own expense, to augment the pilots' pay considerably in order to obtain the services of efficient men; and whether the Government will supply fishermen pilots for these cruisers in the coming fishing season at their own expense?

Until the hon. Baronet put the Question on the Paper my attention had not been directed to this matter. As the Government are most desirous to co-operate with the fishermen in protecting them against the depredations to which they are now subject, I will make arrangements by which the remuneration given to fishermen pilots last year by the Admiralty shall be augmented.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Government will endeavour to replace such of the cruisers detailed for the protection of drifters in the North Sea as are obsolete by other cruisers, of an improved class like H.M.S. Hearty?

As the cruisers become unfitted for the service on which they are engaged they will be replaced by efficient vessels; but I can- not undertake to say that they shall be of the same class as the Hearty, as the replacements must depend on the vessels at the disposal of the Admiralty at the time.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether in view of the fact that no adequate compensation has been obtained in any case, by either private individuals or Trade Societies, from the owners of Belgian trawlers wilfully damaging British drift fishing, the Government will take up the first clear case arising, on behalf of the owner of the injured English boat, and will carry the case through, and see that justice is obtained?

In consequence of many allegations that the existing means of obtaining compensation for wilful damage to their property are not readily accessible in Belgium to British fishermen, Her Majesty's Government have instructed the Consul General in Belgium to take legal advice, and assist the aggrieved parties to bring a civil action in a test case in which criminality has been proved.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government has yet received the Report of Her Majesty's Consul General at Antwerp, who was sent to Ostend to report fully on the case of the Morning Star, the owner of which lost a considerable sum by not being able to land fish, or communicate with his agent, at Ostend on the 23rd August, and on other similar cases; and, whether he will take such stops as are necessary to secure compensation for British subjects who have suffered losses from Ostend rioters?

Mr. Grattan was sent to Ostend to report generally on the whole question of the fishery riots, and on the case of each individual British vessel which suffered in consequence of them. His general Report has not yet been received; but lie has reported the result of his inquiries into the case of the Morning Star. This vessel, it appears, entered Ostend Harbour on the morning of the 21th—not the 23rd. Her captain employed two boatmen to make his vessel fast to the dock wall. From them he learned what had happened, and they advised him to put to sea. He spoke to the Sluice Master, who alleges that he merely confirmed the statements of the men as to the general state of affairs. The Sluice Master was then asked by the captain as to procuring a tug, and he replied that at that early hour one was not procurable; but he asked the pilot of the English steamship Medley, which was about to leave, to tow the Morning Star out, which was done. The Sluice Master emphatically denied having advised or ordered the master of the Morning Star to quit the port. As regards compensation to British subjects who have suffered losses from the Ostend rioters, it appears that such claims should be addressed to the Municipality of Ostend. Her Majesty's Consular officers will be instructed to give such assistance as may be necessary to persons having cause to prefer them.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Mr. G. H. D. Wilson, of the Covenanted Civil Service of India, and late Political Agent of Cambay, was accused of having demanded the daughter of the Dewan of Cambay as a concubine; whether a Commission composed of two of the most experienced Members of the Indian Civil Service, Mr. J. G. Moore and the Hon. J. B. Naylor, was appointed by the Government of Bombay to make inquiry into this charge; whether, after a public investigation, both parties being represented by leading counsel of the Bombay Bar, the Commissioners found that the charge had been proved; whether their decision was upheld by the Government of Bombay; whether Viscount Cross has reversed this decision; and, if so, upon what grounds; whether Mr. Wilson is not to return to India; and, whether he is to be allowed to resign on a special pension; if so, what is the amount of this pension, under what Statute is it granted, and, will the people of India have to pay it?

I have to reply to this Question on behalf of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, who is still indisposed. The facts stated in the first three Questions are substantially correct. The Government of Bombay expressed concurrence in the finding of the Commissioners, but referred the matter to the Secretary of State, and postponed the issue of final orders until the proceedings had been considered by him. On the receipt of the Papers at the India Office the case was, in the first instance, referred by the Secretary of State to a Special Committee of his Council, which considered the evidence altogether insufficient to support the finding of the Commissioners in India. The Secretary of State, after careful consideration, came to the same conclusion; but recognizing the importance of the case, was anxious to obtain the independent opinion of high legal authority, and the whole of the Papers were accordingly laid before the Lord Chancellor. After attentive examination of them, he unhesitatingly gave his opinion that Mr. Wilson was entitled to an acquittal; and this view being in accordance with that of the Secretary of State and of the Indian Council, it was adopted. For reasons explained in the Secretary of State's despatch to the Government of Bombay, which will shortly be published in India, it was not thought desirable that Mr. Wilson should return to India. A retiring allowance will be granted to him; but its amount cannot now be stated, because before this could be determined a reference to the Government of Bombay was found necessary. The principle, however, on which it will be regulated is that it will fall short of the annuity to which he would have been entitled, on the completion of the ordinary term of service by an amount proportionate to the time by which his actual service is deficient.

asked, under what section of the Civil Servic Pensions Code pensions were granted?

said, he was unable to answer the Question; but he might say that the pensions were made up out of contributions; by members of the Civil Service from their pay, amounting to about two-thirds of the total amount; and Mr. "Wilson's pension would, therefore, be less in proportion to the time by which it would fall short of his full term of service.

wished to know whether there was any section of the Civil Service Pensions Code which was applicable to such a case as this?

asked the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question, which was not one relating to his own Department.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, on Sunday 4th September, an Orange mob made an attack on the passengers in the train at Killylea Station, County Armagh, with bludgeons and volleys of stones, as well as revolver shots; whether the County Inspector was written to the previous evening, warning him as to the intentions of the Orange party to attack the train; and, what steps the Resident Magistrate and County Inspector took to preserve the passengers at Killylea?

(who replied) said: The Constabulary Authorities report that a party of Nationalists returning by train from a meeting at Middle-town, County Armagh, while passing Killylea Station, which is essentially an Orange district, made use of party cries. This gave offence to some persons on the platform at the time, and resulted in stone-throwing and the use of sticks by both parties. There was no firing, except one shot from the train while leaving the station. A letter had been sent by a Mr. Gardner to Mr. Dobbyn, County Inspector, who happened to be on leave of absence. But as there was nothing to show it was not a private letter it was forwarded to him unopened. No special steps were taken for the preservation of the peace, as there was no disturbance anticipated. The Nationalists appear to have been altogether responsible for what occurred. Several complaints have been made as to their discharging revolvers and otherwise creating disturbances when returning by rail and cars from the meeting. In one instance a bullet cut through a boy's boot, grazing the skin and lodging in the heel of the boot, but, fortunately, without doing him further injury.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, If he can explain the circumstances under which the delay of nine months has arisen in paying to his legal representatives the amount of the effects of the late John Collins (Fleming) of the 2nd Battalion, Somerset Regiment, who met his death in Burmah in December of last year; and, whether the largeness of the sums of unclaimed effects of soldiers is due in any measure to the avoidable delays which take place in the realisation and distribution of them?

Great delay has arisen in making up the non-effective accounts of soldiers who have died in Burmah, and especially in the battalion referred to, in consequence of the very detached duties on which the troops were employed, coupled with the fact that their kits were left for the most part at Rangoon when the battalions moved up country. No instance is known of the relatives of a deceased soldier abandoning their claim upon his effects in consequence of delay in paying the money; and no case is added to the list of unclaimed effects until every effort has been made to discover the relatives entitled to the amount. I may add that the Secretary of State is always most desirous to distribute these estates with the least possible delay.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is now in a position to communicate to the House the decision of the Treasury regarding the promotion of Civil Service writers to Lower Division, clerkships; and, if not, whether he will be able to do so before the Session closes?

As I have stated, in answer to former Questions on this subject, the recommendations made by Departments are being considered by a Committee. The work is not yet complete, and I fear I may not be able before the close of the Session to make an announcement respecting the promotions to be made; but I shall make the promotions as soon as the work is complete.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information of a further outrage, committed by Venezuelan authorities, upon British merchants residing in the adjoining Colony of Trinidad; whether a lighter, belonging to Mr. John Cumming, one of the principal British merchants at Port of Spain, Trinidad, despatched with monthly supplies only for his estate and hospital at Cedros, also in Trinidad, driven by squally weather into Venezuelan waters while beating up the coast, and, anchoring there, waiting for turn of tide to get back to the Trinidad shore, was seized by the Venezuelan Revenue boat, and taken, with the crew, as prisoners, to Giuria, where, although proof was given of the innocent nature and facts of the case, the Venezuelan authorities procured judgment to be given against the vessel, gave 48 hours only to appeal, and condemned the captain to three months' imprisonment; whether the former outrages committed by Venezuela by the seizure, ill-treatment, and false imprisonment of the passengers and crews of the Henriettaand Josephine, and their vessels, which outrages were also accompanied by a gross perversion of justice, under the name of a judgment, are still unredressed, and the claims and remonstrances made by Her Majesty's Government therefore are still unheeded; and, whether, in face of the contemptuous indifference shown to these claims and remonstrances, and the further outrages committed and threatened by Venezuela upon British subjects, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to enforce respect to its demands and to protect the Colonists and their property from similar outrages in future, or whether the Colonists must, in case of future assaults upon or seizure of their persons or pro- perty, defend themselves or secure other assistance?

Information has reached Her Majesty's Government of the seizure referred to in the Question, which will receive immediate attention; but there has not yet been time to examine the circumstances of the case. In the meanwhile, one of Her Majesty's ships has arrived at Trinidad, having been summoned by the Governor of the inland. No redress has yet been given by the Venezuelan Government in the cases of the Henrietta and Josephine; but Her Majesty's Government cannot allow matters to remain on that footing.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the portion of the old Pier at Ballycotton that projects into the new harbour has not been removed and the foundation made level with the bottom of the harbour on either side; whether he is aware that as much as four feet of this portion of the old pier still remains which is exposed at low water spring tide, and constitutes an obstruction dangerous to shipping; whether it is a fact that, while the new pier was in course of construction, tons of rubble—namely, stones, earth, and rubbish, were blown off the new pier into the harbour, forming a bank of rubble alongside the pier, which prevents fishing boats lying within a distance of 20 feet from the wall, whereas formerly fishing boats were able to reach and lie beside the old pier at half tide; and, whether the Board of Works will order the entire removal of the portion of the old pier referred to, and the dredging of the rubble, which is dangerous, and robs the new pier of half its value?

(who replied) said: I learn by telegram that this work is still in the hands of the contractor, who is bound to remove altogether the portion of the old pier which projects into the new harbour; and he will also be obliged to remove any rubble, stones, earth, or rubbish which may have been allowed to fall into the harbour.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any Report has been received with reference to the sergeant in charge of the police station at Pike, County of Tipperary, having been drunk on the evening of the 30th June last when absent on duty at Lorrha Petty Sessions; and, if not, will he cause inquiry to be made into the fact?

(who replied) said, this Question had been repeatedly asked, and he had inquiries instituted. He had received a Report from the District Inspector, from which it appeared that the sergeant, who was a most zealous and efficient officer, had earned the hostility of the local branch of the National League. The District Inspector was himself present at the Petty Sessions, and said there was no ground for the allegation contained in the Question.

The man is regularly drunk.

Order, order !

asked the Postmaster General, Whether complaints have reached him of the irregularity in firing the Greenwich time gun on the Marina, in the City of Cork; and, whether some arrangement could be made to insure that the gun should be fired punctually at noon, as in other ports? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether this gun had not really become the laughing stock of the city, exhibiting what I may call wilful eccentricity in sometimes going off for weeks, and then not going off at all?

In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that no complaint has reached me of irregularity in the firing of the time gun on the Marina at Cork. No arrangement has been made with this Department for the supply of the Greenwich time signal at noon. At the request of the Harbour Commissioners the signal is supplied daily at 10 o'clock, and the Commissioners, I am informed, make their own arrangements for firing the gun at 1 o'clock. Therefore, the Post Office is not responsible for any irregularities that may occur at that hour. The signal cannot be supplied to any Provincial town at noon; but if it is the wish of the Commissioners that it should be supplied to Cork at I o'clock, as at some other places, I shall be glad to receive an application from them on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs, If it is a fact that the frontier between Turcomania and Afghanistan has been so delimitated as to leave all the fords on the Pendjeh, Murgab, & c, used by the nomadic pastoral tribes, in the hands of the Russians?

No, Sir, it is not a fact; and I may say that in the hon. Member's Question there are names which I do not recognize. There is no river called the Pendjeh on any map I have seen, nor is there any place called Turcomania. It may have some relation to Mervousness.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Turcoman-land is not placed on most maps as "Turcomania?"—the land of the Turcomans? He may not be aware of it; but—

Order, order !

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Petition for the incorporation of Haslingden was presented; whether it was signed by a large majority of the inhabitant ratepayers, representing about two-thirds of the net rateable valuation; whether any cause operates against the grant of the Charter; whether an inquiry has been held; and, if so, whether a Copy of the Report of the Commissioners will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether, if no inquiry has been held, an inquiry will now be ordered?

A Peti- tion for the incorporation of Haslingden was presented at the Privy Council Office on the 20th of November, 1886. It was signed by persons representing about a half of the net rateable valuation. The inhabitants of a portion of the district objected to the grant of a Charter, and expressed a wish to be joined to Accrington. An inquiry was held, by direction of the Lords of the Council, on the 15th of February last. The Reports of the Commissioners are confidential documents, and it has never been the practice to make them public.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will lay upon the Table the Papers regarding the compensations for loss of office in the Transvaal, showing the grounds on which they were awarded, and also the grounds on which subsequent offers of service were declined?

Sir William Gurdon's Report, to which I referred for particulars of these cases last Tuesday night, was confidential, and I therefore only offered to show it to the hon. Member; but I will send him extracts from it which bear upon the question of these pensions, and I hope this will satisfy him. But if he should desire any further information, and will let me know, I will endeavour to give it to him.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it has come to his knowledge that Mr. Walter Ahern, the Surveyor of the Northern Postal Division of Ireland, is about to seek retirement on pension; if so, upon what grounds, what is his present length of service, and what will be the probable amount of pension to which he will be entitled; whether it is a fact that he has only retained his present position as surveyor for about six years; whether there is any limit of age for candidates applying for vacant surveyor-ships; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of fixing the limit of age for applicants not to exceed 40 or 45 years, so as to insure that the appointment will fall to a man of sufficient energy, who will not seek it for the purpose of retiring a few years subsequent to its being conferred upon him on the increased pension which retirement from the position entails; and, whether he will consider the question of transferring the present headquarters of the Northern Division from Dublin, which is 45 miles beyond the southern limit of that district, to a more central point in the Division?

I have no knowledge whatever of Mr. Ahern's intentions. He has about 38 years' service. The other question will receive consideration whenever the occasion arises.

asked if it was the fact, as stated in the Question, that the headquarters of the Northern Division were in Dublin?

said, there was no doubt that the present headquarters of the Northern Division were in Dublin. He would, as he had said, consider the question of their transference when the occasion arose.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the sum of £5,000 voted by Parliament towards the drainage of the River Barrow, Whether the Government intend to bring forward legislation dealing with the subject of the drainage; whether that legislation will be introduced next Session; and, if so, at what period of the Session; and, whether the legislation will proceed on the lines suggested by the Royal Commission, and particularly whether effect will be given to the recommendation of the Commission that a free grant of £75,000 shall be made for the purpose of the proposed drainage?

(who replied) said, the Government did intend to introduce a Bill dealing with the Barrow drainage next Session. The Bill would be based generally on the lines suggested by the Royal Commission. The Government were not prepared to give any promise in regard to a free grant of any or a special sum. They would not be in a position to do so until they had before them the Reports of the Royal Commission on other questions besides arterial drainage which had been referred to them. The Bill would deal with the recommendations of the Commissioners as a whole.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there is any Treasury Minute, or other Regulation, which limits the annual Vote for "Criminal Prosecutions, Repayments to Counties and Boroughs;" and, if so, what is the date, and what are the terms of such Minute?

The repayment of the costs of criminal prosecutions is now regulated —subject to the Resolution of this House in Committee of Supply and to the terms of the Appropriation Act—by Treasury Minute of January 29, 1875, which deals with the "costs of prosecutions at Assizes and Sessions and under the Summary Statutes," the latter being at that time the Criminal Justice and Juvenile Offenders Acts.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the statements contained in the extract from The Daily News, as to recent occurrences in Ballinasloe, be substantially true; whether the following statements correctly describe what took place: —

"At half-past 10 o'clock on Friday last the police arrested a man for drunkenness. A few people assembled and shouted, as the police treated the prisoner very roughly. On the road, opposite John Rigney's house, Louis Ward's two sons, Tom and Louis, were walking;. The police had gone to the barrack, and save a few shouts from the children, nothing was occurring, when Constable Nolan, by himself, walked up behind Louis Ward's back and struck him on the head with his baton a blow which was heard 40 yards away, and which felled him to the ground. The constable then ran away. Young Ward was taken home insensible, and attended by Dr. De La Hunt, who pronounced him Buffering from concussion. The crowd was so quiet, that when told to disperse they did so. Tom Ward charged Constable Nolan with the assault to Sergeant Charles M'Carthy, but he took no notice whatever of what occurred, and did not even go to see the injured man;"

(who replied) said: The County Inspector of Constabulary reports that on Saturday evening, September 3, a prisoner had been sent from Ballinasloe to Galway, and that a disorderly mob had collected on the platform cheering the prisoner and groaning at the Government. Afterwards, about 10.30 p.m., when the police were conveying a drunken man to the barrack, a mob of between 100 and 150 roughs collected round them hooting and groaning. One of the police, Constable Nolan, observed Ward stoop and take up from the ground what appeared to be a stone. He called on him to drop the stone; but instead of doing so he made a motion with his hand to throw it at him. The constable stooped his head to avoid the missile, and struck at Ward with his baton in self-defence. Ward's skull does not appear to have been fractured. The constable did not run away. He rejoined his party to render them assistance in conveying the prisoner. Mr. Gibson, Resident Magistrate, was present, and considers the police displayed great forbearance.

Arising out of the answer, may I ask how it could be known that Ward had a missile—is it a supposition or a reality?

Considering it was 10.30 p.m., it would be rather difficult to see in the dark.

If this young man was not in possession of a stone, and no stone was thrown, and yet his skull was fractured, was it not most unwarrantable and illegal?

They say his skull was not fractured.

But his head was broken.

Order, order !

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the tenants on the estate of Mr. Shirley, in the neighbourhood of Carrickmacross, County Monaghan, who were evicted last March, and who retook possession of their houses pending the hearing of their applications to the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed, have been recently visited by the police, and by them threatened that unless they quitted their homes within two days they would be proceeded against under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; whether he can state upon whose authority, and under what Statute, the police so acted; whether it was open to Mr. Shirley to remove these people under the ordinary law; and, whether, in view of the fact that their applications to have a fair rent fixed are listed for hearing at the next sitting of the Land Court in County Monaghan, he will order the police to suspend their action?

(who replied) said: The Constabulary Authorities report that 14 tenants on the Shirley estate, evicted last September, December, and March, have been noticed by the police to leave the houses and farms whore possession had been unlawfully re-taken within the last few days; and in some cases, when found in the houses, were informed that if they did not leave they would be prosecuted under the Statute quoted. These instructions were carried out by order of the Divisional Magistrate. Mr. Shirley might have taken proceedings to recover the premises otherwise than by means of the recent Statute. None of these tenants have served notice to have a fair rent fixed; and in the case of seven of them the statutable period for doing so appears to have expired.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have given any consideration ss to the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission on the Commutation and Redemption of Tithe?

also asked the right hon. Gen- tleman, Whether, considering the urgent necessity of settling the questions which have arisen with respect to the collection of tithe rent-charge, as instanced by the recent Report of the Commissioner appointed to investigate the disturbances in Wales, he will consider the desirability of recommending the appointment of a Royal Commission, which may facilitate the early passing of a measure calculated to determine a matter of grave importance to the well-being of the community?

In answer to the Questions of the two hon. Members, I beg to state that Her Majesty's Government have given further and careful consideration to the question of tithe; but they have come to the conclusion that, under present circumstances, it is not desirable that a Royal Commission to inquire into the question should be appointed.

had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that, on the 24th ultimo, at the Curragh Camp, on the occasion of the presentation of new colours to the 5th (Militia) Battalion Royal Munster Fusiliers by the Marchioness of Londonderry, wife of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the regiment having been formed up into square on parade, the Service of Consecration of the Colours, taken from a Romanist book called The Pontificale Romanum, was performed by a Roman Catholic Priest named Father Dillon, assisted by the Senior Anglican Military Chaplain in Ireland; whether it is the case that, on the occasion of Consecration of Colours of one of Her Majesty's Regiments by a Roman Catholic Priest at Devonport last year, a severe reprimand to all concerned was administered by the then Secretary of State for War, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; whether the celebration of Romish ceremonies in public is in accordance with the provisions of 10 Geo. IV. c. 7 s. 26; and, what course Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?

As Question 48 is exceedingly offensive to millions of Her Majesty's subjects, and as the hon. and gallant Gentleman in whose name it stands is not here to ask it, I beg to ask your leave to put it to the Secretary of State for War, in order that we may have an expression of opinion from the Government regarding the matter.

I am quite ready to answer the Question. It is the fact that on the day named the Marchioness of Londonderry presented Colours to the 5th Battalion of the Royal Munster Fusiliers, being the regiment formerly known as the Dublin County Militia. The ceremony of consecrating the Colours took place, consisting in the reading of two collects in English by the Roman Catholic chaplain, followed by the prescribed prayers for the blessing of standards by the Church of England chaplain. The regiment is mainly composed of Roman Catholics; and it was considered desirable that the chaplains of both denominations should co-operate in the ceremony. The ceremony appears to have satisfied everyone on the spot, and was not in any way similar to the one which took place last year at Devonport.

I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in Order, or respectful to Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, to speak of and to use the expression "Romish ceremonies," which appears in the third paragraph of the Question?

I did not take any exception to the expression when I first saw it, nor do I think that any exception can be taken to it now. I do not suppose that any insult to any Member of this ' House was for a moment intended.

We consider it extremely offensive.

With that knowledge, I shall take care in future that Questions are so framed as not to offend the prejudices and feelings—very just feelings—of hon. Members.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can give any hopes that the Local Taxation Returns of Scotland will no longer be kept hack by the Secretary- for Scotland?

The Local Taxation Returns of Scotland for the past year, as the hon. and gallant Member has already been informed, are being pushed forward as rapidly as the limited staff at the disposal of the Secretary for Scotland will permit.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that Ayoub Khan, having recently escaped from his detention in Persia, attempted to enter Afghan territory in the neighbourhood of Herat; whether he was repulsed in the attempt; whether he is now a fugitive on Persian territory; and, whether any steps will be taken to effect his recapture?

The information that Her Majesty's Government have received is in the sense of my hon. Friend's Question. I cannot at present add anything to it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he received a telegram this morning from the Trades Union Congress at Swansea protesting against the action of the other House in striking out the Wage Clauses of the Truck Bill with regard to Scotland and Ireland?

Yes, Sir; I did receive such a telegram.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Government attach any importance to the communication, and whether they will consider the subject?

Undoubtedly, Sir; the Government will consider the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, whether any confirmation has been received of the telegraphic news published this morning that the Germans have occupied Samoa?

A telegram, which I am sorry I have not got with me, has been received stating that, in consequence of complaints which the German Government had against the so-called King Malietoa, a force had been landed and he had been deposed. The British and United States Consuls had protested. I should add that the rival Chief has been recognized by the Germans as King of Samoa.

Is it not a fact that, practically speaking, owing to the German Colonists in Samoa having been attacked by one King, the Germans have set up a rival King, and that the English Consul has actually stated to the people of the Island that the English Government will resist this German aggression, and will re-instate the former King?

I must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of the Question; but I must not be understood to admit the truth of anything he has said.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What the Government intended to do with regard to the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment Bill?

said, it was the intention of the Government to push that Bill through. As the hon. Baronet would see, the Bill had come down from the other House, and it was much more important that other measures which had not passed the House of Lords should be taken before it.

There are one or two points in connection with this Vote which ought to receive the attention of the Committee. In the first place, I think there is nothing which really deserves more consideration than the quality of the medicines and drugs which are supplied to the Navy. I find, comparing the medicines supplied to the Navy with those supplied to the hospitals and to private practitioners, that, as a rule, they are of far inferior quality both in the naval hospitals and on board Her Majesty's ships. I have seen several of the large naval hospitals, and have experienced much pleasure in going over them. As a rule, they are well managed and maintained in an extremely efficient manner, except in regard to contracts for medicine. It is very hard that I should feel called upon to inveigh against any system of Government contracts; but, as a private individual, having gone through these hospitals and visited several of Her Majesty's ships, I am prepared to say that the standard of the medicine and drugs supplied to the Navy is much inferior to that which is supplied to the large hospitals in London and in the Provinces. I am of opinion that if there was a little investigation into the system, both as to the character of the medicines supplied and the cost of the supply, it would be advantageous to the public. I am certain that much better articles might be obtained at a more reasonable cost. Perhaps I maybe allowed to accentuate what I say by pointing to the "German" quinine now kept in store, the price of which fluctuates in the market and varies very greatly. Of course, the supply is very limited. As everybody knows, it is grown in South America; and if there is a sudden epidemic and an increased demand the price at once goes up in the market. Some of the items of expenditure in connection with this Vote have, I believe, over and over again been brought before the House, and it has been complained that the buying of perishable drugs in large quantities has led to great waste; they become damaged, and in the end have to be sold at a very trifling price, although they have cost a good deal to obtain at first hand. In the case of quinine, it is a very expensive article, and I think it is altogether undesirable to lay in a largo stock of such substances, and thereby run the risk of the deterioration to which they must obviously be subjected. I would ask the noble and gallant Lord the Member for East Marylebone (Lord Charles Beresford), in whose Department I believe this matter rests, to bear these points in mind. I only mention the fact because I want, in a straightforward manner, to stop the waste of public money which goes on in connection with these items. Having mentioned the question upon this Vote, there is no necessity why I should allude to it again in connection with the Army Vote, although, of course, the same principle is involved there. Instead of laying in a large stock of these perishable drugs, I think it would be a great deal better to come to some arrangement or agreement with some of the large firms to undertake to supply the Government in the event of an emergency. There is another matter to which I desire to call attention, and which, I believe, comes under this Vote. My lion. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire (Dr. Farquharson), who has usually called attention to the matter, is not at present in his place, and therefore I consider it my duty to mention it. At any rate, I think we are entitled to an explanation upon it, although I am not so well informed on the matter as my hon. Friend. I allude to the expense of carrying out the Contagious Diseases Act. That Act has now been abolished in this country, owing to the philanthropic efforts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld).

I must point out to the hon. Member that there is no item in connection with the Contagious Diseases Act in this year's Vote. There was last year, but there is not this.

I thought the item applied to this year. I saw an entry in the Vote; but as there is no specific item this year, I will confine myself to the point I have already brought before the Committee. It is a strictly technical medical subject; but I have considered it my duty to bring it under the notice of lion. Gentlemen opposite.

The subject which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is, no doubt, a very important one; but I can assure him that the greatest possible care is taken to get drugs and medicines of the very best quality.

May I point out to the noble and gallant Lord one point in connection with the matter? I think one fact is worth a thousand mere assertions. I have visited a great number of Her Majesty's ships of war, and among others, on one occasion, I went over a vessel commanded, I think, by the noble and gallant Lord—namely, the Devastation—[Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: No.] —I recollect finding on that ship, and also upon others upon several occasions, "German" quinine, which was of a very inferior quality. I happened to see it in the case of the Devastation upon one of the shelves. It was evidently in use, and I put some questions to one of the medical officers with regard to it. Of course, for obvious reasons, I have no desire to mention names. I complained of the inferior quality of the drugs, and I was told—" Oh, we cannot get anything better out of the Government."

I am very sorry to hoar that; but, as far as we can, we take the greatest trouble to obtain the best medicines and drugs we can secure. The hon. Member spoke of cutting down the supply of drugs. I do not think that he would really wish to do that. I think it is most necessary that we should always have a full supply, and that we should always be able to obtain what we require. Formerly, I admit, in the system of issuing drugs and stores there was a certain amount of waste; but that was owing to a bad system of organization. Medical stores were bought more or less by wholesale, and they were not divided into separate stores for the different ships; that was a system which was attended by a great deal of waste. At the present moment, however, a different system prevails; and now, in regard to all medical stores, both at home and abroad, there are certain chests always ready packed in the event of an emergency. In that case, when stores are required, it is only necessary to hoist the chests into the ship, the chests themselves having already been packed in a time of peace. So far as the quinine is concerned, I believe that we get the very best. I will, however, make inquiries with reference to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman. I may inform him that I never was on board the Devastation.

I made a mistake; I meant the Thunderer.

I am very glad that the hon. Member has raised this question about quinine; but he has overlooked the supply from India. I think it would be extremely valuable if the Government would make some further inquiry in regard to all stores supplied by contract. It is now 16 years since I served on the Select Committee to inquire into the contracts and purchase of stores, and the time has come for renewing the inquiry.

I take it that although the immediate question of the Contagious Diseases Act mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Cork cannot be discussed upon this Vote, yet that the appropriation of a certain amount of money already voted in connection with that Act is involved in the present Vote. I see an item in reference to my own constituency—namely, the Royal Hospital at Devonport—and certainly an appropriation for that purpose is involved in this Vote. Therefore, I think I shall not be out of Order in asking my noble Friend to make some inquiry into the practical working of the system now adopted under this appropriation. My own belief is that the system is not working satisfactorily, and I would ask my noble Friend whether something cannot be done to make it work better?

I am sorry I am unable to give my hon. Friend any information. I was not aware that any question with regard to the working of the Contagious Diseases Act was likely to be raised.

There is one other matter which comes under this Vote— namely, the surgical instruments supplied to the medical officers of the Navy. I think the noble Lord would do a very great service to the medical officers if, on the arrival of a vessel after a voyage, these instruments were taken out of a ship, and transmitted to some instrument maker in order to have them thoroughly done up, in the same way in which the surgical instruments are done up, which are used in the hospitals on shore. That would not only be a very good thing for the medical officers themselves, but I think I am entitled to urge it on the plea of economy; because if these surgical instruments are kept in an efficient condition their deterioration is prevented, and they are prevented from rusting and going to the bad. Not only would the Government save expense, but I think they would be advancing, at any rate, the cause of humanity; because it now very frequently happens that the medical officers of the Navy are called upon to perform most delicate operations with inadequate instruments, or with instruments that are altogether out of order. Certainly, that is entirely opposed to the true instincts of humanity. I am satisfied that a small point of this nature might very easily be seen to; and although it might entail a small immediate expenditure it would be for the benefit of everybody concerned in the end.

I am afraid it would be very difficult to send out the surgical instruments after every voyage; but certainly, when a ship is paid off, the rule is to return the surgical instruments into store. They are then thoroughly done up according to a contract made by the Board of Admiralty, and returned to the ship when put into proper condition.

I am afraid that I did not thoroughly explain what I mean. There are many surgical instruments made of steel used at sea, and they are more liable to rust than similar instruments which are kept on shore. It is for that reason that I would suggest the desirability of having them carefully attended to whenever an opportunity arises.

I am afraid that we could not do that until the vessel comes home, and is paid off. When a ship does come home its surgical instruments are sent to the hospital, and are re done up by contract.

I wish to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, when iron-clads become unfit for sea service and it is proposed to break them up, the question is considered if, instead of destroying them, they might not be used for the protection of mercantile ports at home, and in the Colonies as floating batteries? The early floating batteries, such as the old Glatton, would have been very useful for such purposes.

As a matter of fact, I do not believe that any of our iron-clads have as yet been broken up. We have made arrangements by which certain iron-clads which are not considered to be effective for sea-going purposes will be sent to foreign stations, where they will be used as a sort of reserve ships for the protection of the station in which they are placed.

I wish to call attention to a small item which appears in this Vote of £650, as a contribution in aid of the Lock Hospital, and the Lock Wards in the Devonport Hospital. I only draw attention to the item because it is quite evident that the question of the Contagious Diseases Act does come under this subsection of the Vote, the item, being a contribution on the part of the State in aid of the Lock Wards of the Devonport Hospital. I think that if the Government will make Borne inquiry into the matter they will be able to find a better mode of carrying out the intentions of the Act than has as yet been discovered. Passing from that subject, I wish to call attention to a small item of £650 for sailors' homes at the naval stations. When we consider the number of our sailors' homes, and the important work they have to do, and even the increasing importance of the work, I would venture to express my regret at the smallness of the sum appropriated for that purpose. I do not think that the public money could be expended in a manner that is calculated to do more good to the Naval Service. I am quite sure that if the Admiralty will look into the question they will arrive at the conclusion that a email additional amount may be employed in this direction.

It is a pleasant thing to be able to corro- borate any statement that comes from the Benches opposite; but this is a case in which I am quite prepared to back up the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir John Puleston). I think we are entitled to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty to direct his attention to this question. It is a subject which I myself mentioned last year, particularly in connection with the Cork Sailors' Home. Upon that occasion the hon. Member for the borough of Cambridge (Mr. Penrose-Fitzgerald) said that there was a project on foot in Cork to amalgamate the Queenstown and the Cork Sailors' Homes. I recollect that I put the state of the case before the noble Lord at that time at considerable length. I do not feel called upon to treat it at the same length this year; but I would ask his kind indulgence to the circumstances of the case. There is one home at Cork and another at Queenstown. Of course, the home at Queenstown is quite close to the ships, and the noble Lord the First Lord must be aware that when there is a sailors' home immediately opposite a guard ship, many men pass from the ship every day and enter their names on the books of the home. That, however, moans nothing whatever. They simply go in and out, perhaps wash their hands or have a cup of tea, but never make use of the home in a regular way. I was secretary to the Cork Sailors' Home for nearly three years, and at the present moment I happen to hold a sort of honorary position in connection with it. Therefore I speak with some kind of authority in regard to the Sailors' Home at Cork; and I trust that the noble Lord will perceive that I am simply endeavouring to direct his attention to the necessity which actually exists, if any regard is to be had to the benefit of the sailors themselves—not merely seamen in Her Majesty's Service, but of sea-faring men. I made an appeal last year to the noble Lord to look into this matter, and to consider that these sailors' homes are not merely for the benefit of Her Majesty's seamen, but also for the benefit of other sailors, many of whom come from foreign countries who happen to be turned adrift as waifs and strays upon any of our sea-port towns. In Ireland at the present time we have not a superfluity of wealth. Any man who will take the trouble to read the newspapers will see the rapid strides that pauperism is making in the country. It is, therefore, evident that unless some substantial support is given to institutions of this kind by the authorities that the institutions themselves cannot be continued. It is therefore desirable, in a period like the present, that we should make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government. As the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir John Puleston) pointed out, Her Majesty's Government ought to do something more for the support of these sailors' homes than they have done in the past. In the first instance, the Government granted to our home in Cork a sum of £25. They found that the home was managed so well that they increased the grant to £50, subsequently to £75, and then to £100. What have the Government done since? It is perfectly evident that in times of depression like this, if the Government took away their grant, the charity must suffer; and, nevertheless, the Government now propose to cut down their grant by one-half. Were it not for the fact that from time to time we have had very liberal endowments in the City of Cork from private individuals we should have been obliged to close the Sailors' Home. An effort has been made—as I stated last year—to amalgamate the Cork and Queenstown Sailors' Homes; but I think that it would be a great mistake. Queenstown is not a commercial port. The Board of Trade Office, where the sailors go in order to get their certificates, and to find a new ship, is not at Queenstown, but at Cork. The consequence is that Cork is the centre, and where you have a centre I think it is palpable you ought to have the home. The Sailors' Home at Cork has been successful in the past. We have continued to keep the doors open; but we are looking forward with a certain amount of alarm to a long period of depression. We are now steadily eating into our capital, and if that is to go on the home cannot be kept open much longer. Every year we have had a large number of men stopping there who do not come simply for the purpose of washing their hands, but who come for the purpose of occupying the home. Last Christmas we had about 400 men who came from Bantry, and who were connected with the Navy or the Coast Guard. Men of that kind have come in and filled our home on two or three occasions in the course of the year, and whenever we have the Channel Fleet in Bantry Bay we have a large number of them. I only draw the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that what he promised last year has not been carried out. Speaking on this 6ide of the House, I will only ask him to comply with the appeal which has been made to him by the hon. Gentleman on the opposite side —namely, to pay attention to these most deserving charities. I trust that he will, at any rate, allow some investigation to be made into the circumstances of the two homes I have mentioned.

The principle on which this Vote is distributed is this. The grants are made to sailors' homes in proportion to the use made of them by the sailors of the Navy and the facilities they afford. That is the only principle on which grants of this kind can be included in the Navy Votes. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that few institutions are more worthy of public support; but if sailors' homes are to receive public support on any other ground, money will have to be asked for, not by the Admiralty, but by the Board of Trade on behalf of the Mercantile Marine of the country. The hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) has called attention to the sums appropriated for sailors' homes last year, especially in reference to the homes in Cork and Queenstown. On that occasion I said that it was found that the sailors of the Fleet made greater use of the home at Queenstown than they did of that at Cork, and that accounted for the difference between the two grants. The hon. Gentleman on that occasion took exception to the manner in which the money was distributed. I subsequently looked into the matter, and I can assure the hon. Member that a very great use indeed is made of the Sailors' Home in Queenstown, much more than of that at Cork. We have, therefore, felt it necessary to adhere to the principle in which the grants were previously given.

Will the noble Lord say whether the question of the amalgamation of the two homes is to be considered? I have made inquiries, and I cannot find that any steps have been taken in the matter.

I believe that it is probable that the two homes may be usefully amalga- mated; but that is a matter for the local managers, and is not a matter in which the Admiralty can possibly interfere.

I have a Motion on the Paper in respect of Item 10 of this Vote, and before allowing the Vote to be taken I must certainly ask Her Majesty's Government to give me some specific information upon this matter. Even if they do so, it is highly probable that I shall press the matter to a Division. The item in question has reference to the conveyance by sea of the Royal Household, and the entertainment of Royal personages. There are a variety of other items under the same heading with which I do not desire to trouble the Committee. I refer to the fact because it has not been possible for me, in placing the Amendment upon the Paper, to ascertain and to discriminate greatly between the amount required for these two first purposes—the conveyance of the Royal Household, and the entertainment of Royal personages, and the amount for all other purposes under letter Z. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord in charge of the Vote to explain to the Committee, in the first instance, what is the exact amount required for the conveyance by sea of the Royal Household; and, secondly, for the entertainment of Royal personages? That is the first question I shall put to the Government. But following upon that I certainly take a very strong exception to our being called upon to vote money for this purpose at all. With respect to the first head, my objection to it is precisely similar to the objection I raised the other evening to the payment of £40 for a steam packet whenever a distinguished personage or some near relative of the Royal Family chooses to come or go across the English Channel. If we must have a Royal Household, assuredly we pay enough for the maintenance of the dignity and of the splendour of the Court when we pay the Royal Family a round sum amounting to nearly £1,000,000. [Cries of "No, no ! "] But it is a fact; and if Her Majesty cannot pay the travelling expenses of her household and servants out of a sum of £385,000 which is granted annually for her Civil List, I do not see why the country should be called upon to pay them. Last year we voted to the Sovereign alone a sum of £410,000, and surely that ought to be enough to enable the Sovereign to pay the travelling expenses of her household. I should like to know why it is not? If it is necessary to increase the Civil List for that purpose, then by all means let the Government move that the Civil List be increased; but I am inclined to think that the people of this country entertain a strong objection to increasing it. What I object to is these subsidiary payments being constantly asked for, for precisely the same reason which I gave the other evening, that a large proportion of the electorate of this country consider that we have already paid a great deal too much. What I would ask is whether this money is paid under the contract by which the country bound themselves when the Civil List was established in its present form at the commencement of Her Majesty's Reign? Being bound by that contract, of course I have no objection to make to the continuance of the payment; but what the people of this country have a reasonable right to complain of is that this sum—very much too large, as many of us think—should be year after year supplemented by payments none the less objectionable because they may, perhaps be small and comparatively insignificant. There are very strong complaints, and the most uncomplimentary language is used out-of-doors with respect to the Royal Family, because the people think that it is hard, considering the amount of the Civil List, that we should be constantly called upon to pay the travelling expenses of the Royal Household and the Royal Family. I can only repeat what I said the other evening—that if the Government of this country are desirous of maintaining the dignity of the Royal Family and of securing the respect of the people for Royal institutions, it is very desirable indeed that these demands upon the public purse by persons living in luxury and splendour should be put a stop to at once and for ever. As far as I am concerned, I have no reason to complain of the operation of these arrangements year after year, because, from my point of view, as a Republican, I have no objection to their being clearly known, seeing that they must be calculated, in the end, to diminish the popular view of loyalty to the Crown. But that is not the ground on which we, as political partizans, should consider a matter of this kind. We desire, at any rate, to save the pockets of the taxpayers in the first instance, and to spare them from those unnecessary and wholly undignified calls upon the public purse by persons who ought to be above making such calls. In the second place, we desire that institutions which are considered of great importance, and are looked upon with very different feelings by the vast proportion of the people of the country, should not be daily and improperly undermined by considerations arising from these petty matters. We have, therefore, a strong objection to being called upon to pay for the carriage by sea of the Royal Household. If we are called upon to do that, why should we not also be called upon to pay for the conveyance of the Royal Household by land? Perhaps we are; and I hope the Government will be able to explain under what Vote we are called upon to convey the Royal Household to and from Balmoral and other places. So far as the conveyance by sea of the Royal Household is concerned, seeing that Her Majesty has several grand yachts, for which we pay a large sum year by year, I think it is not too much to ask that the Royal Household should be conveyed in them. We are paying annually considerable sums for the redecoration of these Royal yachts, and it is probable that the vessels themselves are not used more than once a month. In my opinion, it is absurd that we should be called upon for extra payments for Royal yachts which are lying idle during a great portion of the year. Then, again, why are we called upon to pay for the entertainment of Royal personages? I wish to know specifically whether this entertainment had anything to do with the Jubilee year, or was it in connection with something that took place last year? Who are the Royal personages, and why should we be called upon to entertain them? Are they connected with our own Royal Family, or are they mere tinsel German Grand Dukes and Duchesses and the rest of them. Surely it is not too much to ask the Royal Family to entertain these Royal personages themselves. We are not supposed to entertain them. When they come over here we may give them a banquet at the Mansion House, or something of that kind; but that is not entertainment. If we convey them at the cost of the nation, why should we be called upon to entertain them? I am very anxious to know who these Royal personages are, under what circumstances they come here, and for what reason Her Majesty's Government asks us to pay even one farthing for their entertainment? I want to know what proportion of the Vote is devoted to the two purposes I have mentioned, and should also like to hear whether similar items are reproduced year after year? Are we called upon to entertain Royal personages every year, or is this the first time, or is the amount we are asked to pay greater this year, or less than in previous years? These are the reasons which have induced me to place an Amendment on the Paper, and I will only repeat my earnest protest against the country being called upon to pay these charges in future. Of course, the Government cannot eliminate these charges from the present Estimates; but I trust that they will consult the popular feeling out-of-doors, if not for their own sake, at any rate in the interests of others.

Does the hon. Member move?

Yes, I move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £3,000.

The amount of this Vote is £8,355, and the hon. Member has stated that he is unable to ascertain what proportion of the Vote relates to conveyance by sea, and what for the entertainment of Royal personages. He has, therefore, moved to reduce it by the sum of £3,000. The hon. Gentleman has given expression to his opinions in strong language; but I think that when a Member does feel strongly on any subject he ought to endeavour to obtain all the information he can in regard to it. The hon. Gentleman might have found an explanation of the facts in the Estimates. It is stated that the expenditure incurred in 1885–6, under the head to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, was £1,488, while the hon. Gentleman might have found that out before putting an Amendment on the Paper which implies that the amount voted to these purposes is much larger.

Is that the sum expended for the conveyance of the Royal Household?

No; it is the sum expended in reference to the Royal Household, and for the entertainment of the suites of Royal personages. The hon. Gentleman says that there are many people in this country who object to the expense attached to the Monarchy and to the Royal Family. Of course, there are a large number of persons among the electorate who are not very well informed upon these matters; and if they adopt the system of multiplication which their instructors adopt, it is not to be wondered at that they overestimate the cost of maintaining the Royal Family. The hon. Member has put down at the sum upwards of £1,000,000 a-year.

I put down that sum for the whole of the Royal Family. I did not say that it was for Her Majesty alone.

I do not think it amounts to one-half of that sum. Moreover, Her Majesty, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, gave up her right to the Crown Lands, to which she was as much entitled as any private individual to his own private property. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that it has been established by experience that the most expensive Government is the Republican Government.

Is the noble Lord speaking to the Question?

I might have called "Order" when the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall was speaking; but I refrained from doing so. After the observations which have been made by the hon. Member I think I had fairly a right to say what I have said. As regards the actual sum itself, it is expended in conveying Her Majesty's servants, luggage, and carriages to and from Aberdeen, and from this country to the Continent, and the amount in the present Estimate for this purpose seems to me to be a reasonable one. The Sovereign of this country, from time immemorial, has a right to have these services performed by the Royal Navy. The hon. Member says—" Why not em- ploy the Royal yachts?" But I may point out to him that the consumption of coal by the Royal yachts would be far more expensive. We cannot, at the commencement of the year, exactly estimate what the cost would be. Therefore we take the expenditure of the preceding years, and that for 1885–6 was the amount which we calculate will be required for the present year—namely, a sum slightly under £1,500. That is the estimate of the amount we have put down as likely to be defrayed in the course of the present year. The hon. Gentleman, complains of another item for the entertainment of Royal personages. This is an item which, has escaped our attention. It would appear that some portion of the Vote goes for the purpose of entertaining Royal personages from abroad. That is not the case, although the hon. Gentleman has fallen into a natural error. The Royal yachts are frequently employed in conveying Royal personages to and from this country. These Royal personages are accompanied by considerable suites, and they have to be entertained on board the Royal yachts. It has been the practice, and I think properly, to make allowances for this, so as to enable the officers of the Royal and other yachts to defray the expenses to which they are put. The sum charged is a very trifling one, and I think the country may legitimately be called upon to pay it. I think I have now explained to the hon. Member what these items mean, and I have shown him that the employment of the Royal yachts would lead to a very considerable additional expenditure. I have also pointed out that the Sovereign has a right to claim the services which are rendered in this way by the Navy. Therefore I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.

I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall that, as this is Her Majesty's Jubilee Year, and as we have been gratified with the sight of a great many Royal personages, great and small, he should not feel it necessary to press the Amendment. There is one question I should like to ask the noble Lord—namely, whether I am to understand from him that ships of war are employed to take down the Royal Household and their luggage?

Certainly not. All I said was that from time immemorial the Sovereign had the right of making use of the Royal Navy for that purpose.

There was one sentence in the remarks of the noble Lord which I must take exception to. I altogether deny that the Crown Lands to which he referred are the private property of the Sovereign, in the sense in which land is the property of private individuals. I think the expression used by the noble Lord was wrongly used.

I must say one word in answer to the noble Lord. His explanation has rather intensified my objection than otherwise. He has not said a single word to justify this expenditure, or to remove the necessity for pressing the Amendment as strongly as possible. It now appears that the Royal personages are not Royal personages at all, but the hangers-on and camp followers of Royal personages who come over here in the Royal yachts. [A laugh.] The noble Lord laughs, as I think he well may, when he finds that the nation is called upon to bear all this expense. It is quite enough that the poor people of this country should be subjected to the unnecessary expense of entertaining Royal personages; but it is ten times more objectionable that they should have to pay for all these understrappers when they come over. If these Royal personages cannot entertain their own poor, and if they are too impoverished to give this entertainment in the mess-room of the Royal yachts, they ought to stay at home and not burden us with their presence at all. I feel so strongly that the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty has made the matter worse instead of better that I shall not hesitate to press the Motion to a Division. I challenge the noble Lord to show any Act of Parliament or distinct arrangement which justifies these subsidiary payments we are called upon to make in addition to the Civil List. The Civil List was settled at the commencement of the Reign, in order to cover all the expenses which could be imagined. The Civil List is taken, as everybody knows who has read the history of the matter, at the commencement of the Reign. The present Civil List was arranged and settled by a Select Committee, which sat at the end of the Reign of William IV., and everybody knows that the amounts allowed for the Civil List under each of the different heads into which the Civil List is subdivided are enormously in excess of what any reasonable person could ever have wanted. If that is so, and the Civil List is so much in excess of the requirements, we have even more strong reason to complain of these payments, which bring up the amount we have to pay to Her Majesty in the present year to £410,000. So far as the Crown Lands are concerned, I challenge the noble Lord to disprove my statement on the matter. This is what I commit myself to, and nothing more—that the amount, including payments, annuities, and marriage gifts to the Royal Family, very largely exceeds £500,000. If I am not entirely mistaken, we shall have to pay something like £800,000 this year, which is the minimum sum at which it can be put for the Royal Family, including not merely Her Majesty alone, but the whole of the Members of the Royal Family. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) as to the fallacy of I talking of the Crown Lands as belonging I to Her Majesty. There were formerly charged upon hereditary revenue, which, we are told, was given up in exchange for the Civil List, large sums in connection with the Government of the country. For instance, the Judges and the Diplomatic Service, and other things, were paid for out of the hereditary revenues, and they are absolutely in excess of the sums now paid. I do not suggest, as an alternative to our being called upon to pay these charges, what the noble Lord says would be a more expensive charge. It seems to me that the Royal yachts might be more usefully employed, considering the amount of money we have to pay for them. At the same time, I do not think we ought to be called upon to pay a single farthing under this head. I maintain that Her Majesty ought to pay for her Royal yachts herself, and that we ought not to be called upon to pay one farthing for the conveyance by sea of the Royal Household, or for the entertainment of Royal personages. We are fairly entitled to object that any item of that kind should appear in the Estimates. I am very glad of the admission the noble Lord made that there was a little mistake in the matter which had escaped the attention even of the Board of Admiralty. I think it throws a side light upon the question that may enable us to fix the attention of the country upon these Royal abuses. I trust that we may detect a few more of these little errors; I have no doubt that we shall if this sort of expenditure is to be continued.

I only rise for the purpose of saying one word. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall has again referred to figures which are seriously inaccurate, and he has not attempted to support them by any specific statement. I wish to enter my protest against the practice of making assertions of a haphazard kind in this House which cannot be supported by facts.

rose to continue the discussion, when—

It would be quite irregular at this moment to enter into statistical details.

May I point out that discussions of this kind might be avoided if an explanatory Memorandum were attached to the Votes showing the total charge under all headings? By that means any inaccuracy of statement would be prevented. I have taken out all the items with very great care; and I should be inclined—if this were the proper time and place, which it is certainly not—to make a statement, strongly sustaining the amount objected to by the First Lord of the Treasury. In future this sort of discussion can be easily avoided by giving a Memorandum stating what the items are.

Many hon. Members of this House are anxious to cut down some of the extraneous charges which find their way into the Admiralty accounts; but I think it would be unfair to the Committee generally to force them into a Division on this point. What is the question before the Committee? It is that the Admiralty should be recouped in a sum of £1,400 for services performed by the Navy. It would be quite unworthy of this country when naval services have ben performed to send in a bill to Her Majesty or anybody else after these Royal personages have been put ashore. I quite sympathize, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, and I shall be willing to vote with him on a future occasion if he will move reductions in such Votes in some other direction. I think it is discreditable that a great many charges for persons, not much connected with Royalty, and not having any great claims on the nation, should be made; and therefore I shall be glad to vote with my hon. Friend on another occasion for the reduction of some of these charges. I think it would be well if the Government themselves could see their way to reduce some of these charges. This, however, is not a case of the kind. This is a case of minor services performed by Tier Majesty's ships in a small way, and it would be quite a mistake to divide the Committee upon the subject. There is no principle involved in the Amendment, and the Committee could not be forced to divide upon it without the suspicion arising of its being done from "sheer nastiness." It is said that part of this charge is on account of foreign visitors. I hope it will never be said of this country in its corporate capacity that it does not show hospitality. If Great Britain were to become a Republic to-morrow, it would be the duty of the country to show hospitality to the Sovereigns of other countries. I myself, in my humble capacity, have enjoyed hospitality on board the ships of foreign nations, and have spent many very agreeable days. I think it would be hard to throw upon the officers of these ships the cost of the slight entertainment which I received. There are many charges which might legitimately be dispensed with; but in doing so we must not run the risk of holding ourselves up to foreign nations as an inhospitable and unpleasant people, because I maintain that under any form of government, whether it is a Republic or a Monarchy, it is the duty of a nation to extend hospitality to other nations.

I am perfectly ready, after the very frank and decided speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, to withdraw the Motion, or, at any rate, not to press it to a Division. In doing so, I wish to say that I take that course owing to the arguments which have been laid before the Committee, and because I see that the object I have in view may be much batter accomplished in another way. The best course, undoubtedly, will be to raise the whole question in a much more decided manner another Session, when we come to discuss the Civil List. I should prefer that some more experienced Member of the House would take up the running; but, if nobody else will do so, I shall be prepared to do the duty myself. I wish, however, to guard against a misconception, I thought I had satisfactorily explained in my previous remarks—that if these Royal personages were national guests I should have no objection to the cost of their entertainment. I quite endorse everything that has fallen from my hon. Friend; but I did not understand that these were national guests—on the contrary, I look upon them as mere private guests of the Royal Family, and on that ground I certainly object strongly to these charges.

I wish to call attention to one item in this Vote— namely, the salary of an officer which has been raised during the year from £500 to £1,000. The same officer also receives an extra sum of money to which he is entitled as half-pay. I think it is very unusual in any branch of the Service to make arrangements of this kind; and I wish to know whether the officer in question receives £1,000 for all his services, or £1,228?

It is quite true that Captain Hull's salary was raised last year; but he has done valuable work for it—work in which the Board took very much interest, and he occupies now a highly responsible post as the head of the Naval Intelligence Department. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks if it is true that this officer draws half pay. It has been proposed that he should draw his half pay, and at the present moment there is a correspondence going on with the Treasury upon the subject, and I can give no information with regard to it until that correspondence is concluded.

Is it proposed to allow half pay, not only to this officer, but to the other nine half-pay officers of the Department?

I shall have some remarks to make as to the form of these Estimates, either on the Report of Supply, or on the Appropriation Bill. I would ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty to consider whether something may not be done to render the details of the Vote more intelligible. At present all sorts of officers are mixed up, and it is impossible, without a great deal of trouble, to find out what each different class of officers costs the country. I see that we are voting a sum of £8,000 for half-pay to the Clerical Staff of the Navy, and £5.080 for reserve and retired pay to the same class. Altogether I calculate there is a sum of something like £62,000 for the Clerical Department of the Fleet, the Clerical Staff of the Dockyards being excluded. The total for clerical duties in the Navy is nearly £500,000. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to consider the Civil branches of the Navy, and to have their ranks and pay set out in some separate form. As the Estimates are now prepared, it is extremely difficult, if not altogether impossible, to ascertain what the total charge of the Clerical Department or any other particular branch of the Navy is.

I hope next year to lay the Estimates before the House in a different and in an improved shape. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Forwood) has already given great attention to the subject; and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that it would be better, if possible, to distinguish the Votes for the combatant from those for the non-combatant officers.

I am prepared to give the Admiralty full credit for their good intentions; but I wish to know whether, when a retired Marine officer or a retired naval officer is employed in the Civil Department of the Navy, or in any other branch of the Civil or Colonial Service, he is allowed full pay of the Civil Office and retired pay as well? That is a question which has often been raised in this House, but has never yet been satisfactorily settled. The same observation applies to the Army as to the Navy.

I also wish to say one or two words in reference to the same question. It is a very large question to raise now at this period of the Session; but from all I can learn the retirement which has been going on in the Royal Navy is most expensive and unjust to the taxpayers of this country. I know of one case in which a man of 36 has been allowed to retire on a pension of £200 a-year. With 18 or 20 years' service, young men in the prime of life are able to go off with a large retiring allowance. I object to the system altogether, as being unjust and unfair to the taxpayers. By the courtesy of the Treasury I have been allowed to see a draft of the Superannuation Bill, which is now upon the Order Book; but I find that it does not deal with this subject except to a very limited extent. I am glad, however, to find that the rules with regard to retirement allowances, both in the Army and Navy, are under the consideration of the Government. I do not at all grudge the payment of a retirement allowance when a public servant is compelled to leave the Service; but what I object to is that these young men, whose services might be rendered available in other ways, are allowed to retire for life with a large allowance. I think, myself, that the country ought to have some hold over their future services, and that it should be in a position to take advantage of those services in a case of emergency. I believe that there are a very large number of retired officers receiving this retired pay; and I want to know if rules exist, or are going to be made, by which the services of retired officers can be made available in future? I do not think that they ought to be allowed to commute their half-pay, and to retire from the country with the full value of their pensions.

The hon. Gentleman has raised two questions. First, the conditions under which officers are to retire, or to accept other employment. Now, the Treasury have considered and, I believe, have laid down very clear rules on that point which, speaking roughly, amount to this—that no officer who receives retiring pay, and performs other duties, shall receive as a total emolument more than the salary which attaches to the duties of the office he is called upon to perform. The hon. Gentleman has made some observations upon the large amount of retiring pay the country is called upon to expend; and he seemed to think that the country had made a very bad bargain with the persons who have retired. That, however, is not the view which is generally taken. I have been looking into the matter, and it does not appear to me that there is any injustice at all. On the contrary, I think that the individuals who are retired have a greater right to complain than the country. What regulates the retirement from the Navy is the Order in Council of 1870. The number of lieutenants whom it is necessary for the purposes of the Navy to keep on the establishments is such that their prospect of promotion is very bad indeed. Of every nine lieutenants who are on the Active List only two can be promoted. Every single one of the officers who retires only receives his retired pay on the understanding that he is liable for service; and recently the Admiralty has sent round to ascertain how many are ready to volunteer in case of emergency, and, with scarcely an exception, all these officers are available. Arrangements have been made by which officers ordered for service shall undergo a course of training, so as to make them thoroughly acquainted with modern requirements. In 1869–70 the amount voted for half-pay was £230,000; but last year it was only £81,000. But, although the amount voted for retired pay in 1869–70 was £253,000, last year it amounted to £665,000, so that, while there was a large reduction in half-pay, there has been a very large increase in retired pay.

And a very large increase on the whole.

No; not a very large increase on the whole. No doubt, it is a question which the Admiralty will be bound to consider sooner or later. Of course, it is the object of the Government to reduce, as far as possible, the non-effective list.

The noble Lord tells us that this question will have to be considered sooner or later. I am sorry to say that he has given us to understand that the Admi- ralty will consider it later, whereas I, myself, should have preferred to see it considered sooner. The Government seem to lay too much stress on the question of promotion. They appear to think that the Army and Navy were made for the men, and not the men for the Services. Upon that ground I altogether disagree with the views of the noble Lord, and I certainly do not think it is necessary to retire these men in the prime of life, in order to keep up the flow of promotion. However, it is quite impossible, at this time of the Session, to discuss satisfactorily this very large and broad subject.

Will the noble Lord be prepared to tell me, on the Report of Supply, what the total amount of reserve pay and of retired pay is, and what is the addition charged under those heads to persons who are in the receipt of salaries for the performance of other duties?

I think there will be no difficulty in getting at the consolidated pay.

Upon this Vote I wish to call the attention of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty to the case of the widow and orphans of Patrick Cooper, who, while serving in the Navy, as an assistant engineer, in 1884, twice sustained injuries, dying five months after the last injuries were sustained. The medical certificate stated that his death was accelerated by the injuries he had received while in the service of the Queen. The Admiralty Regulations provide, I think, that if injuries are received which result in death while a man is in the Service his widow and orphans are entitled to consideration at the hands of the Department. Therefore I submit that this case fell within the Admiralty Regulations, and if not within the letter of them, certainly it fell within the spirit. No doubt, the man was obliged to retire from the Service in consequence of the injuries he received, and there can be no doubt that his untimely death resulted from those injuries. Patrick Cooper left a widow and seven children. When I was last in Belfast I made some inquiries into the case, and I ascertained that it is an extremely hard one. Five of the children are under seven years of age, and the mother has been left without any means of support. At the time of his death Cooper had a long-service medal and a good-conduct medal, for which, however, he had never received anything. During the three years which have elapsed since the death of Cooper his widow and children have not received a single penny, in the shape either of pension, gratuity, or compassionate allowance. Cooper was an Irishman. I do not know whether that accounts for the difficulty in securing any satisfactory consideration of his case; but I think it is most undesirable to treat in this spirit the widow and children of a man who has served his country well, and thus to implant in the minds of Irishmen the painful feeling which must be aroused by the facts of a case like this coming to their knowledge. I have spoken to numerous persons about the case, without reference to politics, and in every instance a feeling of disgust has been expressed at the conduct of the Government. I divided the Committee on this case last year, and I intend to take a Division upon it every year as long as I remain in the House—so long as justice is not done. Probably, some day or other, justice will be done in the matter. I certainly cannot agree with the Government that the widow and orphans of a man who has served the country so long should be left penniless. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000.

The hon. Gentleman raised this question last year, and I then told him that I would look into it. I will now state what my position is with regard to the case. The principle upon which these pensions are given is that when a man dies after an accident the death must be clearly traced to the injuries which were received in the service of the country. When the hon. Gentleman raised the question last year I said I believed that the death was not owing directly to the accident. I did not know that the hon. Member intended to bring forward the case again, or I would have brought down the minutes which I made in regard to it, as well as the medical certificate. Unless the medical evidence is satisfactory, I have no more power to give a pension to the widow and orphans of this man than the hon. Gentleman has himself. The medical certificate which was placed in my hands, and which I read to the House at the time, must have satisfied everybody conclusively that the man died of typhoid fever, and not in consequence of any injuries he had received.

What was the substance of the certificate?

It was to the effect that the man had sustained injuries through an accident, and that he died, after having been in the hospital for some months, from typhoid fever, accelerated, probably, by the injuries he had received. But that, I maintain, is not sufficient to justify the Department in granting a pension. When the Admiralty came to deal with the matter they found that it was absolutely impossible to admit his title to a pension. I am sorry that the hon. Member should think that the widow and orphans of this man have been unjustly treated. I took the trouble to go carefully into the case last year; but I found that nothing could be done, and that it is altogether impossible to upset the Regulations of the Service. I do not think it can be said that this man was unjustly treated.

I did not say that the man had been unjustly treated. The man is dead.

Then, his family.

The man has gone beyond the sphere of the Admiralty Regulations. What I complain of is the treatment of the widow and children. Nothing has been said about the long-service medal, or the good-conduct medal, and I want to know whether the widow and children are entitled to receive anything in reference to those badges. If not, what is the good of granting them? It was always understood that some payment was to be attached to them. I think it would be a matter of surprise to a good many people to find that they are of no value and of no benefit at all. The noble Lord has quoted the medical certificate; but that certificate conclusively establishes a connection between the fatal result of the typhoid fever and the accident Cooper met with in 1884. It showed that the accident was of so serious a character that the man had to retire immediately afterwards, and the medical certificate proved that his constitution had become so weakened that he was unable to resist a slight attack of typhoid fever. If that is not a close connection between the accident met with by this man in the Queen's Service and the cause of death I do not know what such a connection means. The noble Lord says that he is debarred from giving a pension. But is there not such a thing as a gratuity or a compassionate allowance? The noble Lord told us last year that the technical restriction of the Regulations has sometimes been waived in order to permit of a compassionate allowance being granted. Surely this is a case of that kind, and the Admiralty might safely waive the Regulations. The noble Lord will certainly fail to persuade me that if he desired to come to the help of this widow, he has no power to do so. I am satisfied that the Department has some discretion in these cases.

I have no discretion in this matter at all.

Cannot the noble Lord or the Department give the woman a compassionate allowance?

No.

Then what is the meaning of saying that the technical restriction of the Regulations has sometimes been waived?

The meaning of that is that sometimes a too technical interpretation has not been placed upon them.

In this case the doctor says that the typhoid fever was fatal because of the accident and the injuries the man had received, and the noble Lord refuses to allow a pension because the death was brought about by typhoid fever. Now, the doctor established a direct relationship between the accident and the death, and I would ask the noble Lord to explain whether the Department is absolutely debarred, in a case of this kind, from giving a compassionate allowance? Is it not possible to recognize the extreme hardship of this case by waiving a direct interpretation of the Regulations?

I should have thought that this was essentially a case which came under the designation of a compassionate allowance. It is not at all an uncommon case that when the cause of an accident may have been somewhat remote the death of a public servant has happened in consequence. Although I am quite aware that, according to the Rules of the Service, no pension could be granted, I certainly think that this is a case for a compassionate allowance.

I happen to know of a recent case in which the noble Lord the First Lord and his Colleagues at the Admiralty were governed by an appeal made to them under somewhat similar circumstances, and even a case touching closer to the Rules than one which has been represented by the hon. Member. It was the case of a man who met with an accident, and actually died from the effects of that accident while still in the Service. It so happened that he did not go into the hospital, and he failed to get a certificate from the naval surgeon. Nevertheless, the Regulations were so strict that he was prevented from getting what he otherwise would have been entitled to. Three different appeals were made to the noble Lord and his Colleagues; but they were without effect. I am bound to make this statement in justice to the noble Lord, because I believe that representations were made by him and the Admiralty to the Treasury. I certainly deprecate as strongly as I can the serious delay of the Treasury in answering these applications.

In the case mentioned by the hon. Member, what was it that was asked for? Was it a pension?

No; it was a gratuity, because a pension was debarred under the Rules of the Service.

Was it stated whether the noble Lord had power to grant a compassionate allowance?

It was stated that he had not.

It strikes me that the whole of the Navy Regulations in regard to the non-effective Service require overhauling. At the same time, I am prepared to say that the non-effective allowances have now reached such a point that no private business in the country could stand anything like the calls which are made upon it. I believe that the country very much knows that fact.

The hon. Member is not speaking to the specific point now before the Committee. An Amendment has been moved to disallow part of the Vote on behalf of a particular widow and her children.

I thought the Amendment related to the reduction of the Vote by £1,000 on general considerations.

May I point out to the Committee that if it is the desire of the Government to promote recruiting in the branch of the Service to which this unfortunate man belonged they should pay attention to this crying shame—namely, the inhuman treatment these poor fellows get, and the state of absolute pennilessness in which their families are left if they meet with an accident. If you want to get soldiers and sailors you have to recruit them from the ranks of the people; and if cases like this are allowed to be made public here and there throughout the length and breadth of the land, do you seriously think you will promote the efficiency of the Service? Will it get you volunteers? You know perfectly well that it will not. This is a case which a responsible Ministry ought to have treated as a case of humanity. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh. It is very easy to laugh; but I maintain that this is a case of humanity, and it is a case which ought to be borne in mind if you really desire to promote the efficiency of the Service. This man died practically from injuries which he had sustained in the service of the country. As a medical man, I know that there are always two causes. There is the predisposing cause, and the determining cause; and I hope that hon. Members opposite will take notice of that fact, if they did not know it before. In this case the predisposing cause was the injury the man received, and the determining cause was the fever. The doctor who gave the medical certificate very properly set up both on the face of his certificate. My hon. Friend brought the question before the House last year. The noble Lord relies simply upon his memory; but he cannot dispute any of the facts that were stated last year. If the noble Lord has really at heart the interest of his Department, he will no longer gloss over this case, but will pay to it the attention which it demands. It is a case which every kind-hearted and sympathetic man will be of opinion deserves greater attention than it receives.

I do not think that this is a case in which we ought to allow personal feeling and compassion to predominate; and I am satisfied that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would be the first to impugn the motives of the Government if they were to do so. I myself brought to the notice of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty a case quite as hard as that which the hon. Member for West Belfast has mentioned. It was the case of a gunnery instructor of the Royal Navy, who had served for many years, and had been four or five years a gunnery instructor under the Duke of Edinburgh. He was not an Irishman; but he happened to be an Englishman. He came up to London on the day of the Jubilee. He was kicked in the chest by one of the cavalry horses, and was killed on the spot. He left a wife and family of young children. I applied to the noble Lord the First Lord for a compassionate allowance. The noble Lord took the case into consideration; but he found that, under the Rules of the Service, he could not grant a gratuity, and the result was that the widow and children had to suffer. So it has been in many other similar cases. I quite agree that these cases are very hard; but I do not see how the Admiralty can go beyond the Rules which have been laid down in such cases.