said, he had been told that if the Bill appeared upon the Paper that day there would be no doubt that it would be taken. He had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill. He understood that the hon. Baronet whose name was on the back of the Bill was not able to be in his place, and on the distinct understanding that the Bill would be taken on Monday, or some arrangement made for a day on which it would be brought forward, he would not oppose the Motion for Adjournment.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. William Cotter, of Breenymore, County Cork, was recommended for a gun licence by a local magistrate; and, why the licence was refused?

Sir, as I have already explained to the hon. Member, the licence was not recommended by a local magistrate resident in the neighbourhood. It was refused by the licensing officer in the exercise of his discretion.

Upon what ground was it refused?

I cannot go into the ground of refusal. The discretion rested with the licensing officer.

Is he not responsible if he makes a mistake? [No reply.]

(for Mr. J. E. REDMOND) (Wexford, N.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state the reasons for the recent summary dismissal of Constable John S. Deans, who had served seven years and nine months in the Royal Irish Constabulary in County Clare, and for a period of three years had held confidential positions in the offices of District Inspectors Kidd, Wynne, and Teddal to the satisfaction of these officers; whether, on the 18th of March last, Constable Deans was summoned to the County Inspector's office in the police barrack at Ennis, and questioned as to the fact that he had given evidence for the defence in the prosecution of the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. Cox) under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; whether such evidence was of a purely technical character as to the posting of public notices in police huts; whether County Inspector Heard informed him that he had received a letter from Colonel Turner on the subject, and that he was now obliged to report to headquarters the fact of his (Constable Deans) having given such evidence on behalf of the hon. Member for East Clare; and, whether, without any further warning and without any other reasons having been assigned, Constable Deans was within a week afterwards summarily dismissed from the Royal Irish Constabularly?

The County Inspector of Constabulary reports that he did not question the man as to the fact alleged; that he did not inform him that he had a letter from Colonel Turner; nor did he say that he would have to report to headquarters the fact of his having given the evidence referred to. No special reason was assigned on the discharge of this man other than that his services were no longer required.

If this man makes an affidavit before a magistrate as to the exact nature of the conversation that did take place, will the right hon. Gentleman take any further action in the matter?

I do not know that any further action is required.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it was that the Constabulary Authorities in Ireland only arrived at the conclusion that this man was unfit for service directly after he gave evidence for the hon. Member for East Clare?

I do not quite understand the purport of the hon. Member's Question.

My Question is, whether, as a matter of fact, this man was not dismissed because he gave evidence in favour of the hon. Member for East Clare at his trial, and that nothing else has been alleged against him?

The hon. Member has been wrongfully informed.

I beg to give Notice that on the Police Estimates I will raise this Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that John Waters and Thomas Moroney, after a residence of 40 years in Cardiff, have been deported as paupers from a locality which for that long period was benefited by their labour and expenditure to Waterford, which place they originally were compelled to leave owing to want of employment; whether John Waters and Thomas Moroney have become a permanent charge on a Union to which is attachable the mere accident of birth; and, whether it is competent for Guardians of the poor in Ireland to send to the Unions in which they have been born paupers from England, Scotland, and Wales, who may be in receipt of Poor Law relief in Ireland?

The facts are substantially as stated in the first two paragraphs. The reply to the third paragraph is in the negative.

asked, as this was a great grievance, if the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to introduce a measure removing that grievance?

I suppose the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers would be a Bill which would enable Irish Unions to export to England poor Englishmen who, as it were, had to be supported out of Irish rates. Neither that nor any other Bill of the kind has a chance of passing this Session.

May I ask—

Order, order! The first Question of the hon. Gentleman did not fairly arise out of the Question on the Paper.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that a Treasury Minute allows foreigners residing abroad to have their coupons of Foreign and Colonial Loans cashed in London free of income tax; whether the Board of Inland Revenue refuse the same privilege to British subjects permanently residing abroad, although the moneys are not derived from any source in Great Britain, but exclusively from foreign sources; and, whether, if such is the case, he will consider the advisability of extending to British subjects residing abroad the same privileges as those enjoyed by foreigners?

(who replied) said: Yes, Sir; the privilege spoken of by the hon. and gallant Member is allowed to foreigners residing abroad, and, I conceive, quite fairly. We have no right to tax foreigners as such, or to impose a duty on Foreign and Colonial Bonds as such where they are not held in this country. The accident that the coupons are payable here is not, I think, sufficient reason for taxing the foreigner who holds them abroad. But with British subjects the case is different, and I see no reason for extending this privilege to them. It by no means follows that because a British subject resides permanently abroad he ceases to have any concern in or to derive any advantage from the various objects for which taxation is imposed in this country. He profits by our Diplomatic and Consular services; and it is not exclusively those who live in this country who derive advantage from our expenditure on the Army and Navy, which again means taxation. I do not, therefore, think that the British subject resident abroad has a good claim to exemption from the small amount of Imperial taxation which he pays in this form.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, pending the inquiry of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service Establishments into the case of the attendants and messengers at the South Kensington Museum, the Rules relating to their sick pay, which had been in force for upwards of 20 years before their withdrawal by the Treasury Minute of 1885, might be allowed to apply to those attendants and messengers who entered the Office before that date, and who now, after long and meritorious service, find themselves subject to a much lower rate of sick pay?

The Treasury does not admit that the attendants and messengers are entitled to the privileges which they claim; and I do not think that, pending the inquiry of the Royal Commission on Civil Service Establish- ments, it would be advisable to make the concession indicated by the hon Member.

(for Mr. DIXON - HARTLAND) (Middlesex, Uxbridge) asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the officer commanding the 5th Battalion Royal Fusiliers, who is stated to have reported unfavourably upon Major Roe, is the commanding officer under whom he actually did the duty of major during the years 1886–7; and, if not, whether it is upon the adverse Report of an officer only recently appointed to the command that Major Roe is deprived of the step in rank to which he is properly entitled by long service; and, whether, assuming that Major Roe is not able to do duties which he has actually performed for three years, it is a fact that the remaining seven captains are so inefficient that none of them are fit for promotion, although the drill and discipline of the battalion has been reported to be in the highest state of efficiency up to the date of the honourable Charles Edgcumbe's resignation of the command in 1887?

The selection of officers for promotion is made by the Commander-in-Chief, on information which appears to him to be proper for his guidance, after careful consideration. As I have already stated, in the opinion of the officers commanding the battalion, the officers commanding the Regimental District, and the General Officer commanding the District, it would not be for the good of the Service to promote Major Roe. No decision has yet been come to as to how the vacancy shall be filled.

asked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works has granted a site in the parish of St. Luke's for costermongers' dwellings; and, if so, what are the terms upon which it has been granted?

The Board has sold to a committee of costermongers a plot of ground on the south side of Dufferin Street, in the parish of St. Luke,'s for costermongers' dwellings. The ground was sold for 21 years' purchase, at a rent computed at 1d. a foot, and on condition that the ground should be used for the erection of costermongers' dwellings.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the new valises supplied to the 3rd Bedford Regiment in the autumn of 1885 have been officially reported as unserviceable; whether, by Regulation, these 870 valises should have lasted for 20 trainings, whereas they have only been in wear three trainings; whether, besides being reported unserviceable, the paint has dropped off and ruined the men's coats; and, who is the officer responsible for passing these valises, and the name of the contractor?

The Report of a Board of Officers stating that the valises of the 3rd Bedford Regiment were "not waterproof and therefore unserviceable" was received at the War Office this morning. This is the first Official Report that has been received on this subject. Nothing is said in it about damage to the men's coats. Valises should last the Militia 20 years; but those referred to in this Question were of a new kind, and their issue was of an experimental character. Until some of them have been received and examined I cannot say anything more about them.

But who was the contractor?

How in the world can my hon. Friend expect me to tell him this until I have read the Report, which was only received this morning? I must have time to examine the Report.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the recent evidence given before the Royal Commission on the Metropolitan Board of Works, he can suggest any method of limiting their powers as to expenditure of ratepayers' money during the existence of their present functions?

No, Sir; I am unable to suggest any method of limiting the existing statutory powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works. I apprehend that the legality of any expenditure of public money by the Board can be called in question before the Auditor on the complaint of a ratepayer.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can assure the House that, in every case where an individual has been convicted under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," of conspiracy to compel or induce some person not to deal with or work for some other person in the ordinary course of trade, business, or occupation, evidence has been taken to prove not only the refusal of the individual to work or deal as above, but to prove that he was implicated in a conspiracy for some one of the said purposes?

In all the cases described by the right hon. Gentleman evidence has been taken to prove the conspiracy referred to. In one case, that of Sullivan, the evidence so tendered did not appear to the Court of Exchequer to be of a character to prove the offence of criminal conspiracy. This arose from an error, not of substance, but of procedure, in the Court of First Instance; where evidence implicating five men in the charge of criminal conspiracy, though given in Court, was not, as it should have been, entered separately against each of the defendants.

I am afraid that some misapprehension has arisen between us as to the meaning of my Question. Is it not the fact that evidence of conspiracy was not given, but simply of refusal to deal with particular cases? But I shall bring the matter to an issue by asking the right hon. Gentleman, not to-day, but I will put the Question down for to-morrow or Monday, whichever he may think best—Whether, in the case of Thomas Bailey, who was convicted on the 31st of May, at Castlemartyr, of conspiracy, and sentenced by Resident Magistrates—

Order, order! I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; but there is a Rule of the House against giving Notice in this way.

I beg pardon. I will give Notice for Monday.

May I ask the Chief Secretary whether, as a matter of fact, the only evidence of conspiracy in any single case has been the evidence of the refusal of the person prosecuted to supply the goods?

I think that is not so; but if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper, I will be in a position to answer him.

Most decidedly I will.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether, in cases of conspiracy under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, it is compulsory on the Magistrates to state a case if required? Perhaps I may be allowed to mention that the Question has been altered since I sent it in, and words have been left out showing that I put the Question because of certain language held by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour).

Order, order! The reason why the Question was altered was that it asked one Minister if what another Minister had stated on the previous day was true. Therefore, there was something invidious—or it might be taken to be invidious—in the form of the Question.

Yes, Sir; the statement is perfectly correct. The Justices are bound by statute to state a case on the application of any person dissatisfied with their decision as being erroneous in point of law, unless they are of opinion that the application is merely frivolous; and their judgment as to this latter matter is liable to be controlled by the Queen's Bench Division, which may order them to state a case.

May I ask the Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether, as a matter of fact, the magistrates did not refuse to state a case in the case of Brosnan, the newsvendor, of Tralee, not on the ground that it was frivolous; and also in the case of the Kerry blacksmith; and may I ask, also, whether the then Solicitor General for Ireland did not, before the Court of Queen's Bench, oppose those applications?

I am not aware of the facts of the particular cases to which the hon. Gentleman alludes; but if he wishes to get more specific information as to either case, I shall be prepared, if he gives Notice, to answer him. The Question was addressed to me as to the law, and I stated the statutory requirements; but if the hon. Member wishes information as to particular facts I will give it to him on Notice being given.

May I ask, whether there is a single case in which magistrates have refused to state a case on the ground that the application was frivolous?

I must request the hon. Gentleman, if he asks me a Question on a matter of fact, to put it on the Paper.

Arising out of the Questions put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, of which I have given him private Notice, Whether it is a fact that out of the 58 Resident Magistrates who have tried cases under the Crimes Act, including cases of conspiracy, 12 only have been called to the Bar, and of these 12 how many have been practising barristers?

I wholly fail to see how the Question arises from the Questions put on the Paper, and the Question itself has only been put into my hands five minutes ago. I believe, as a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman will find most of the information which he requires in the Return already laid before Parliament with regard to Resident Magistrates. If that Return does not give all the information, I will be happy to give it to him if he gives Notice.

I will.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true, as stated in The Times, that the Government of India contemplate the raising of a special loan to meet the cost of the Frontier defences?

The Government of India do not propose to raise a special loan in order to meet the cost of the Frontier defences. It has been decided not to impose taxation for this purpose, and hence the Financial Statement shows a deficit in the Budget for 1888–9; but the charge can, according to the Estimate, be met from the cash balances.

Then the statement in The Times is incorrect?

I have not seen the statement in The Times.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the certificate given by the Recorder of Dublin to Constable Currey, of the F Division, Dublin Metropolitan Police, on the occasion of the trial of the action "Smyth v. Madden and Currey" at the Quarter Sessions held on April 15, 1887, at Kingstown; also the amount of the costs paid by the Crown for the defendant Currey; and, whether the nominal verdict of 10s. and the fee to the jury is included therein?

The Commissioner of Police informs me that the costs referred to amounted to £13 68. 10d., which included the sum of 10s. 6d. awarded as damages, and afterwards, by direction of the Recorder, given to the jury. With regard to the certi- ficate, I am informed that application has already been made for a copy of it, with a view to its use in private litigation, and that it has been refused. On these grounds, and under these circumstances, I do not think I should state the terms of the certificate on official authority here.

Under what Act of Parliament are those costs paid by the Crown?

The hon. Gentleman must put that Question on the Paper.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether at Killarney Petty Sessions, on the 5th instant, on the hearing of a charge of assault against Constable Kearney, the complainant, Timothy Cronin, and four witnesses, deposed to the constable having struck Cronin, and pushed him off the flag-way, for no apparent reason; whether the presiding Justices, Messrs. Herbert and Orpen, while avowing there was no obstruction of the foot-way by Cronin, still dismissed the case against the constable, without requiring his solicitor to make any defence, on the sole ground that they considered the assault trivial; and, if these allegations are true, would he cause the re-hearing of this case

The Inspector General reports that the complainant and three witnesses did not depose to the constable having struck Cronin; but they did swear to his having pushed him off the foot-path. Cronin, however, admitted that he did not feel the assault. The magistrates considered that there had been no real assault, and dismissed the case. The charge against Cronin was not heard before the magistrates at Petty Sessions, but before the Town Court.

asked whether, when the case was before the Petty Sessions, a previous case had not been before the Town Court, and that, at the instance of the policeman, a summons was served for obstruction of the foot-path; and, whether the magistrates did not admit that the assault had been committed?

said, the facts were as he had already stated.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the charge against the sergeant was not heard at Petty Sessions?

said, he had stated the information he had received. If the hon. Gentleman would put a Question on the Paper he would inquire.

said, he would repeat the Question on Friday.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a report in The Freeman's Journal of June 6, of the proceedings of a Special Court held at Lanesborough, under the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, for the trial of prisoners on a charge of intimidation, in which evidence was given by a sergeant of police that he saw the local band drumming before the gate of a Mr. Russell, which was a sign that he was Boycotted; whether it is true, as stated in the report, that Mr. Hill, one of the Resident Magistrates who composed the Court, threatened the prisoners and everyone listening to him that if there were any more drumming at these places, or at evictions, or at Courts, he would have their drums smashed, and every man present sent to gaol for six months; in making use of this threat from the Bench, was Mr. Hill acting in his judicial capacity as a magistrate, or as an agent of the Executive Government; and, is Mr. Hill one of the Resident Magistrates who have been in attendance on the Chief Secretary in Dublin Castle.

The Resident Magistrate reports that the band referred to had, on the occasion of evictions and trials at Petty Sessions, collected disorderly crowds, which interfered with the administration of the law; and he took the first opportunity which was presented by the occasion in question of warning them against continuing their course, and the probable consequences which would ensue should they disregard this warning. He gave this warning advice in his judicial capacity, not as a threat.

(for Mr. M'CARTAN) (Down, S.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state how many applications to fix fair rent in the County of Antrim were remaining unheard on the 1st instant; how many of these applications are from the Poor Law Union of Ballycastle; when a sitting was last held to hear applications from this Union; on what date, and in what town, the first sitting of a Sub-Commission will be held for the County of Antrim; and, whether he can give the names of the gentlemen who will constitute the Sub-Commission?

The Land Commissioners inform me that 2,057 cases remained unheard on the 1st instant, of which 378 were from the Union of Ballycastle. The date of the last sitting at which cases from the Ballycastle Union were heard was July, 1887. The Commissioners are not in a position to state the date at which the next sitting for cases from the Ballycastle Union will be held; nor can they at present say the names of the gentlemen who will constitute the Sub-Commission. The place of sitting will be Ballycastle. I answered the Question only a few days ago.

(for Mr. M'CARTAN) (Down, S.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Resolution of the Board of Guardians at Ballymena, County Antrim, on the 2nd instant, expressing want of confidence in Colonel Studdert, the Local Government Board auditor, and requesting that another auditor should be sent down there instead; whether Colonel Studdert had publicly certified that the sureties of Relieving Officer Duffin were alive, and whether he had since written to the Board of Guardians on Saturday last to know if these sureties were alive; whether he can state if these sureties are dead or alive; and, if dead, the dates of their deaths, and also the date of the last certificate in which this auditor certified that they were living; whether the Guardians telegraphed to the Local Government Board on Saturday last, calling for a new auditor to be sent down to them; whether a new auditor will be sent there, and if he can give the name of the new auditor; and, whether Colonel Studdert is the same gentleman who audited last year, and for some years past, the accounts of the Belfast Town Council?

The Local Government Board would not be prepared to take so serious a step as the supersession of an auditor upon the vague grounds suggested by the Ballymena Guardians; but they have asked the Guardians to state the specific grounds upon which they base their complaint of careless audit, and they are willing to investigate the matter, if the Guardians are prepared to substantiate their charges. With regard to the case of the Relieving Officer Duffin, it appears that the auditor was misled by false information given to him by the late clerk of the Union (who has become a defaulter), and who reported to him, at successive audits, that the man's sureties were living, notwithstanding that they had been dead for some years. The answer to the last paragraph is, Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as reported in the papers of Tuesday, that Albert Travis, sentenced to death in 1886, has been proved to be innocent of the crime of which be was convicted; whether it is true that he has been unconditionally released; and, if so, whether the Government intend to compensate him for his unmerited imprisonment; and, whether it is true, as reported, that the police at the time of the trial had information in their possession showing that Travis was not guilty?

also asked, Whether, as stated in The Pall Mall Gazette of Tuesday, it is true an unconditional release of the convict Albert Travis has been made, and on what grounds; whether it is true, as also stated, that at the time of trial the police knew that Travis did not commit the murder; and, whether the release is due to reconsideration of the same papers in the Home Office at the time of the commutation of the capital punishment?

It is true that the remainder of the sentence on Albert Travis of penal servitude for life on a charge of murder has been remitted after two years, on the ground that there is too much doubt in the case to justify his further detention in prison. There is no intention to grant him any compensation. It is not a fact that at the time of the trial the police knew that Travis did not commit the murder, or that they had information in their possession showing that he was not guilty. Since the commutation of the sentence of death fresh information has been received, which has led me on two occasions to reconsider the whole of this most intricate and singular case. I arrived at my final decision after consulting more than one eminent Judge, from whom I have received valuable assistance. The difficulties of the case are shown by the fact that the learned Judge who tried the case is still satisfied with the verdict.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to a statement made by Major Barker, Chief Constable of Birkenhead, to the effect that it was known to the Police Authorities, after the case had been fully investigated before the Justices, that Travis did not commit the murder, and that it was against the judgment of the Police Authorities that a prosecution was instituted at the Assizes?

I have not seen that statement, nor am I aware that it is authentic. As far as I know, the only matter in the knowledge of the police that did not come out at the trial was evidence which the police have since laid before me, contradicting unexpected statements of a woman named Platt.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Rule is still observed by which, in all cases of capital charges, the prosecution shall be under the direct control of the Public Prosecutor?

I am not aware of any case in which that Rule has not been observed; but, off-hand, without searching for documents at the Home Office, I should be sorry to say positively that the Rule has always been observed. The Public Prosecutor is directly responsible for such cases, although, in many instances, he has employed local agents as his representatives.

asked, whether it was not usual in cases where a man had suffered unmerited imprisonment, to give him compensation?

No, Sir; on the contrary, to give compensation is without precedent.

asked, if it was not a fact that compensation was given to a man named Habron, whose case stood on exactly parallel lines with the present one?

I would like Notice of that Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Ballinasloe suffer great inconvenience for want of a Town Hall that could be used as a place for the transaction of public business; that there are two halls in the town—namely, the Agricultural Hall and the Farming Society Building, both of which were erected for public uses and in a great degree by public money, but have now passed into the hands of the ground landlords, who have rented them to private individuals; and, whether he is aware that the Town Commissioners have been unable to secure the Agricultural Hall as a Town Hall, though they offered to give the same rent for it as is paid at present; and, if so, would the Local Government Board, by their advice or otherwise, aid the townspeople of Ballinasloe in their legal efforts to get possession of this hall? The hon. Gentleman also asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in the most central position in Ballinasloe there are sheds which are used as slaughter-houses, which emit a most offensive odour, dangerous to the health of the town; that the inhabitants of Ballinasloe and the Town Commissioners signed a requisition asking Lord Clancarty to remove those sheds, on the ground that they were a public nuisance, an impediment to the traffic, and a disfigurement to the town; that his Lordship refused, on the ground that they were a market house, in which his family had a vested interest of such a nature that he had no legal right to disturb it, especially as it had relation to the tolls and customs; and, if so, would the Local Government Board interfere and cause the removal of these sheds, and thus prevent the expense of a law suit?

, in reply, said, that these Questions required local inquiry, and he would, therefore, ask the hon. Member to postpone them until Tuesday.

I shall be engaged next Tuesday at the Law Courts.

, said, he might put down the Questions for Monday; but he could not promise to be in a position to answer them by that day.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the tolls and customs of Ballinasloe, which, owing to the great fairs held in that town, come to a large amount of money, are paid to Lord Clancarty; that, out of the money thus received, his Lordship contributes nothing towards the cleansing, lighting, or other municipal expenses of the town; and, if so, will the Government give an instruction to the Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls to hold a public inquiry in Ballinasloe?

I have no knowledge as to the matters of fact referred to. I understand that Ballinasloe is one of the towns selected by the Royal Commission at which a public inquiry will be held by the Assistant Commissioners for Ireland in due course.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Section 3, Sub-section 2, of "The Merchandize Marks Act, 1887," is intended to apply to domestic as well as to foreign manufacturers; and, whether, under Section 2, a man would be liable to imprisonment who sold goods of British manufacture, bearing his name, but not actually manufactured by him?

, in reply, said: The hon. Member asks me to place an interpretation on an Act of Parliament. I have no power to do so. I am not, however, aware of any such limitation of the application of Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Merchandize Marks Act as he alludes to in the first part of his Question. With reference to the second part, I would call the hon. Member's attention to the words "or merchandize" in the last line of the subsection, which were, I understand, inserted to meet the contingency referred to.

(for Mr. PHILIPPS) (Lanark, Mid) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Udston Colliery Inquiry?

If the hon. Member will refer to pages 10 to 14 of the Report he will see that they contain an abstract of the evidence given by the principal witnesses, both as to the facts and the causes of the explosion. Under these circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will not press me to incur the serious expense of printing a verbatim copy of the evidence, which is very bulky. I shall be happy to show it to the hon. Member.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether representations have been received from British Guiana with reference to the worn-out condition of the silver currency in use throughout the Colony; and, if not, whether, in the event of such representations being made, the Government will favourably consider the question?

The Secretary of State has received no official representations on the subject; but the Colonial Government have the remedy in their own hands, as arrangements were made by the Treasury in 1879 by which new coin would be shipped to any Colony using British currency free of charge. The Imperial Treasury will also pay the full nominal value of all worn British silver sent in to the Mint.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he can now state the result of his inquiries into the case of Thomas Ward, a pauper inmate in the Medway Union Workhouse?

I have made inquiry respecting Thomas Ward, an inmate of the workhouse of the Medway Union. He was allowed leave of absence from the workhouse on the 1st of November last. He returned about 8 o'clock and went to his ward. He was while there drunk and disorderly, causing a great disturbance, swearing and using bad language. The circumstances were reported to the House Committee the next day; and they, having examined several of the men in the ward and ascertained the facts, directed that he should be charged before the magistrates. He was accordingly, on the following day, given in charge of the police. Before leaving the workhouse he was requested to change the workhouse clothing for his own; but he refused to do so, and the clothing was forcibly changed. This took place at 12·30 in the daytime, and not at 12·30 at night, as suggested. Ward was charged before the Justices, was convicted, and sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment with hard labour. The wife of Ward died in the infirmary in March, 1886, having been an inmate for many years. Ward was with her till late in the evening, the matron having given permission that he should visit his wife at any time during the day until 8 o'clock, and he had been continually in the infirmary. As there were 21 other patients in the ward, the matron did not feel justified in allowing a male visitor after 8 o'clock. Ward was informed of his wife's death early in the morning. It does not appear to me that any further inquiry as to the management of the workhouse is necessary.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the following cases of police interference with, and intimidation of, street newspaper vendors have occurred in the City of Cork—namely, Denis Desmond (young lad), who refused to sell to a policeman a copy of United Ireland, arrested by Sergeant Kennedy, and detained for a short time in Bridewell; Denis M'Carthy (young lad), refused to sell a copy of The Cork Examiner to Police Sergeant Power, arrested by Sergeant Power, taken to the Bridewell, and detained there for some time; John Radley (young lad), refused to sell a copy of United Ireland and Cork Examiner to policeman, arrested by Sergeant Power, taken to Bridewell, and detained there for some time; Cornelius Coakley (young lad), arrested for refusing to sell to policeman a copy of United Ireland and Cork Examiner, by Sergeant Power, taken to the Bridewell, and detained there for some time; Patrick Bradley (young lad), arrested under circumstances similar to the above by Sergeant Power; Patrick Carleton (young lad), refused to sell a copy of Cork Herald to policeman, arrested by Sergeant O'Leary, and lodged in Bridewell for some time; Michael Murphy (an old man of 70), he refused to sell a copy of The Examiner to policeman on beat, and the policeman kicked the old man's box about, scattered his papers, cuffed the old man, and warned him against selling the newspaper; and, whether, in view of these occurrences he will order an independent inquiry into these matters?

Sir, I am making special inquiries into the cases; and if the hon. Member will put the Questions on Tuesday next I will try to give him an answer.

asked whether, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made his speech at Battersea on the 16th of May, he was unaware of the circumstances there detailed, which took place in December last.

It has yet to be proved that the circumstances did take place.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What is the present position of the railway (of about 100 miles in length, between Wady Halfa and Sarras, in Egypt) constructed by War Departments at a cost of about £140,000; who is in control; is the railway worked or abandoned; and, what has become of the rolling stock provided for it?

The hon. Baronet is under some misapprehension as to this line of railway from Wady Halfa to Sarras. It is only 33½ miles in length, and was constructed by the Egyptian Government between 1873 and 1877. At the time of the Nile Expedition, and for military purposes, some expenditure was incurred in improving the line; but nothing approaching the sum named in the Question. On the abandonment of the country south of Wady Halfa the line was transferred to the control of the Egyptian Government, to whom the rolling stock was lent, so far as it had been provided from British funds. The sale of the stock is now under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that some of his Predecessors have had printed and issued a verbatim report of the minutes of evidence taken before Coroners' Courts in cases of explosions in mines; if he is aware that in the case of Seaham, in the County of Durham, where 168 lives were lost, and the inquest lasted 12 days, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had printed in a Blue Book a full report of all the evidence taken before the Coroner and jury, although the workmen had not, or ever did attribute negligence as the cause of the disaster; if he knows that in the case of the explosion at St. Helen's Colliery, in Cumberland, the workmen do allege negligence of management as the direct cause of so many lives being lost, and that they contemplate taking legal action under the provisions of the Employers' Liability Act to recover compensation for the relatives of the deceased; and, whether, under these exceptional circumstances, he will order a verbatim report of the evidence tendered before the Coroner's Court or Courts in the St. Helen's inquiry?

The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. I am not aware that the men allege negligence of management as the direct cause of loss of life, or that they contemplate taking legal action. I am unable to lay a verbatim report of the evidence upon the Table, as there was no shorthand writer present at the Coroner's inquest; but the Report which I have just received and will shortly lay on the Table of the House specifically refers to the important witnesses, and to the facts to which they deposed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received from the Leicestershire district objections to Special Rules; and, whether he intends to take any steps to see that the wishes of the workmen are duly and properly attended to?

Yes, Sir; I have received such objections. With the view of meeting the wishes of the workmen in this district certain amendments of the Special Rule were prepared by the Inspector, approved by me, and proposed to the owners, by whom they have generally been accepted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the fact that a summons has been served on a Mr. Fairbairn for collecting money after a political speech in Southwark Park; and, if this is the first summons that has been served under this bye-law of the Metropolitan Board of Works?

Yes, Sir; I am informed by the Metropolitan Board of Works that the fact is as stated. Mr. Fairbairn is the first person who has broken the bye-law, and, consequently, he is the first person who has been summoned under it.

Seeing that the Government apparently are about to suppress political meetings in London under pretexts, had we better not pass a Coercion Act for London, as for Ireland?

Order, order! Mr. Fenwick.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he will give the staff of the Central Telegraph Office an opportunity of expressing their wishes as to the present system of payment of salaries, in the same manner as was done recently on the question of long and short duties; and, whether, if a large number of the staff are found to be in favour of weekly, instead of fortnightly, payment of wages, he will take steps to comply with their request?

, in reply, said, that any officer in the Post Office was at liberty to apply to him through the usual official channel; and should the staff at the Central Telegraph Office submit an application he would give it attentive consideration. It would, of course, be premature to give any promise as to future action until the requirements of the Service and the wishes of the officers had received fuller consideration.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the discontinuance at the beginning of this month of the sorting van, which for the last two or three years has been running between Burntisland and Dundee, and which has proved to be a very great public convenience in respect to the interchange of letters locally in the County of Fife; whether the discontinuance of this van is the act of the North British Railway Company, and connected with differences between that Company and the Post Office, now the subject of arbitration; whether the Post Office has made any attempt to arrange temporarily for the continuance of this van, so as to obviate the derangement and delay of mails which must result from its suspension; and, whether, failing agreement, he has power to compel, and will compel, the Company to restore this sorting van?

The facts generally are as stated by the hon. Member. The Post Office did attempt, but unsuccessfully, to arrange for the continuance of the sorting carriages in Fifeshire. Until the umpire in the pending arbitration has made his award, I shall not be prepared to re-enter on the consideration of this Question. I believe the last sitting of the umpire and arbitrators is fixed for the latter part of this week, so we may hope before long to have the award.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to the following extract from the report in The Freeman's Journal of the charge of Mr. Justice Johnson, on the 5th instant, to the Grand Jury of the County of Dublin:—

"The County Inspector had furnished him with a list of the criminal offences that had occurred since the last commission, and he reported that the county was in a perfectly satisfactory state;"

The general state of crime is not abnormal. But I would remind the hon. Member that the section cannot be put in force unless a crime has been committed; and, further, that the necessity for using the section does not depend on the amount of crime committed, but on the character and circumstances of the crime which has to be investigated. The Government desire to be in a position to put the section in force without delay if the necessity for it should arise.

asked, if he was to understand that the reason why this section had been applied to the County of Dublin was that possibly something in the way of crime might arise in future requiring the aid of the section?

The hon. Gentleman must not be too hasty in his inferences.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can now explain to the House why this provision of the Crimes Act has been applied to the City of Dublin, when, since it was applied to the City of Dublin four weeks ago, no steps have been taken under the section? Now, as I think its application to the City of Dublin is extremely unnecessary, I think we are entitled to some explanation.

It was applied to the City of Dublin as included in the County; and my answer as regards the City of Dublin is precisely the same as the answer to the hon. Gentleman in relation to the County of Dublin.

I beg to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has given absolutely no answer to the Questions put to him. The right hon. Gentleman has given a purely hypothetical statement that possibly the Government might require the power of the section in case necessity might arise. I think we have a right to press the right hon. Gentleman for some statement of the reasons why the County and the City of Dublin are included under this section; because we are entitled to suppose that the Coercion Act would not be applied without some reason for it.

I do not know that I can give the hon. Gentleman the information he desires; but I may say that the County of Dublin is in an exceptional position in Ireland, as offences might be committed there which would blossom into crimes in other parts of the country.

asked, whether the object of this section of the Crimes Act was not to discover crime; and whether Mr. Justice Johnson, on the same occasion, did not say that the amount of crime in the City of Dublin was very inconsiderable?

I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the necessity for using the powers of the section does not depend on the amount, but on the character and circumstances of the crime which has to be investigated.

But what is the crime? Will the right hon. Gentleman say that there is any crime in the City or County of Dublin of such a character as requires to be investigated under Section 1?

I am afraid I should not be able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman with any answer I might give. I have nothing to add to what I have said.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, by a plain answer, enable the House to understand, with regard to the County of Dublin, whether or not any information has been sworn that a crime has been committed; or whether, in fact, any crime has been committed which renders it desirable, in the opinion of the Government, to apply the provisions of Section 1 of the Coercion Act?

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is aware that if information had been sworn that a crime had been committed there would be an investigation under Section 1. I am afraid beyond that I have nothing to add.

Are we to understand, then, that no crime has been committed in the County of Dublin? [No reply.]

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether John Ma- guire, of Swords, County of Dublin, against whom a warrant for arrest was issued for the second time early in March last, but who still remained at large at the end of April under the protection of the police, has yet been committed to prison; if so, when was Maguire arrested; and, what is the justification for delaying the execution of the warrant?

Maguire was arrested on the 10th of May. The execution of the warrant was delayed pending the result of inquiry by the Lord Lieutenant into a Memorial by Maguire. The magistrates ordered that the arrest should not take place until the Lord Lieutenant gave his decision on the Memorial.

May I ask, is there any precedent for delaying the execution of a warrant on such grounds?

I am afraid I cannot answer that Question without Notice. Subsequently,

said, as he did not hear the answer—

Order, order! I must call the attention of the House to the practice, which is a growing one, after the Questions have been twice gone over, of Members reviving Questions which have been answered some time ago, and raising a series of further Questions upon them. I think that practice is causing serious inconvenience to the House.

With your permission, Sir, I may state that I was about saying that I had not heard the answer of the right hon. Gentleman.

Order, order!That is hardly a reason, under the circumstances, for repeating the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Return of Caretakers evicted in Ireland, promised in February, and stated subsequently to be almost ready for presentation, will be placed upon the Table of the House?

The Return was presented on May 31, and circulated this morning.

asked, whether that Return was not one that dealt solely with evicted tenants—tenants reduced to the position of caretakers under Clause 7 of the Land Act; and, whether it was not a different Return to that which the right hon. Gentleman promised in February last?

said, that the hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension. The Return in question did deal with caretakers.

Not with the eviction of caretakers?

Yes, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Return, he will see, on the first and second pages of it, that it does refer to the eviction of caretakers—of ex-tenants who are caretakers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to complaints that persons who have acted as under managers of mines for many years have been refused certificates of service; whether it is true that in cases of refusal to grant such certificates no reason or explanation has been given to the applicant; and, whether, considering the dissatisfaction that exists and the interest that is taken in the subject, he will state the method of procedure and the principles that guide the Home Office in dealing with certificates of service?

Yes, Sir; I have received such complaints. In the first instance no reason for refusal is given; but if remonstrance is made the reasons are set forth in detail. I consider my duty to be limited to ascertaining whether the candidate possesses the statutory qualification—namely, whether he has exercised functions substantially corresponding to those of an under manager. I have no right to exercise any discretion as to whether the candidate is otherwise personally qualified. The method of procedure is to refer each application to the Inspector of the district, who reports to me whether, in fact, the candidate possesses the statutory qualification. The two main principles, speaking generally, by which I have been guided are—first, that the applicant shall have been next in authority to a certificated manager; and, secondly, that he shall have exercised control over a separate mine, or such part as might, under the Statute, have constituted a separate mine.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If a man named John Mara, a printer, was arrested on June 2, in Hyde Park, by two detectives, on suspicion of being a pickpocket; if at the time of his arrest he was dressed in his working clothes, his hands being covered with printer's ink, with other marks of his trade to show that he was what he represented himself to be; if he stated at the Police Court that he has been employed by Mr. T. Sharp, 17, Great Titchfield Street, W., for the last 10 years, whose foreman has been to Marlborough Street Police Court to testify to his good character and respectability and to offer bail; if this bail was refused by Mr. Newton; and, if so, for what reason; if John Mara is under further remand till Saturday next, to enable the police to bring forward witnesses who "saw him walking about in a suspicious manner;" if, as the matter stands at present, John Mara remains in prison on suspicion only, the only charge against him being the unsupported evidence of two detectives; and, if he will at once order John Mara release on bail?

I am informed by the magistrate that the facts as stated in the Question are substantially correct, and that the prisoner is under remand on the evidence of two reliable witnesses, while other witnesses are to be produced on Saturday. I have no authority to order his release on bail.

Does it require a fortnight for two detectives to produce corroborative evidence of picking pockets in Hyde Park; and is there anything beyond the suspicion of those detectives that this man was engaged in picking pockets?

I have given the hon. Gentleman all the information that I possess.

Well, I shall put down other Questions on this subject tomorrow.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he intends to persevere with the proposal to hand over to the County Councils the proceeds of the licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors?

We do not intend, Sir, to make any alteration in our proposals in this regard.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will place some additional furniture in the Reading Room, so that the newspapers may be arranged in a convenient and available manner for the use of the Members of the House?

Yes, Sir; I will endeavour to see whether better arrangements cannot be made in the Reading Room.

asked, whether it might not be possible to get a better newspaper room altogether; and, also, whether the First Commissioner could not cause a more adequate supply of newspapers, particularly French and Belgian newspapers, to be procured?

The supply of newspapers does not come within my Department. I should like to see a better Reading Room; but I am afraid it is not possible to obtain one, considering the accommodation of the building.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will extend to the Yeomanry the Order recently issued to the Volunteers, which limits the age for service in that Force to the years between 17 and 50?

It is proposed to fix a limit of age for service in the Yeomanry, subject to exceptions in very special cases.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following in The Daily News:—

"At Falcarragh Crimes Court yesterday four prisoners were remanded for the fourth time to Derry Gaol for seven days for refusing to give evidence. An old man named Shane O'Donnell fainted on his third journey from gaol. He was with great difficulty resuscitated, and was eventually discharged;"

, in reply, said, that the Question only appeared on the Paper that morning; but if it were repeated on Monday he would endeavour to answer it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has yet received an answer from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington as to the reason why shippers from England to the United States are charged a declaration fee of 2s. 6d. on each invoice in addition to the Consul's fee, while shippers from Germany to the United States pay no declaration fee?

(who replied) said: A letter containing the substance of the Report on the subject received from Her Majesty's Minister at Washington was addressed to the hon. Member yesterday. If he requires any further information I would suggest that he should communicate again with the Foreign Office, where the matter is receiving attention.

(for Mr. WATT) (Glasgow, Camlachie) asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the additional 30 per cent ad valorem duty upon all goods imported is still enforced by Venezuela; and, whether it is a fact that the trade between Trinidad and Venezuela has now virtually ceased to exist?

(who replied) said: We have no information that this additional duty has ceased to be levied. It is not a fact that trade between Trinidad and Venezuela has now virtually ceased to exist; but there was a falling off in 1887, as compared with 1886, of £10,246 in value of imports to Trinidad (excluding bullion in transit)—namely, from £179,274 to £169,028; and in exports of £26,722—namely, from £168,585 to £141,863.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have instituted any inquiry, or obtained any information from Foreign Governments, showing the difference of organization between the Board of Trade in this country and the Ministers of Commerce of Foreign Administrations; and, if not, whether they will do so?

(who replied) said: No such inquiry has been recently instituted; but if the hon. Member will furnish the Foreign Office with particulars of the information he desires to obtain, and the countries from which it should be procured, Reports will be called for.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the removal of the Volunteer Camp from Wimbledon, and in consideration of the great advantage to the country and the Volunteers generally if the annual meeting could continue to be held near London, and also the desirability of having a permanent range available for the Metropolitan Corps, Whether the Government will take steps to inquire as to the suitability of the Richmond Park site?

I understand that a deputation from the National Rifle Association waited upon my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works this morning on the subject to which my hon. Friend refers. It will be the duty of the Government carefully to consider the representation which was made to the First Commissioner, and they will to do so with as little delay as possible, having regard to the importance of the question. But I must point out to my hon. Friend, that if only the annual rifle meeting is sanctioned in Richmond Park, it will involve the exclusion of the public from a portion of the Park for a fortnight every year, and necessitate the removal of a large number of trees in the line of fire; while if the butts were to be available as a permanent range, the public would have to be permanently excluded from an area amounting to about one-half of the entire Park.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Royal Commission to be presided over by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) will inquire into the relations between the Admiralty and War Office, as regards the conflicting statements made by the First Lord of the Admiralty and Adjutant General of the Army, respecting the transport required and available in French ports for the sudden invasion of this country by 100,000 men; whether the Commissioners will inquire into the relations between the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Treasury, with a view to ascertaining the grounds upon which the Treasury sanctions an annual expenditure by the War Office of over £14,000 a-year for military intelligence, besides over £4,000 a-year for military attaches, while the annual expenditure by the Admiralty for naval intelligence is under £5,000 a-year, and under £1,000 a-year for a naval attaché, as shown by Parliamentary Returns recently presented to the House?

My hon. and gallant Friend is aware of the terms of the Reference to the Royal Commission on the Admiralty and War Office; and it is for the Commission, as a body, to determine what points they will or will not deal with. No Member of Her Majesty's Government can give any instructions to or interfere with the proceedings of a Royal Commission; and, under these circumstances, it is impossible for me to give my hon. and gallant Friend any definite information on the point which he has raised.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the withdrawal of the Licensing Clauses of the Local Government Bill, the Government would be willing to introduce into that Bill a clause, or to bring in a short Bill to suspend for 12 months the issue of all new licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors, as was done in 1871, pending further consideration of the question?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to state that the Government are not prepared to enter into any arrangement or engagement with the House to introduce a Bill suspending for 12 months the issue of all new licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors.

Arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask him whether, after the declaration made by the President of the Local Government Board in introducing the Local Government Bill, the House is to understand that the Government intend to postpone indefinitely dealing with the questions of Local Option, Sunday Closing, and the conferring of powers for granting licences upon Bodies to be elected by the ratepayers?

The hon. Gentleman must draw his own inference from the course which the Government have been compelled to take. Subsequently,

With reference to the Notice given by the Government of their intention to omit certain clauses of the Local Government Bill, I beg leave to give Notice that when a Motion is made to omit Clause 9, relating to Sunday Closing, I shall oppose the omission of that clause.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Greenwich Hospital Estimates will be referred to the Select Committee on Navy Estimates?

The Greenwich Hospital Estimates will not be within the terms of the Reference to the Select Committee on Navy Estimates.

said, that, in the present condition of Public Business, it was impossible for the Government to fix a date for taking the two Bills dealing with the subject of tithe rent-charge.

said, there would be a Morning Sitting to-morrow for the Local Government Bill. It might be necessary to take Supply one day next week—he hoped not more than one day—and the other days would be devoted to the Local Government Bill; but he would state definitely to-morrow if it would be necessary to take Supply, and, if so, on what day it would be taken.

In view of the alarming news about the German Emperor's health, I should like to ask the Government whether they have received any information of a more re-assuring character than is contained in to-day's newspapers?

I regret deeply that it is not in the power of the Government, nor in my power, to give the House any re-assuring information. We have not received any telegram from Berlin since the early morning, and all the information that has reached us is of the character to which my hon. Friend refers. Subsequently,

said: About an hour and a half ago I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford a Question with reference to the condition of the German Emperor. At that time Her Majesty's Government had received no telegram from our Ambassador at Berlin; but we have since received a telegram, dated 3 o'clock to-day, from Berlin, informing us, I regret to say, that the Emperor's condition is much worse than it has been, and that there is now very little hope entertained of his recovery. Inflammation of the lungs has set in; but the Ambassador informs us that His Imperial Highness's intellect is perfectly clear, and that he is suffering no pain. It is with very great regret that I make this communication to the House; but it is, at least, some consolation to know that His Imperial Highness is free from pain, and that his intellect remains unclouded.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he proposes to take the Wheel Tax Bill; or whether they were to understand the right hon. Gentleman meant to give it up?

I thought I had several times informed the House that that tax has not been given up. The time when it will be taken will depend on the progress of the Local Government Bill. It stands in the same category as other measures.

announced that he hoped a Paper would be in the Vote Office this evening giving the suggested numbers of the County Councils. This might be a convenience to hon. Members in view of the discussion on the subject. In reply to Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe),

said, that he hoped the Amendments to the Bill would be laid on the Table to-morrow.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, upon the third reading of this Bill, he will tell the House what he proposes to do with that portion of the Three per Cent Consols which still remains unconverted? At present, there is a considerable difference between the price of the old Consols which have not been converted and those which have been converted, so that the persons who did not take the advice to convert have got a good deal better treatment than the people who did convert. Therefore, there is a considerable portion of Stock, the amount of which I do not know, which is worth 20s. more than the converted Stock.

I cannot admit that because for a few weeks the converted Stock has fallen below par, therefore it is true that those who have not converted have got a better thing than those who have converted. The Three per Cent Stock is now in such a position that it can be paid off on 12 months' notice. Whether they will be in as satisfactory a position as those who have got a Stock on which 2½, per cent or 2¾ per cent is guaranteed for a certain number of years is a question for the right hon. Gentleman and others to determine. If they are paid off at par in the course of a year, and should not be able to invest as well as they can at this particular moment, I should say that they will not be in so favourable a position as the holders of the New Stock. I think it is premature for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to attempt to mar the success of the operation.

I must call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that there is no Question before the House. No debate can arise at this stage, and the third reading will be taken to-morrow.

I will answer the question of the right hon. Gentleman specifically and exactly on another occasion; but I may say now that out of a total of about £590,000,000 and more, the amount still outstanding is about £47,000,000.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in connection with the Bill, Clause 1, which spoke of the market price of the Three per Cent Stock, referred to annuities or assets in the case of the National Debt Commissioners, in respect of trustee savings banks?

Order, order!There can be no discussion upon this stage of the Bill.

intimated that he would put the question to-morrow.