asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware that there is no vaccination station in Wales at which a public vaccinator is authorized to give the certificate of proficiency in vaccination required by the Local Government Board of every medical man before he can hold a Poor Law appointment, and that, in consequence, medical men obtaining Poor Law appointments in Wales have to make journeys, at much expense and inconvenience, to Bristol, Liverpool, or London, to obtain their certificates; and, whether he will take steps for appointing a public vaccinator in two or three of the larger Welsh towns?

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that a certificate of proficiency in vaccination is required by the Local Government Board of every medical man before he can hold a Poor Law appointment. The certificate is required, not for a Poor Law appointment, but for the office of public vaccinator. It is the case that there is no public vaccination station in Wales at which this certificate can be obtained; but the Board are not aware that any serious inconvenience has been occasioned thereby. The College of Physicians, the College of Surgeons, and the Apothecaries Society now require the certificate from every candidate for their diploma or licence, and hence most medical men now obtain these certificates before entering on practice. It is not usual to appoint examiners to grant these certificates in towns in which there is no School of Medicine. But if a Medical School should be established for Wales, I shall be prepared to consider the question of appointing an examiner who would be authorized to give these certificates.

asked the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, Whether it is correctly stated in The Daily News of July 19, that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, after having offered to place a statue of the late Earl of Shaftesbury in Westminster Abbey, have required the payment first of £400 and then of £250 before permitting its erection, and that, as the Memorial Committee have no funds available for the purpose, the statue remains in the studio of the sculptor; and, whether the claim is made at the instance or with the concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as receivers of the Abbey revenues; and, if so, whether, in consideration of the valuable services rendered to the nation by the Earl of Shaftesbury, the claim will be waived?

I know nothing, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, of the statement in The Daily News. No such claim has been made at the instance, or with the concurrence, of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Question relates to a matter with which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have nothing whatever to do, beyond seeing, under the provisions of the Westminster Abbey Act just passed, that any fees received by the Chapter for the erection of monuments have been carried to the Fabric Fund.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If last year the expenditure of public money in the model schools was at the rate of £3 12s. per pupil in average attendance; if the number of new teachers appointed in the national schools was 552; and if only 33 of those had been pupil teachers in the model schools; if, in 1886, the passes in convent and monastery schools were higher than in model schools; and if this was notably so in the highest class; if the model schools are examined by the Head and District Inspectors; and, if the promotion of these Inspectors depends in any way on the success of these examinations?

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that last year the expenditure of public money in the model schools was at the rate of £3 12s. per pupil, which, however, included the cost of maintenance of the pupil teachers boarded at the establishments, matrons, servants, and other incidental expenses. The numbers are as stated in the second paragraph; but the 33 pupil teachers are exclusive of seven others who became teachers from Training Colleges, having, before they entered the Training College, been pupil teachers. The passes in 1886 show a very slight superiority in the infants and sixth classes of the convent and monastery schools over those of the model schools; while, as regards the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth classes the position is reversed. The aggregate percentage of passes is nearly equal in the two classes of schools, being in the former 90·1, and in the model schools 90 per cent. The reply to paragraph four is in the affirmative. To paragraph five in the negative.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Treasury would be willing to sanction the removal of the restriction on building, grants for Science Schools, which makes it one of the conditions of grants in aid to such schools that they be built in connection with a School of Art, aided by a Departmental building grant?

, in reply, said, that he must at present answer the Question in the negative. Great expenditure was being pressed upon the Government in connection with Technical Schools, grants for Colleges, and for the development of scientific and technical education. The Government was in sympathy with the movement; but it was necessary to look at the question as a whole, and to bring all these schemes together, and then to see in what order, and to what extent, these claims could be met.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he possibly can to urge on legislation in this matter?

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any answer about the grants, seeing that they were near the end of the Session?

said, that the method of carrying out the undertaking previously given proved to be extremely difficult. The matter was not in his hands, but in those of the Education Department, which had been looking into the various projects, and endeavouring to form a scheme. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that with all his desire to promote education he would find it difficult to formulate a scheme. The Government would do their best to facilitate legislation on technical education; but the right hon. Gentleman would see that it was impossible for the Government to undertake this Session more than they had already done.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that the tenant of Abbotsford has intimated his resolution to stop all angling by the public for trout in the half mile or so of Tweed which touches that estate; whether it is the case that a gamekeeper on the Neidpath Estate of the Earl of Wemyss has announced that within a month the public will be excluded from the water between Manor- foot and Peebles; whether these two stretches of water have hitherto always been open to the public for trout fishing purposes; and, whether, on account of the action of many proprietors in excluding the public from fishings to which they have had access from time immemorial, he will bring in a Bill to give the public free rod fishing for trout on all rivers, streams, and natural lochs in Scotland?

I am not aware of the facts stated in the first three Questions. But, assuming them to be correct, the question of the right of trout fishing in these waters is one which can only be settled in a Court of Law, and must depend upon title. I do not intend to bring in a Bill for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member.

asked the Lord Advocate, why the Government had not introduced their Salmon Fishing Bill, which had been repeatedly promised?

I do not think that arises out of the present Question.

said, that seeing that the Lord Advocate had so often promised to bring in a Fishing Bill, would he consent to print it, in order that they might see how the Government proposed to deal with the serious grievance which had arisen under the present unjust laws?

I will consider that point.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the report is true that a man named Kennedy, from Clare, who was sentenced under the Crimes Act to a month's imprisonment in Limerick Gaol for taking part in a National League meeting on the Shannon, has become insane, and is discharged by the order of the authorities to obtain the care of his friends at home?

also asked, Whether it is a fact that a prisoner under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act named Kennedy, from County Clare, has been discharged insane from Limerick Prison before the completion of his sentence; and, if so, whether an inquiry as to his treatment while in prison will be instituted?

The General Prisons Board report that a man named Kennedy, from Clare, had been committed to Limerick Prison under a sentence of 21 days' imprisonment. Some 10 days afterwards he exhibited signs of insanity, and was removed to the district lunatic asylum.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to place in the hands of the House materials to enable the House to judge how the man became insane in prison?

No; I have no grounds.

said, he did not ask what grounds the right hon. Gentleman had; but he asked whether he would afford the House material to enable them to judge how this man became insane?

Has this man been sent home to the care of his friends?

I am informed that he has not; but that he has been sent to an asylum.

Is he under the care of Dr. Barr, or any of his confederates?

Order, order!

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state the number of ejectment decrees for non-payment of rent, and also the number of Civil Bill decrees for the recovery of rent which have been granted at the recent sitting of the County Court in each of the following towns in the County of Down—namely, Downpatrick, Newtownards, Banbridge, and Newry; and, how many of these decrees include the old rents of holdings in respect of which the fair rents have not yet been fixed?

, in reply, said, he had asked for a Report on the matter, but had not yet received it. He was not yet aware how far the information required would be available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to give notice that the Special Rules for the Cumberland Collieries be revised as per 54th section of "the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887?"

Yes, Sir; it is my intention to propose Special Rules for the Cumberland District under the 54th section of the Mines Act of last Session.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the case that eight hours is the recognized working day in the Government workshops except at Enfield?

, in reply, said, the regular working hours of an ordinary day in the Government establishments were 9½.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If eight hours is the recognized working day at the naval workshops, Dockyards, &c.?

, in reply, said, the average working day throughout the year of the men employed in the Dockyards was 8½ hours. The working day of the men employed under the Works Department averaged 9½ hours throughout the year.

, asked the Postmaster General, If eight hours is the recognized working day in the Post Office?

, in reply, said, in the Post Office the hours of attendance ranged from six to 10 a day, according to the nature of the employment.

asked, if it was not the case that those who worked only six hours a day were the superior clerks?

said, he had given all the information he had got; but, no doubt, it was the upper clerks' service where the work was only six hours.

, asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether any new Regulations had been introduced to shorten the excessive hours of the London postmen?

I cannot say that any Regulation has been issued with regard to the hours of London postmen; but constant endeavours are made, as far as possible, to keep down the hours to a fair working day—that is to say, to as near eight hours as possible.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether an officer of the Secretary's Office, General Post Office, Dublin, named Thompson, has recently been selected for employment as acting surveyor's clerk in Ireland; what is the length of his service in the Post Office; how many officers of the same rank as Thompson are there in the General Post Office, Dublin, the length of whose service exceeds his; whether the position of surveyor's clerk requires an extensive knowledge of postal and telegraph duties; how many branches of the Post Office has Thompson served in; and, on what principle of selection has such an inexperienced officer as Thompson been chosen before officers whose service in the Post Office so much exceeds his?

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member's six inquiries, my answers are as follows:—1, yes; 2, five years and 10 months in the Public Service, eight months in the Post Office; 3, seven; 4, yes; 5, one; 6, because of all the eligible candidates Thompson was the most suitable for the purpose.

asked how long had this officer been in the branch office?

I am informed that he had been five years and 10 months in the Public Service and eight months in the Post Office.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether an Inspector of the Board of Trade has yet inspected the Channel Tunnel Works; and, if so, what is his Report as to their present state?

Yes; the works have been inspected, and have been found to be practically in the same condition as they were 18 months ago.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Report on the Table?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that visitors to Ireland from America are kept under special police supervision, and that the American Consul in Dublin has written to the Police Authorities complaining of their action in a certain case, and asking for an explanation?

Visitors to Ireland, as such, are not kept under police supervision. Dangerous or suspected characters are. The American Consul has neither complained nor asked for an explanation of the action of the police. He wrote to vouch for the character of an American gentleman staying in Dublin.

As a matter of fact, was there no ground for the statement of the annoyance by detectives to which this gentleman was subjected?

I am not aware that he was subjected to any annoyance?

Yes, he was. His luggage was searched.

I was not aware of that.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the case of some American gentlemen in Cork who had been similarly dogged by detectives?

I will give Notice of this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the recent melinite experiments at Portsmouth, and seeing that a European Power of the first class has developed the use of that explosive during the last three years, and is now completely supplied with it in all branches of the Army and the Fleet, he can state whether the Government now regard the use of melinite as a necessary provision for the exigencies of modern war; and, if so, when it will be issued to Her Majesty's Forces?

The recent trials referred to were made with a higher explosive akin to melinite, but of which I am not prepared to divulge the composition. The results, though not yet complete, were of a satisfactory nature; and I have little doubt that, with the projectiles which are now under manufacture, we shall be able to make use of a high explosive.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is in a position to state the names of the places in Scotland where the Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls intend to hold inquiries; whether he can give any information as to the time when those inquiries are likely to be held; and, whether the Commissioners will go themselves, or send Assistant Commissioners, to such places?

The Commissioners have decided to hold public inquiries into the management of certain markets in Scotland, where abuses are alleged to exist or complaints are made, with reference to the levying of tolls or dues. The date of the contemplated visit of the Commissioners has not been fixed. It is not the proposal that the whole of the Commissioners but a quorum should visit Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the fact that since the last competitive trial seven years ago new machine guns have been invented and many improvements made in the older weapons of that class, he will institute a searching competition trial, in order that the best instrument may be discovered and issued to the Naval and Military Services?

It is not desirable to tie the Government down to the exclusive use of any one machine gun. For different purposes different machine guns may offer moat advantages; and the War Department will take good care to keep itself informed as to the progress of invention, so that it may be in a position to secure the weapon best adapted for use under all the varying conditions of our Service.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Maurice Murphy, of Toames, near Macroom, who died a few weeks since, was the holder of a gun licence; whether his son, Maurice Murphy, handed the said licence to the authorities for the purpose of getting the transfer to his own name; whether a transfer was recommended by the local magistrates; and, why Mr. Caddell, the lately appointed Resident Magistrate, thought fit to refuse such a transfer?

I am informed that it is the case that the man named applied for a transfer of the gun licence possessed by his father, who had recently died. The transfer was recommended by a local magistrate. The licensing officer, however, found upon investigation that it was not desirable a licence should be issued to the man, and he accordingly declined to accede to the application.

asked, whether it was not a fact that the transfer of the licence had been recommended by a local magistrate who knew Murphy nearly all his life; while it was refused by Mr. Caddell, the lately appointed Resident Magistrate, who had only been a short time in the district?

said, he had already stated that the transfer was recommended by a local magistrate; but he was not aware whether that magistrate knew Murphy all his life or not. The licensing officer refused the transfer.

asked the Postmaster General, Why stringent orders have recently been given to enforce the Rule as to the prepayment of porterage on telegrams instead of, as heretofore, allowing the Rule to be relaxed at the discretion of the officials?

No fresh instructions have been issued in regard to the prepayment of porterage. The Regulations require that porterage shall be paid by the sender when practicable; it being considered unfair to the addressee that such charges should be borne by him. It not unfrequently happens that telegrams upon which the senders have not paid porterage are sent to persons who have little or no interest in the contents, and who naturally demur to paying for their delivery.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Cecil Roche was in charge of the police on the occasion last week when he ordered Patrick Cleary and others to be brought before him whilst sitting on a stone wall, and performed judicial functions in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by them?

I am informed that the Resident Magistrate named was not in charge of the police on the occasion in question.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, is he aware that it is reported in the Press that Mr. Cecil Roche, when acting judicially at these evictions, has been in the habit of sitting on a wall wearing a billycock hat on one side of his head and down over his nose; and whether the right hon. Gentleman will instruct this functionary to have some regard for those decent forms which should accompany the administration of the law?

May I ask, if Mr. Cecil Roche was not in charge of the police, what brought him there, or by whose authority he was sent there?

said, he was sent there by the Divisional Magistrate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Who is responsible for the placing this week of a number of detectives within the precincts of the Houses of Parliament; and, whether it is correct, as announced in The Times of July 26, that the authorities of Scotland Yard have decided it is most expedient the arrest should be made "after dark?"

I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that no extra detectives have been placed within the precincts of the Houses of Parliament during this week. No such decision has been arrived at as suggested in the second paragraph of the Question.

asked, was the House to understand that no extra detectives had been employed, or that they had been withdrawn?

said, that there had been detectives for a considerable period employed in the neighbourhood of the House of Commons. That had been part of the regular arrangement.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as it appears from the law expounded to us by the Solicitor General for Ireland that no Irish Member of Parliament can be summoned to answer a complaint, even though he be in attendance here in discharging his Parliamentary duties, but that he must be arrested in the night and hurried over to Ireland next day in order to answer complaints under the Coercion Act—I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he will facilitate the passing of a Bill which will relieve Irish Members of Parliament from the kind of special penalty which seems to attach to their attendance for their Parliamentary duties?

I am not aware of any such facilities being in existence in England. Any facilities that at present exist are, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, confined to warrants. A warrant issued out of the jurisdiction of any magistrate may be executed in England and Ireland; but there is no such statutory power in the case of summons, and I see great difficulty in attempting to change the present practice. No summons issued in England can be served in Ireland, and vice versâ.

Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to consider such an amendment of the law as would enable a summons to be served upon an Irish Member engaged in his duty here?

It is not applicable to Irish Members alone, but is equally applicable to English Members.

I would ask if the Home Secretary would kindly say whether there is any difficulty in law, or any objection to a summons being issued in Ireland and sent over in the ordinary way, either handed or sent in a letter, instead of handing over the person to the custody of the police—is there any objection in law to that course?

said, the jurisdiction of a magistrate was confined to his own country. He believed the summons of a magistrate might be served in an adjoining county; but Parliament had never thought it expedient to extend the jurisdiction of magistrates to the country at large.

asked, whether an easy precedent did not exist in the statute under which permission was frequently given to serve writs of summons out of the jurisdiction; and whether the English practice was not to avoid the issue of warrants except in serious cases, or where persons were suspected as likely to abscond?

said, there was a wide distinction between the powers of the Superior Courts and those exercised by local magistrates.

asked, what change of circumstances, if any, had taken place in the present week which rendered it necessary and desirable to continue in the precincts of the House the presence of detectives; and whether their presence was considered necessary for the protection of Members of Parliament?

No change that I am aware of has taken place, and the same precautions that have been observed continue.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state, as a fact, that on Wednesday last there were no more plain clothes men about the precincts of the House than there had been previously?

That is what I stated distinctly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman really deny that there were a number of men here on Wednesday that were not here on Monday and are not here to-day?

I am informed distinctly that the same force of detectives is employed that has always been employed.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, were the detectives who followed the hon. Member for North Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) detectives who have been in the habit of being employed about the House, or others who were brought in?

said, he would require Notice of the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, before the arrest of the hon. Member for North Roscommon, any intimation was given to him that his presence would be required in Ireland to answer the charge upon which the hon. Member has been arrested; and, if he can state why the uniform practice in Crown prosecutions in England of communi- cating with persons against whom it is intended to institute Crown prosecutions before the issue of a warrant was not followed with regard to the hon. Member?

No such intimation as that suggested in the first paragraph was given; and I am advised that no such practice as that suggested in the second paragraph exists.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it had not been the universal practice to make such communications in the case of Members of the House?

As far as I am aware it has not been universally the practice.

It is quite clear, of course, that summonses issued in Ireland would not be of legal stringency in England; but where the person is resident in Ireland, and only comes here to attend to his Parliamentary duties, would there be any objection to issue a summons in Ireland, as though he were supposed to be at that time in Ireland, and to make him acquainted with the fact that such a summons had been issued in Ireland? That would give him an opportunity of making arrangements to have the summons served upon him.

In the case of any future summons being issued against an Irish Member, will the Government proceed by way of notification, or will they smuggle him off in the dark, as in this case?

I do not think there is any precedent for the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman; but, of course, that is a matter to be decided by legal gentlemen. If it is assumed that when a notification is made to an Irish Member that a summons has been issued against him he will obey it, I am sorry to say that the experience I have had in the matter of some Members has been directly to the contrary.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state on what grounds the Governor of Tullamore Gaol refused on Wednesday to say whether he had any order to take the clothes from the late Mr. Mandeville, or give any evidence on the subject of his authority, so that important evidence was withheld from the jury; and, will the Government direct the Governor to give the evidence? The hon. Gentleman also asked, whether there was any objection to lay on the Table the instructions given to Dr. Barr; whether the Government would cause an inquiry to be made in regard to his conduct; and, also, whether the Government would suspend Dr. Barr's visits to the prisons?

Certainly not. I have seen no authentic report of the proceedings in Court, and I cannot conceive for what purpose such evidence would be important. I have before stated that, in my opinion, the use of necessary force is justified by the Prison Rules.

asked the Solicitor General for Ireland, whether he did not consider the authority under which the Governor of the prison was acting was inadequate?

said, he agreed with the answer that had been given by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that Dr. Barr shall not again visit Mr. Dillon in prison, having regard to the fatal consequences that followed his visits to Mr. Mandeville?

It is my desire and my duty to see that Mr. Dillon has the best medical advice possible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that on the next occasion when Dr. Barr visits Mr. John Dillon he will not refuse to give Mr. Dillon his name and address?

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. I wish to know will he give the House an assurance that Dr. Barr shall not visit John Dillon in prison?

I have answered it.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to the eviction of Michael Cleary, of Carrowdoty, on the Vandeleur Estate, Whether he is aware that, under the 7th section of 11 & 12 Vict., a Sheriff or his officer is guilty of misdemeanour if, with intent to dispossess any person dwelling in a house, he "pull down, demolish, or unroof, in whole or in part" (except so far as is absolutely necessary to effect an entrance thereto) any such house, or building used as a dwelling house, whilst such person or any member of his family shall be actually within the same; whether this section has been incorporated in the 7th section of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887;" if it applies equally to all dwelling houses, whether the property of the landlord or of the tenant; and, whether the Government will take steps to prosecute certain Sheriffs and their officers who have violated this section by pulling down and demolishing larger portions of such dwelling houses than the necessities of the case required?

My answer to the first throe paragraphs is in the affirmative. From the information before me it would appear that there was no demolition of houses while the inmates remained in them, except—in the words of the statute—so far as was necessary to enable the Sheriff or his officer to effect an entrance thereto. Any subsequent demolition would not be in contravention of the statute.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, if an occupier claim to be placed on the list of Parliamentary voters, and his claim be admitted, he will be entitled to vote for the County Council, although he has not also claimed to be placed on the list of voters for the County Council?

An occupier can, in the same form, claim to be placed on the list of Parliamentary voters, and on the list of county voters. If he limits his claim to the Parliamentary list, he would not in respect of that claim be entitled to be placed on the list of county voters; and if not on that list would not be entitled to vote.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will place in the Library a copy of the Code of Rules or Regulations of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and also a copy of The Royal Irish Constabulary List and Directory?

The Royal Irish Constabulary Code is a Departmental publication intended solely for the guidance of members of the Force. I cannot undertake to place a copy in the Library of the House. The other publication referred to is merely semi-official, and can be purchased by the public. The question of supplying it for use in the Library does not rest with me.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether there is any Rule of the Post Office prohibiting the use of a public-house as a rural post office?

, in reply, said, as a rule, a post office was not kept at a public-house if any other suitable place for it could be found.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many post offices kept at public-houses in Ireland?

said, he believed there were post offices kept at public-houses in Ireland as at grocers' shops in Scotland, which were somewhat similar establishments, in many parts of the country. But those were established before he entered Office, and the Rules might not have been so strictly observed; but he intended to administer them as strictly as he could.

If I bring under the right hon. Gentleman's notice a publican who has recently been appointed a rural postmaster in Ireland, will he have the post office changed?

I cannot say that; but I will inquire into the case?

On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman say that grocers' shops in Scotland are similar to public-houses in England and Ireland?

I made the statement, Sir, on the authority of a recent deputation to me, largely composed of Nonconformist ministers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the post office at Rathmines is kept at The Freeman's Journal office?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Who was responsible for the selection of persons for prosecution for attending the midnight meeting at Woodford on October 16 last, and for attending the meeting near Woodford on January 31 last; and, whether he or the Attorney General give their approval, before prosecutions are instituted, for holding meetings or for making speeches in Ireland?

There is, I believe, no change in the practice which has always prevailed in Ireland. The Attorney General for Ireland is responsible for prosecutions; but naturally, whenever a question of public policy arises in connection with a prosecution, he consults with the Executive Government.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he will lay upon the Table of this House a copy of the correspondence and other communications with refer- ence to the Statute Law Revision (Master and Servant) Bill?

In reply to the hon. Member, it would not, in my opinion, be desirable to lay upon the Table the correspondence and communications respecting the Statute Law Revision (Master and Servant) Bill; but if he will communicate with me I shall have no objection to showing them to him.

gave Notice that he would take the earliest opportunity of moving an humble Address for the production of these documents.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that considerable doubt exists whether, under the Act of last Session conferring the franchise on policemen, they are entitled to vote on municipal, school board, and other local elections; whether he is aware that some Revising Barristers have decided for, and some against, the claim; and, whether he will make a declaration as to the correct interpretation of the law?

My attention has not been called to the matter to which the hon. Member refers, nor was I aware that the decisions of Revising Barristers had not been uniform. As I understand the matter, the Act of 1887 only removed the disqualification so far as Parliamentary elections are concerned.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now state what additional assistance is being provided to the Charity Commissioners to enable them to carry out the further inspection and examination of endowed and other secondary schools?

The Charity Commissioners are engaged in the inspection of the working of their schemes without any addition to their staff, and it is not proposed to throw any other duties of the kind suggested upon them; but I understand that the Education Department have the whole subject under consideration, with a view to redeeming the pledges given at an earlier period of the Session.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the injurious nature of the charges and allegations that have appeared in the Indian Press both against Government and against private individuals and officials of repute in the matter of the Hyderabad (Deccan) Company's affairs, Whether he will undertake that the discussion on the Report shall not take place before the evidence taken before the Select Committee has been printed and circulated; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take that discussion in the present portion of the Session or in the Autumn Session?

The Select Committee referred to was moved for by one of the hon. Members for Northampton, and I have not seen, nor am I aware, that the Committee have yet presented their Report. Till the Report is before the Government, I am unable to say whether it will be necessary to afford an opportunity for its discussion; and I cannot, therefore, give any pledge on the subject.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the earlier volumes of the New and Revised Edition of the Statutes, promised to this House early in the Session of 1887, will be ready for publication; and, whether he can state to the House the cause of the delay that has arisen with respect to such publication?

On the 13th instant I informed the hon. Member of the causes of the delay in the issue of the Revised Statutes, and I have nothing to add to the answer I then gave.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will state to the House the numbers and names of the Substantive Votes (Naval Estimates) he intends to take during the present Sittings; and, if, having regard to the probability that the greatest discussion will occur on Vote 8 (the Shipbuilding Vote), he will postpone that Vote till the Autumn Session?

(who replied) said: We are anxious to adhere to the old practice of taking the Navy Votes separately, and thus obtain the supplies necessary for the next three months rather than from a Vote on Account. A good deal of evidence has been taken before the Select Committee on Navy Estimates, both upon the Admiralty Vote and the Dockyard Vote; and I do not propose to ask the House to discuss these Votes until such evidence is published, but would take the less contentious Votes, or those which do not raise questions of policy. The Vote is one which several Members wish to discuss; and, therefore, I would propose to take it as the first of the Votes to be discussed.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that four Directors of the West London Permanent Building Society were also Directors of the West London Commercial Bank, and that the above Building Society drew £10,000 out of the bank a few days before the bank failed, the Government will institute an inquiry into the whole subject of this failure?

I have no information as to the statement made by the hon. Member in his Question; but, assuming the facts are correctly stated, it appears to me that it is for the Shareholders of the bank and the depositors in the West London Permanent Building Society to take such measures as they may be advised to protect their own interests.

As I shall not be able to make any observation upon the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is about to make, I desire to ask him a Question in relation to the course of Public Business before he makes it. There is, undoubtedly, a desire on the part of all sections of the House that the Local Government Bill shall become law as speedily as possible, and every effort, I am sure, will be made to make rapid progress with it. I suppose, however, that in the event of the Report stage not being closed until a very late hour, the right hon. Gentleman will not press the third reading of the Bill to-night at a time when it would be impossible to make observations upon the Bill in general?

I must ask the House to consider that the inevitable effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal not to take the third reading of the Local Government Bill to-night would be to delay the adjournment of the Session for three or four days. If we do not take the third reading of the measure to-night it cannot be taken for three or four days, with the result that we shall be kept here much later in the month of August than the right hon. Gentleman himself would desire. I hope we may trust to the good and cordial feeling with which the Bill is regarded from all quarters to permit it to be read a third time to-night, without any great discussion, after the Report stage has been passed. If that course is followed it will result in great advantage to Public Business and to the convenience of hon. Members.

I am sure that we are as desirous as the right hon. Gentleman can be not unnecessarily to delay the adjournment of the House for the Recess; but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would expect us to treat this measure as though it were not one of first-class importance.

I must leave the matter in the hands of the House; but I venture to express a hope that the Report stage may be concluded before a very late hour.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Reports of the Education Commission had been sent into the Home Office, as it was said they had been, and when would they be printed and circulated?

I am afraid I must ask for Notice of the Question.

asked, Whether the Secretary of State for War was in a position to state which Votes he would take of the Army Estimates during the present Sitting. Would the Medical Vote be taken?

, in reply, said, he did not propose to take the last-mentioned Vote, which was being reported on by a Select Committee. Votes 9 (Transport), 10 (Provisions), 23 (one of the Non-Effective Votes) would be taken; and they were also obliged to take Vote 13, because no new work had been begun since it was put down.

asked, whether, before the adjournment of the House, an Appropriation Bill would be taken?

No, Sir.

asked the indulgence of the House while he made a brief personal explanation. It would be in the recollection of the House that a short time ago, in the course of the debate on the Motion initiated by the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division of Northumberland (Mr. Fenwick) as to the payment of Members, he made a few observations with regard to that subject. In the course of his remarks he related an incident which came to his knowledge in the course of conversation while in Australia; and he now found that those observations had caused great offence in Australia. A telegram had been received from the Government of Victoria, addressed to the Agent General here, and he had had the honour of waiting upon that Colonial Representative, and had done his best to explain all that passed. The telegram which came from Melbourne was to this effect. He would read a portion of it only. [Cries of "Read the whole!"] He was the best judge of what he should read. The telegram stated that in the course of observations made by Admiral Field in the House of Commons on July 6, he stated—

"That an able and wealthy Member in Victoria had told him that any Member of Parliament in the Victorian Assembly could be bribed."

Perhaps, Sir, I may be allowed to say in connection with——

Order, order!

I denied the statement at the time.

said, the Bill introduced this year was a measure of an exceptional character. It was not only for the purpose of continuing the ordinary laws that were annually included in such a measure, but it was understood that it would deal also with some special matters. There was, for instance, the Irish Sunday Closing Act, and there were also certain provisions with regard to the Irish Land Commission. He thought it was necessary before they proceeded further with the Bill that the Minister in charge of it should state to the House what special provisions and powers were being included in relation to the various measures not ordinarily included in this Bill.

asked, whether amongst various other Acts the Bill would include the Coal and Wine Dues Bill?

said, it would obviously be for the Committee of the House, and hon. Members should wait until they saw the Bill, as then all these questions would be answered.

said, that perhaps he might reply to the hon. Member for West Belfast. It was true that the measures which the hon. Member had alluded to were not those ordinarily included in a Continuance Bill, although he believed that last year the Irish Sunday Closing Act was included.

It has been included for several years.

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman would feel as he felt, that after the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the question of Saturday and Sunday Closing in Ireland, it was impossible for the Government to let the present Act lapse. The hon. Gentleman would also acknowledge that it was equally impossible for the Government to bring in new leglislation on the subject this Session. Anybody who was acquainted with the state of the Business of the House would feel that as much as he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did. With regard to the provisions affecting the Land. Commission, the hon. Gentleman was aware that if something was not done the office of those Commissioners will come to an end on some day in August—he thought the 24th—and, of course, it was impossible for the Government to leave Ireland without a Land Commission. The whole land system in Ireland would break down; and, inasmuch as it had unfortunately proved impossible for them to carry through the House the Bill which he introduced, and which has been read a second time, he thought the most convenient plan was to continue the office of the existing Commissioners for another year.

asked, would the proposal amount to anything more than continuance for another year; was there anything more than that?

That is all.

asked, whether during the Autumn Session steps would be taken by the Government to give effect to the Report of the Select Committee on the question of Irish Sunday Closing?

asked, whether the provisions with regard to the Land Commission would involve any further strain on the English Exchequer?

said, the English Exchequer would undoubtedly have to pay the salaries of the existing Land Commission. There was no other additional obligation than that. He was afraid it would not be possible in the coming Session to occupy the time of the House with an Irish Sunday Closing Bill.

asked, if this opportunity would be taken to add to the strength of the Sub-Commission?

said, the Sub-Commissions did not depend upon the Bill. The number of Sub-Commissions were not regulated by Statute at all.

asked, whether the Bill would continue the Coal and Wine Duties beyond the stipulated period?

Certainly not.

wished to ask, whether the suspension of the ballot for the Militia would be further extended by the Bill?

said, he must ask the hon. Baronet to wait until he saw the Bill.

said, that since the point was considered in Committee he had taken the opinion of several gentlemen well acquainted with the subject, and he found that there was a very general view in favour of one year. He would therefore accept the Amendment.

said, that he was a great admirer of Scotch institutions; but if the Bill were to be altered to make it accord with Scotch law, it would have to be re-committed for the purpose. In boroughs Aldermen were not magistrates, and Aldermen in counties would have the same functions as other members of the Council.

supported the Amendment.

said, he had on the Paper the following addition to Clause 11:—In page 6, line 17, after the word "councils," to add—

"(3.) For the purposes of this section the fifteen county councils of Wales and Monmouthshire shall elect out of their number representatives to a general council for Wales, consisting of one person for each twenty-five thousand of the population of the county, and, if the population be not an exact multiple of twenty-five thousand, then also one additional member for such fractional part of twenty-five thousand over and above such multiple. The Members of Parliament elected for constituencies within the said thirteen counties shall, by virtue of their election to Parliament, be members of such general council for Wales."

said, he could not accept the Amendment in the form proposed, for it would place an obligation, which it was difficult to define, upon the shoulders of the County Councils. There ought to be safeguard, too, against the interference of private rights. He was willing to charge the Councils with any powers which might be in existence to prevent obstruction, and to secure the use by the public of roadside wastes, and he would accept an Amendment so worded.

said, he accepted the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, it would be futile to give the Councils no more power than Highway Boards, for the Highway Act was being used to promote enclosures.

said, he preferred to abide by the Amendment as it had been put on the Paper by the right hon. Member for Central Bradford, who had special experience in the matter.

said, it was possible the words to which he objected might involve a large interference with private rights.

said, he hoped the effect of the clause would not be whittled down. The roadside wastes in some parts of the country had been cribbed by private owners in a way of which the right hon. Gentleman was not aware. At present poor people were often driven to pull down fences that encroached upon the roads, and this action being illegal they got hard measure at the hands of the magistrates. He desired, therefore, to put upon the County Councils, who represented the ratepayers, the duty of defending them in regard to these roadside wastes as against private owners.

said, he desired to urge the acceptance of the Amendment as it stood on the Paper. The only effect of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby would be to enable the County Council, if it should so please, to perform functions which were entrusted at present to the Highway Authorities. There were various cases in which the Highway Authority had refrained from taking action to defend public rights from fear of entering into a very large expenditure of the public funds. This difficulty would be largely removed if the power were vested in the County Councils. The County Councils would not have the same reasons for excessive caution. There were recently cases in the neighbourhood of London in which consider able strips of land had been taken away from the use of the public simply by reason of the apathy of the Local Authority and its reluctance to take proceedings.

said, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman approved the Amendment on the whole. He believed that at Common Law the Highway Authorities had undoubtedly the power to prevent obstruction to the roadside wastes, but unfortunately they did not think they had, and as a general rule they did not exercise the power. They considered that they were only bound to maintain the roadway within 15 feet of the centre of the road. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to leave these words in, because they gave a direction to do that which the Authorities did not now understand it to be their duty to do.

said, he was in entire accord, with the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter; but he was convinced that under the Amendment, as amended in accordance with his proposal, the County Councils would possess ample powers, and they were much more likely to protect the interest of the ratepayers than the existing Authorities.

said, he would consent, under these circumstances, to the words being struck out.

said, he must point out that if any appeal were given, it could not possibly be confined to the small boroughs to which the hon. Member referred.

said, he would suggest that the power of appeal might be extended.

said, that was quite another matter. Of course, if the principle were accepted, it must be extended to urban and rural districts. While there was no doubt that the hon. Member was willing so to extend it, the Local Government Board could not consent to undertake the responsibility which it would have to assume if it were erected into a Court of Appeal on all questions connected with main roads.

said, he deeply regretted the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived on the point. He hoped that the right hon. Gentletleman would recognize the equity of the claim, and would consent to allow an appeal. He could assure him that there was great reason to suppose, if he did not make any such provision, that there would be continual conflict between Urban Authorities and County Authorities, as the interests of the one would so obviously conflict with the other.

said, he also was in favour of the Amendment, which he contended was a moderate suggestion to remedy the results of the hopeless minority in which the boroughs would find themselves in relation to the counties.

said, he hoped that the Amendment would not be accepted. In his opinion the County Authorities would be anxious to do what was right towards the boroughs in their districts, and he believed they might be trusted to do what was just and proper, without there being an appeal. If the appeal were allowed to the Local Government Board, there would be such a mass of appeals that they would never be able to get through them.

said, he objected to being lectured by the hon. and gallant Baronet, who had all along shown his distrust of the County Councils, by seeking to withdraw from them control of the police and other powers. He agreed that the County Councils being trusted with these matters, their decision should be final.

said, the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. He did not think the hon. Gentleman would find any Member in the House to support him in a Division.

, in moving an Amendment altering the proportion of the Probate Duties to be paid to the Local Taxation account from "four-fifths" to "three-fourths," said, he had great cause of complaint in the treatment accorded in this matter to Scotland and Ireland as compared with that meted out to England. The total amount which was to be distributed to the localities as the Bill at present stood was 80 per cent for England, and 20 per cent divided between Scotland and Ireland. That was an unjust distribution. The population of Scotland and Ireland, according to the last Census, was close upon 9,000,000, and that of England under 26,000,000; and, therefore, considered solely from that point of view, Scotland and Ireland would be entitled to more than the Government proposed to allocate. If, however, the distribution was made according to the proportion contributed by those countries to the Revenue, his belief was that Scotland and Ireland might not come out badly, because, owing to the greater consumption of whisky in those parts, a larger proportion was contributed to the Imperial Revenue than by other portions of the Kingdom. His belief was that the proportion was vitiated by the inclusion of London in England. London was the capital of the Kingdom; it was the capital of Scotland, and London was full of Scotchmen and Scotch investments. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the point.

said, he did not know the circumstances in which the hon. Gentleman refrained from moving his Amendment in Committee. He was bound to say, however, that this was a rather awkward moment to raise a discussion, after the Bill had almost passed through the House, and after all the calculations had been made on the basis laid down in the Bill—namely, four-fifths of the Probate grant. It was obvious that a great change at this moment would destroy all the calculations which had been made and upon which hon. Members had dwelt during the course of these discussions. He rejoiced to hear the wholesome doctrine laid down by the hon. Baronet that London was the capital of Scotland. He doubted, however, whether the hon. Gentleman was in entire sympathy on this point with many of the hon. Gentlemen among whom he sat. He demurred to the propriety of excepting London from those calculations. The principle followed in making the calculations had been not to make any general disturbance in the taxation, either local or Imperial, as between the three countries. It was impossible in a Bill of this kind to attempt to adjust all the questions of relative taxation between the three countries; and the principle followed was to attempt to solve in a fair spirit the division according to the existing taxation of the three countries. They thought it a fair way of testing the matter to consider what was the loss to the three countries respectively of the withdrawal from Imperial sources of the Probate Duty. They had made calculations accordingly, and he could assure the House that those calculations had been made with no bias towards any of the three countries, except in so far as they just gave the turn of the scale to Scotland and Ireland. He should be prepared when the Scotch Bill came on to say more on the subject.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there was any Paper in print and laid on the Table explaining the distribution between the three countries under which the proportion of four-fifths had been arrived at? If not, one should be placed before the House.

said, that no Papers had been laid on the Table. He had explained that there were sets of figures pointing to those conclusions he had enumerated. They had also utilized the calculations made at the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) considered the question of Irish taxation and the contribution of Ireland. Those figures had been examined and fresh figures drawn up to check them; and the general result was very much the same as that arrived at by the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he had to complain that the incidence of the Probate Duty in Ireland was unjust as compared with England.

supported the Amendment.

said, he hoped that the House would not embark upon a discussion of the incidence of the Probate Duty in England and Ireland. The calculation was made simply upon revenue, and the very fact that the Government stood in a position of sharp antagonism to hon. Members from Ireland made them all the more anxious to convince themselves that they were doing absolute justice in this matter.

said, he objected to the proposal to give the County Council these powers of delegation on the ground that to the judicial functions of Justices no new administrative functions ought to be added.

said, that the Amendment was proposed in order to meet the objection raised in Committee that the general power of delegation contained in the clause was too large. The Government had agreed to take from the County Council the general power of delegation and to specify instead certain matters which might be conveniently delegated to Justices if the County Council should think it expedient to do so. It would be observed that the delegation would not be obligatory upon the County Council.

said, that if the County Councils should delegate those powers to the Justices there would be hardly anything left for them to do. There were two alternative modes of dealing satisfactorily with this question. The County Council might be given power to form a small standing committee of their own Body to perform the duties to which the Amendment referred, or matters might be left at present as they were on the understanding that those duties would be fulfilled by the District Councils when they should have been constituted. This change would amount to a repeal of half the Bill. If the Amendment were passed, he should regard the Bill as an absolute farce.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby had attacked the Government on very insufficient grounds. Considerable difficulty might arise if these powers, which frequently had to be exercised at very short notice, were left in the hands of the County Council, because, even if the Council appointed a committee, it was extremely improbable that all the members of that committee would reside in one district. Occasionally, when there was a sudden outbreak of contagious disease among cattle, it was absolutely necessary that the Justices in Petty Sessions should carry out the regulations under the Act. He felt certain that if this Amendment were not accepted, and if the Justices were excluded, very great inconveniences would arise in some counties, and there would be very great danger to the health of the herds. He thought they might safely leave the County Council to exercise the discretion which it was proposed to give to them.

said, that it was not necessary to delegate to magistrates powers with regard to weights and measures and gas meters. He argued also that powers as to contagious diseases of animals should not be delegated.