I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the members of the Order of "Les frères des Ecoles Chretiennes" have been admitted to the position of classed teachers under the National Board in the City of Waterford; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will direct the attention of the Commissioners of National Education to the Report of the Powis Commission, now 20 years old, with a view of making such alterations in their Rules as will, in accordance with that Report, enable the Irish Order of Christian Brothers to obtain State aid for their Primary schools; and whether he is aware that nearly 40 per cent. of the boys for whom results fees have been paid by the Intermediate Education Board during the last three years have been educated by the Christian Brothers in schools primarily intended for the elementary education of the poor; and, if so, whether he will direct the attention of the Intermediate Education Board and the Commissioners of National Education to the necessity of making such alterations in their Rules as will enable the Christian Brothers to obtain the State aid to which their services in the cause of public education entitle them, rather from the funds provided by Parliament for primary education than from the limited amount which ought to be applied to aid Intermediate schools?

It is the case that a body of monks who belonged to the Order of "Les frères des Ecoles Chrétiennes" are the teachers of a National school in Water-ford, and also of National schools in other parts of Ireland. These monks, like the Brothers of St. Francis, the Patrician, the Presentation, and the Marist Orders or Communities, have undertaken the charge of National schools upon the rules and conditions applicable to the teachers of all National schools. There are 26 monastic schools at present in connection with the national system of education. Some of these schools have intermediate education departments attached to them. The same opportunities to obtain the grants of the National Board are, of course, open to the Irish Order of Christian Brothers as those availed of by the Christian Brothers of the French Order, and by the monks of the various other orders or communities who are the teachers of National schools. The facts are as stated in the second paragraph of the question; but under the Rules of the Intermediate Education Board, which came into operation at the commencement of this year, results fees are net now payable on boys who pass in primary subjects only.

Is there any national or State reason why the Code should not be modified, in order to enable the Christian Brothers to obtain this aid?

Various orders of monks, including the French Order of Christian Brothers, find no difficulty in taking advantage of the public grants and putting themselves under the general regulations of the National Education Board, and therefore I do not see that it is necessary to make a, special modification of the Rules in favour of one monastic order.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that an evicting force of many bailiffs and over 100 police men, under the command of County Inspector Hegel, proceeded on Thursday last to evict Jeremiah Keohane and family, of Car-hergariffe, County Cork, but were debarred from carrying out the eviction owing to the dangerous illness of one of the tenant's family; is he aware that the valuation of the holding is £82, whilst the rent is £110; that Mr. Keohane, being a leaseholder, served an originating notice to have a fair rent fixed immediately after the passing of the Land Act, 1887, but that, owing to delay in the Land Courts, the rent was not fixed until last December, and that meanwhile Captain Wheeler served the tenant with an eviction notice under the 7th section of the same Act, thereby breaking the tenant's title to holding; and whether, in view of the many cases of a similar character which have been brought under the notice of the Government, steps will be taken to protect the interests of the tenants either by legislation or other action on the part of the Government?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the forces protecting the sheriff and his bailiffs consisted of 40 police, and not 100, as stated in the question. The eviction was postponed in consequence of the illness of one of the tenant's sons. It appears that the man had three farms under a lease, the rents amounting in the aggregate to £109 10s., and the valuation to £82 5s. In respect of one of these farms only did he serve a notice to have a fair rent fixed on the passing of the Act of 1887. In March, 1889, he served a similar notice for the second of the farms, but he served no such notice in respect of the third. The tenancies were terminated as stated, but I am informed that at the time of the intended evictions the agent offered the tenant not to evict if he paid the amount due less 20 per cent., and also offered a permanent reduction at that rate on the annual rent, which, however, the tenant refused. As regards the inquiry in the last paragraph, the necessary legislation already exists. When the application to terminate the tenancies was before the Court, it was open to the man to apply for a postponement or suspension of the proceedings, on such terms and conditions as the Court might direct, until the termination of the proceedings on the application to fix judicial rents.

In view of the fact that evictions are now taking place in the case of tenants who applied two years ago to the Land Court to have fair rents fixed, and which cases have not yet been heard, cannot the Government introduce a short Act to prevent the evictions from being carried out until the cases have been heard?

It is quite impossible to deal by an Act of Parliament with the case (that of the Ponsonby tenants) mentioned by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received tenders for a mail car service between Lehanmore and Castle-town bere; whether the sum required for such service is 23s. weekly; whether the present mail service amounts to that sum; and whether he purposes availing himself of the tender for a mail car service, and thereby convenience the public?

In reply to the hon. Member, I beg to state that I have received a conditional offer to provide for a Mail Car Service between Lehanmore and Castletownbere Haven at the rate of 24s. a week, but I do not propose to avail myself of this offer. There is no official post at present between the places named, but a scheme is under consideration which may possibly admit of a post being afforded by messenger on foot.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will afford immediate facilities for the return visit of the Sub-Commissioners of the Land Commission to North Leitrim, in order to dispose of the applications for fair rents, some of which have been listed for hearing more than two years?

The Land Commissioners report that they will arrange to send a Sub-Commission to the County of Leitrim as soon as the cases in other counties which remain unheard are brought up to the same date as those disposed of in the County of Leitrim.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many persons received out-door relief in the electoral division of Moville, Innishowen Union, during the 12 months ending March, 1890; and what was the average amount received by such persons?

The Clerk of the Union reports that the number who received out-door relief in the electoral division named, and during the period tated, was 28, and the average amount received by such persons was £3 2s. 10d.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware, and, if not, whether he will inquire if it is a fact that, although on the 7th November, 1889, it was officially reported to Mr. Richard Owen Armstrong, J.P., a member of the Board of Swift's Hospital (Lunatic Asylum), Dublin, that the funds of the institution had been to a large amount misappropriated by the Secretary, Mr. Newland, and that although Mr. Newland himself reported to Sir Ralph Cusack, J.P., D.L., another member of the Board of Swift's, that he had been guilty of extensive defalcations in the funds of the hospital, the members of the Board of Swift's, at a special meeting held on the 12th November, agreed to allow Mr. Newland to make restitution to the extant of £1,000 of the funds he had fradulently misappropriated; whether such action of the Board was legal; whether he is aware that, in consequence of this action of the Board, Mr. Newland, on the loth of November, 1889, lodged in the Bank of Ireland a sum of £1,000 to the credit of the Board of Swift's Hospital; but, being subsequently declared a bankrupt, the Board of Swift's Hospital were obliged to refund the said payment of £1,000; whether the total loss to the funds of Swift's Hospital caused by Mr. New-land's frauds has yet been ascertained; and, if so, what is the total amount of the said loss; can be explain how it happened that it was not until the 7th February, 1890, three months after the discovery of Mr. Newland's frauds, that the members of the Board of Swift's caused informations to be sworn against Mr. Newland, who meantime had absconded, and placed himself outside the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Courts of Justice; and whether the Government proposes to take any action, and, if so, what action in the matter?

I beg to refer the hon. Member to my previous statements in regard to this question.

But docs not the Coercion Act give the right hon. Gentleman all the control he could require where criminal proceedings have been taking place?

I have no reason for believing that there has been any crime in the matter.

Is it not a crime for parsons in the Commission of the Peace in Dublin to condone the embezzlement of the funds of a charitable institution in Dublin; and is it the fact that these malpractices have been passed over because they were committed by supporters of Her Majesty's Government?

If crime has been committed it can be investigated by a proper tribunal.

Is it not the habitual practice of the police in Ireland to swear information upon which the Government take action?

In this case I am advised there is no evidence of a crime having been committed, and under those circumstances there is no necessity for the police investigation.

I beg to give notice that on the first opportunity I will call attention to the matter, and endeavour to show that there is some connection between the Government and the delinquonts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Dr. Grimshaw,. Registrar General for Ireland, was appointed to that position on the condition of devoting his entire time to the duties of the office; whether he is aware that DR. Grimshaw holds other appointments of an honorary character, and also holds, and has held since his appointment as Registrar General, other offices for which he does receive, and has received, remuneration, the duties connected with which demand for their discharge a considerable amount of time; whether he is aware that Dr. Grimshaw is at present a member of the Conjoint Committee of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, and is paid for duties in connection with said position a sum of £40 or £50 per annum; and whether it is the intention of the Irish Government to call upon Dr. Grimshaw cither to resign his appointment as Registrar General, or relinquish the office above mentioned, and refrain in future from seeking or accepting any such appointments?

Dr. Grimshaw was appointed to the office in question on the understanding that he would undertake and fulfil all the duties of his predecessor. This gentleman holds certain other appointments of an honorary character, and also performs other duties for which certain fees are attached, but these duties do not interfere in any way with the time required for discharging the duties of Registrar General, and the Irish Government see no reason for interfering in the manner suggested by the question.

IS it not quite plain that Dr. Grimshaw has violated the condition of his appointment that he should accept of no other offices?

No, Sir; I understand that that is not so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on a recent occasion, when the Rev. Father Humphrys, Mr. Sheehy, M.P., and Mr. Cullinane, P.L.G., were standing talking to one another in the streets of Tipperary, two police constables stood immediately behind them and took down their conversation, and that, when Father Humphrys complained, one of the policemen left but the other refused to leave; whether he is also aware that, when Father Humphrys stood speaking with Mr. Gill, architect, of New Tipperary, a constable ordered them to "move on," and, on their refusing, stood about three feet off, listening to their conversation; if he can state what the constable's name was; whether Father Humphrys has complained of insulting conduct on the part of the constabulary, as likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and was told by Inspector Gamble that it was the duty of a constable (who gave his name as Wilson Williams, of the Tipperary Depôt) to follow the rev. gentleman; and whether he will inquire into the matters complained of?

The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the rev. gentleman in question is closely watched by the police in consequence of the loading part he is taking in endeavouring to promote the boycott- ing of tenants who have paid their rents on the Smith-Barry Estate. On the occasion referred to in the second paragraph, the constable states that he was engaged in requiring a commercial traveller to remove some baggage which was creating a street obstruction, and that he was not aware of the rev. gentleman's presence until accosted by him. The constable's name was Patrick Leonard. The rev. gentleman did not complain of any insulting conduct on the part of the police. He did complain that he was being watched. The District Inspector did reply that the "constable was only obeying orders."

Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to arrest Father Humphrys under the Statute of Edward III.?

Did one of the constables decline to state where he was stationed, and did the same constable on three occasions give a different name? Did he not further state that he came from the depot, meaning the headquarters at Dublin? Did this constable, whose name is Wilson Williams, follow Father Humphrys about whistling, and was it necessary to remonstrate with him twice before he ceased?

The hon. Member must give notice of those questions.

Having regard to the fact that the constable, whoso conduct is impugned, either refused to give his name or gave a false name, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the proposal repeatedly made from these Benches that, as the uniform of the Irish Constabulary precludes identification, the men should be numbered like the Dublin and Belfast police and the police here?

With regard to the numbering of the Irish Constabulary, that is a question which has been often debated in this House, and it is impossible that within the limits of an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question I could cover the whole ground.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer, yes or no, whether these men are unnumbered in order to avoid identification?

No.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Mr. Barton reported to the Board of Works his reason for selecting Mr. Price's line, as regards which he had to suggest considerable alterations in the curves and gradients, in preference to a line promoted by an Englishman, which followed the same route, but required no alteration in curves and gradients; and whether the Commission appointed by the present Government to inquire into Schemes for Light Railways in congested districts, and presided over by Sir James Allport, is still in existence; and, if so, why matters relating to Light Railways have boon referred to gentlemen appointed by the Board of Works, instead of being referred to that Commission? I have further to ask whether, in view of the fact that the rejected line of light railway in Galway, known as the Coast Line, would pass through the most populous, poorest, and most congested districts in the county; whereas the line selected by Mr. Barton passes through an almost uninhabited and barren district between Oughterard and Clifden, his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. George Morris, a member of the Local Government Board, and a gentleman of considerable local knowledge, and Mr. C. T. Rodington, a Deputy Lieutenant of the County, and the Chairman of a Commission for the relief of distress in the congested districts in 1886, gave evidence in favour of the Coast Line?

(1) The Commissioners of Inquiry, namely—Sir John Bull Greene, Mr. Barton, Mr. Rourke, and Mr. Cotton, were unanimous in reporting in favour of the Galway and Clifden viâ Oughterand Railway, and gave their reasons for preferring it. (2) As regards the latter part of the question I would point out that by the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 18G0, and the Light Railways Act, 1889, the duty of reporting on schemes submitted to Grand Juries, is imposed upon the Board of Works. (3) I believe that the two gentlemen named did give evidence in the direction indicated.

said: While negotiations are going on I must ask hon. Members to defer further questions.

Will an opportunity be afforded to the House of discussing the matter before a final decision is arrived at?

I am unable to promise that.

Then what are we to gain by postponing our questions?

That is another question I am unable to answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application was made to the Guardians of the Cavan Union, six years ago, by 200 labourers to have the Labourers Acts put in force in that union; how many similar applications have been made in other unions in the County Cavan; how many schemes have been drawn up by the Guardians in the different unions of that county; how many cottages have been provided under the Acts in that county; and whether, considering the insufficiency of the present law to provide for the better housing of the labourers, ho will expedite the further stages of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill?

In the year 1885 representations wore made to the Guardians of Cavan Union, seeking for the erection of over 200 cottages; but by reason of informality there was a delay. In 1887 the Guardians received fresh representations and proposed schemes for 85 cottages, of which 23 were approved. With reference to other unions in the County of Cavan, the Local Government Board cannot say how many representations have been made to the Guardians; and as several unions are situated partly in and partly out of the county, they cannot say what portion of the schemes submitted to them related to the County Cavan alone; but they have authorised the erection of 144 labourers' houses in that county, exclusive of the 23 above mentioned in the Union of Cavan.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the question.

I believe that the opinions of Her Majesty's Government on that subject are well known.

I beg to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that, on the right last occasion for nomination of Governors to the District Lunatic Asylum, the Dublin Corporation sent forward to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the names of 10 of their members, and that the Lord Lieutenant appointed all the gentlemen so named; and, if so, why was a different course adopted by His Excellency in the case of the Cork Corporation; also whether ho is aware that the Cork Corporation recently sent forward to the Lord Lieutenant the names of four members of their body (including a Mayor and ex-Mayor of the city) as fit representatives on the Board of Governors of the Lunatic Asylum; and is it a fact that the Lord Lieutenant refused to appoint any one of the four gentlemen named; and, if so, what was the reason for such refusal, and on what principle of selection or nomination does the Lord Lieutenant act in regard to this matter?

The facts are as stated in both questions. The principle acted upon is to promote local representation, so far as this is consistent with the duty thrown on the Lord Lieutenant by Statute of selecting fit and proper persons to servo on the Asylum Board. This principle was not inconsistent with the selection made in the case of Dublin; it would, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant, have been inconsistent with the selection of the names sent up in the case of Cork.

Is it not the fact that of recent years the authorities of Dublin Castle have invariably chosen from the list presented by the Corporation of Cork either Conservatives or Liberal Unionists to act as Governors of the Asylum?

I cannot answer that question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that none of the persons nominated by the Corporation of Cork are fit to be appointed?

I cannot enter into any invidious discussion as to the merits of these gentlemen.

Would not the Lord Lieutenant ease the situation if he were to appoint any of them?

That is a very different proposition from that of accepting the whole number.

Why is it that Conservatives know more about lunacy than the Nationalists?

I may say that among the names sent in by the Corporation of Cork there were those of the present Mayor of that City and the ex-Mayor.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General how many appointments have been made to the respective staffs, postal and telegraph, of the Belfast Post Office, upon the nomination of the local postmaster, during the year ending the 31st March ultimo, and how many vacancies exist upon these respective staffs at the present time; whether it is a fact that all vacancies as they arise are filled by the nominees of the local postmaster, to the exclusion of all other applicants, and whether there is any special reason why vacancies as they arise on the establishment of the Belfast Post Office in the future should not be thrown open to competition instead of being at present dependent upon the nomination of a local official; whether the arrangement by which nominations to vacancies on the staffs of provincial offices were confided to local postmasters was intended to apply in cases of offices of the standing of Belfast, or did it only refer to offices in provincial towns of lesser standing, upon the staff of which vacancies seldom arise and where it would be inconvenient or impossible to hold competitive examinations; whether he will consider the advisability of throwing open all existing and future vacancies as they arise upon the respective staffs of the Belfast Post Office to public competition; and if he can state under whose supervision the examination of the nominees of the Postmaster of Belfast to vacancies in the Belfast Post Office hitherto have been held?

The number of appointments made to the staff of the Belfast Post Office during the year ended the 31st of March last was five on the Postal and 15 on the Telegraph side respectively. At the present time there are 10 vacancies—all on the telegraph side. At Belfast, as at other Provincial Post Offices, vacancies are filled, as a rule, on the nomination of the local postmaster. As regards the remaining points, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I made to a similar question on the 24th of April last. I will merely add that the Committee of 1854, on whose recommendation postmasters nominate to vacancies in their own offices, contemplated no exceptions.

In what other towns are these nominations made by the Post Office Department?

I may mention offhand, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that "The Registration of County Electors Act, 1889," expires after the present year, and that great expense and inconvenience will be caused if some alteration is not made; early next year in the dates for completing the registers of county electors; and if he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee this Session to consider the best mode of altering the dates for the registration of Parliamentary, Municipal, and County Council electors; or whether he will undertake to introduce a Bill for this purpose?

The question is one of considerable difficulty. If an alteration be made, it must either be in the dates for registration or in the dates for elections both to County Councils and Municipal Councils. In either case an alteration would entail considerable inconvenience, and I am not convinced that under the law as it stands the registers cannot be made out in sufficient time if due diligence be used. The matter is, however, at present under the consideration of the Government.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is a fact that the London and North Western Railway Company have offered to remove the Platters Rocks in the Holyhead Now Harbour to a depth of 25 feet below low-water mark, which according to Sir J. Hawkshaw's estimate would cost about £250,000, on the condition that the Railway Company be allowed to erect a pier in a park of the harbour which is now perfectly useless, and some other small concessions as to the lease on their present premises in the old harbour; and whether the Government would have any objection to state their reasons for refusing to accept that offer?

I am unable to accept the accuracy of the hon. Member's description of the offer of the London and North Western Railway Company; but if he wishes to move for copy of the correspondence between the London and North Western Railway Company and the Board of Trade respecting the construction of a deep water pier and the removal of the Platters Rocks in Holyhead Harbour I shall offer no objection.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state how many poor rate defaulters there were in the combination of Govan, Scotland, on 20th June, 1889; how many of them subsequently paid their rates; what was the amount due on the said date; and what was the amount ultimately lost to the funds of the combination through defaulters during the year; and also the same particulars with regard to the barony and city parishes of Glasgow respectively?

On 20th June, 1889, there were in Govan combination, 10,721 defaulters, of whom 1,649 subsequently paid their rates, the amount due was £1,551 1s. 5½d., and the amount lost during the year was £1,301 12s. 9½d. The information as to the barony and city parishes has not yet been received, as these parishes were not included in the question as it originally appeared on the Paper.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the inquiry held on Thursday, the 24th of April, into the circumstances attending the loss of the iron sailing-ship Rohilla, which foundered with all hands, and to the suppressing of certain letters at that inquiry; whether copies of those letters are in the possession of the officials of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, written by Ned Butchers, sail-maker on board the Rohilla, from Pisagua, and dated 15th October, and what steps were taken to ascertain what credence ought to be placed in the serious charges of overloading contained in those letters; whether he was aware that Mr. D. W. M'Donald left the Rohilla at Valparaiso, and whether any attempt was made to communicate with him in order to ascertain whether his leaving was in consequence of his refusal to sanction the overloading of the vessel; whether it was mentioned to the Court of Inquiry that the owners of the Rohilla have lost six vessels during the last five years; and whether he has the power to annul the verdict of the Court and to grant another inquiry on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence laid before the Court?

The Court found that the Rohilla was lost through striking on a shoal, and not from overloading. Copies of letters from Ned Butchers, sailmaker of the Rohilla, are in the possession of the Board of Trade. They contain allegations of overloading on previous voyages, and the Board would have endeavoured to test their truth, and to place the letters before the Court, had there been any ground for supposing that the loss of the Rohilla was due to overloading. The voyages referred to in the letters were made in safety, and upon the vessel's arrival at Falmouth after the last of these voyages, she was seen by one of the Board's Surveyors, who found she was not overladen. During the five days the vessel remained in Falmouth Harbour, no complaint was made by the sailmaker or any other of the crew. Mr. Fyfe, the gentleman who forwarded copies of Ned Butcher's letters to the Board of Trade, in addressing the Court, requested that these letters should be read, but the Magistrate held that they were not relevant, and could not be received in evidence. The Board of Trade made every effort to communicate with Mr. M'Donald, but his wife reported that he would not return to this country for three years. The Board were advised that there would have been no justification for calling the attention of the Court to the loss of other vessels belonging to the same owners. The Board of Trade had no power to annul the finding of the Court, but they could order a rehearing if satisfied that sufficient ground for such a course existed.

I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is true that the Attorney General and Duke of Cambridge have long since advised the claim of the suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina" to be settled by a substantial payment; and whether that advice has been rejected, and if he could state for what reason; but I beg to postpone the question until to-morrow, and also a further question which I intended to put to the First Lord of the Treasury, namely, whether his attention has been called to the report of "Mitchell v. Regina" in the London Times, 13th of May, and the remarks in the Evening Standard of that day; and whether in consequence of the decision of the learned Judges, he is prepared to introduce a Bill to conserve to officers the promises conveyed to them in Her Most Gracious Majesty's Royal Warrants, which are signed by the Sovereign?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is true that a letter or petition of grace to Her Majesty the Queen was sent to the Home Office many weeks ago by the suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina," praying for many reasons some payment of money withheld by the War Office; whether he is aware that this application was made on the written advice to the suppliant by General Sir Henry Ponsonby, C.G.B.; and whether it is true that the suppliant has been officially informed that the letter has not been forwarded to the Queen?

In December last Colonel Mitchell forwarded to the Home Office a petition of right in the matter of a claim made by him upon the War Office. This was submitted to the Queen in the usual manner, and proceedings followed in the Law Courts. Subsequent to the decision of the Courts, Colonel Mitchell, in February last, sent some printed documents relative to his ease to the Home Office, and asked that they might be laid before the Queen, Sir Henry Ponsonby having advised the applicant that documents of this nature could only be submitted to Her Majesty through the Secretary of State. No petition accompanied these papers, and the applicant was informed that his case having been decided by the legal tribunals of the country, it would be improper to lay papers before Her Majesty which were in the nature of an appeal against the decision of those tribunals.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what are the percentages of increase of salary given the Ordnance Survey Staff in the years from 1883 to 1890, and when was the new scheme of increase of pay communicated to the men?

If I understand the question of the hon. Member rightly, I may say in reply that there is no regular progressive increase of salary given to the civil assistants of the Ordnance Survey. I stated in my reply to a similar question on the 8th inst. that increase of pay in the Ordnance Survey Department is dependent on increased efficiency, combined with length of service. The average pay in the skilled branches of the Survey is now from 15 to 30 per cent. higher than it was eight or nine years ago. But no new scheme of increase of pay has been proposed, and therefore no such scheme has been communicated to the men.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if it is a fact that fireplaces without chimneys have been supplied to the new offices off Westminster Hall, now used as the offices for Private Bills; whether it is true that gas fire appliances were placed in them, and whether they have been or can be used; who is responsible for the fireplaces and fittings; and what was the expense incurred in connection with each?

It is not the fact that fireplaces without chimneys have been constructed to the new offices off Westminster Hall, now used as the Private Bill Offices; but owing to the change in the appropriation of the whole of the rooms in the new building, certain expensive warming and ventilating arrangements, which were originally intended to meet the requirements of the rooms, if used as Committee rooms, were not fully carried out. Some additions are, however, about to be made to the extracting flues, which will enable the rooms to be suitably ventilated for the purposes for which they are now used. It was at one time intended to use gas fires in the new fireplaces; but as the whole of the rooms have now been warmed by steam pipes in the same manner as the rooms recently vacated by the departments now occupying the new rooms, it has been found to be unnecessary to adopt those fires. The Office of Works is responsible for the fireplaces and fittings, and the fact of their having been provided renders the rooms fit for any future occupation in case of change. It is impossible to give the cost of the said fireplaces and flues separately from that of the building, as they were constructed as part of the later, and in that way they certainly cost very much less than would be necessary to form them at a future time if they should be required.

Am I to understand that there are chimneys existing in connection with these rooms which cannot be used?

I believe that there are chimneys in existence.

Are they closed up?

I think not.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to smother all the unfortunate persons who are obliged to use the Hall?

I propose to make changes to prevent any inconvenience; and unless I were to climb the chimneys myself, I do not know what more I can do.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Committee, consisting of certain members of the Royal Society, appointed to inquire into the question of Lighthouse Illnminants has yet reported; and, if not, when it is likely to do so?

There has been some unavoidable delay in this matter in consequence of a change that it was found necessary to make in the composition of the Committee; but I have communicated with the President of the Royal Society, and I understand that the Report of the Committee may be expected in the course of the summer.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, provided that drawing be satisfactorily taught, teachers holding the general certificate of the Education Department will be, under the New Code, considered eligible, ashither to, to earn the drawing grant from the Science and Art Department, irrespective of their holding any special certificate in that subject?

So long as the instruction is satisfactory, I am not disposed, at any rate for some time to come, to insist upon the possession of the drawing certificate by every teacher under Article 85 (b) of the Code; but, where practicable, I hope that managers will avail themselves of the recognition which the Code affords to the peripatetic teacher for this and other purposes.

I bog to ask the Postmaster General whether, having regard to the great amount of time that hon. Members now have to devote to their Parliamentary correspondence, and that, in addition to this, they have not only to go and purchase stamps, but even to affix them to their letters, he will restore to them their ancient privilege of sending their letters free of charge provided that they are written on House of Commons paper, and posted in the House?

The privilege to which my hon. Friend refers was abrogated by the Penny Postage Act, and he will therefore see it is not in my power to restore it.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question—whether, after a Member buys stamps, he will give orders to some person to affix them?

I thought my hon. Friend hardly put that part of the question seriously.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is yet in a position to state the exact amount owing by the Trustees of the late Cardiff Savings Bank to the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt, on account of the loss of forfeitures resulting from the omission to enforce signed declarations, and of the large sums invested and drawing interest in excess of the sums the Trustees were entitled to invest?

A Return of the number of savings banks which had failed between 1852 and 1888, and of the loss to the depositors as far as it could be ascertained, was presented in December, 1888. The Return also stated how the deficiencies were met. Since the date of that Return the following savings banks have been closed, or are in process of closing:—Castle Gary, Dorchester, Macclesfield, and Chelsea. In the first two cases, the Trustees undertook to make good any deficiency there might be; the assets of the Macclesfield Savings Bank exceeded the liabilities; and the liquidation of the Chelsea Bank is still proceeding.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state how many Trustee Savings Banks have failed since 1852 up to the beginning of last year; in how many of the cases of failure the depositors ultimately suffered loss; how the deficiency was met in those cases where the depositors were paid in full; and what is the total amount of loss sustained by depositors, exclusive of those in the late Cardiff Savings Bank, whose ease is still sub judice?

No; the exact amount of the sums has not yet been ascertained, but the matter will not be lost sight of.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, now that the Ordnance Survey has been merged in the Board of Agriculture, the Circular issued by Sir Charles Wilson in November, 1887, as to the "new scheme of pay for the Ordnance Survey," still holds good, or whether that Circular is superseded by the Treasury Minute of the 4th February, 1890; and whether it is the case that the men on the Ordnance Survey are in the dark as to their future pay and prospects, in accordance with a rule which does not exist in any other Department?

I understand that the Treasury Minute of February 4th, 1890, relates to the Second Division Clerks, and does not apply to the Ordnance Survey; and it is not the case that any Circular was issued by Sir Charles Wilson, in 1887, as to the new scheme of pay for the Ordnance Survey. The men, I am informed, on the Ordnance Survey are in the same position now as to knowledge of their pay and prospects as they always have been.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a telegram in the Evening Standard of 15th May, purporting to come from Canea (in Crete), in which it is stated that a young Christian had been stabbed to death by some Mussulmans near that town; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the truth, or otherwise, of this telegram?

No such information has as yet reached Her Majesty's Government; but the British Consul will not fail to report the matter by despatch if such a murder has been committed. Murders are not infrequently committed by members of the different factions.

I had intended to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in consequence of the regulations which will presently come into action in regard to the limits of age for candidates for the higher branch of the Indian Civil Service, there have been strong expressions of opinion in the scientific Press and at the Universities, that the conditions of the examinations for this Service ought no longer to continue to be relatively so unfavourable to candidates whose studies have been chiefly in science as has hitherto been the case; whether he is aware that a Memorial, signed by 50 distinguished graduates of the University of Cambridge, including several heads of houses, many professors, and a large number of Fellows of Colleges, has been presented to the Civil Service Commissioners, in which it is pointed out that the position of the science tripes in their University is now practically on an equal footing with the classical or the mathematical tripos, both from its numbers and from the awards assigned by the colleges to those of their members who distinguish themselves therein; and whether he will endeavour to secure that changes shall be made for admission to the Indian Civil Service such as shall secure more equal prospects of success for those whose chief studies have been in science than are at present accorded in these competitions. At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to postpone the question.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the intention of the Government to refer the subject of the Taxation and Rating of Feu Duties and Ground Annuals to the Committee now sitting on Town Holdings, &c, on which there is only one Scotch Member, or whether they would consent to refer the subject to a separate Committee next Session, composed to a large extent of Scotch Members?

The taxation and rating of Feu Duties and Ground Annuals seem to fall within the terms of the reference to the Town Holding's Committee, and it is manifestly-desirable that the Committee which is charged with the consideration of the question generally should be enabled effectively to take up this branch of it. The Government, therefore, propose to move the addition of six Scotch Members to the Town Holdings Committee.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the same disabilities will attach to members of County Councils in dealing with the extinction of licences under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill, as now attach to Magistrates pecuniarily interested in the trade in dealing with licensing matters?

The Bill does not provide for disabilities such as those suggested in the question; but the matter is one which will, no doubt, have to be considered in Committee.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the following extract of a letter from the Marquess of Salisbury to Sir E. Malet, dated 2nd July, 1887, forms the understanding upon which the British and German spheres of influence are defined in East Africa:—

"Baron Von Plessen said that the Imperial Government had started from the idea that England would leave Germany a free hand for the future in the territories south of the Victoria Nyanza Lake, and, without interfering with the territories lying to the east of the Lakes Tanganyika and Nyassa, at the back of the German Protectorate, would confine herself to opening up the territories lying to the north of the agreed line;"

and whether, therefore, a lino drawn from the south of Victoria Nyanza to the northern extremity of Tanganyika forms the line of demarcation between the British and the German spheres?

These spheres of influence have not yet been geographically defined, and the understanding in question was general in its terms.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed to surrender the country of the Bamang-watos, to the extent of 100,000 square miles, lying between Damaraland and Lobengula's territory, to Germany, in the negotiations now taking place at Berlin; and, if so, on what ground?

I am not aware that any such proposal is under consideration.

I should like to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the Foreign Office have had any communication from Mr. A. J. Nicholls, lately returned from that country, and who seems to have entered into some arrangements for concessions on behalf of British interests?

I think I must ask the noble Lord to give notice of that question. I cannot give an answer offhand.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the entire question of the relations between this country and Germany throughout Eastern and South Western Africa is the subject of negotiation at Berlin at the present time; whether he will inform the House what is the scope of Sir Percy Anderson's instructions, or lay these instructions upon the Table of the House; and whether Her Majesty's Government will endeavour that any arrangement that may be arrived at, particularly with regard to South Western Africa, shall be such as will commend itself to the approval of the opinion of the Cape Colony and our other South African Settlements. Will Her Majesty's Government take care to ascertain what the opinion of the colonies are?

Undoubtedly it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to ascertain and to give due consideration to the opinion of the colonies. The communications between Sir J. Anderson and Dr. Kranel at Berlin have had reference to questions both in East and West Africa. The communications are confidential, and no Papers can be laid at present. In any arrangement that affects the interests of the British colonies in Africa, full consideration will be given to their opinions.

Is it not the fact that all the difficulties that arose in 1884–5, with regard to Germany in this quarter of the globe, were due to the fact that the English Government were not acquainted with and, therefore, could not give full consideration to, the proposals of the Cape Colony; and will the Government take care on this occasion that they are fully acquainted with the views of the colonists?

Without going formally into the question which has been put by the hon. Member, I think I am correct in saying that I believe the Government are fully aware of the opinions of the colonists.

Seeing the total absence of information the right hon. Gentleman has on the subject, and in view of the great interest taken in it, will be see that the House has an opportunity of discussing the matter before a definite decision is come to with the German Government?

The hon. Gentleman knows how these things are done. While there is every disposition not to undervalue the great interest taken in this question, it is manifest that while negotiations are pending, discussion is not conducive to success.

May I ask whether the Government will take care to ascertain the views of other people in Africa with regard to the contemplated proceedings before a criminal conspiracy is entered into by two great Powers to plunder the people of Africa?

I had intended to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what is the amount of Council Bills sold since the commencement of the present financial year; what proportion is this amount of the whole of the current, year's estimate; under whose advice has Her Majesty's Secretary of State forced on the market so much larger a proportion of the year's drawings than is needed for the current requirements of the India Office, and what is the present amount of the cash balances in the Home Treasury of the India Office? but, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, I will postpone the question.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will make arrangements in order to make the expressed desire of about 50 School Boards in Scotland, representing a population of over 800,000, to make the Census Returns of all children under 14 years of age available for School Board purposes, no addition to the existing schedules being required and no additional cost incurred, the School Boards being willing to pay for copies of the particulars required, or to make copies themselves, under such conditions as would not affect the confidential character of the Returns?

The Census Returns are obtained for statistical purposes only. The information given on the householders' schedule is of a confidential character, and it is clear that if permitted to be used in the manner proposed this character would be destroyed and great difficulties would be thrown in the way of obtaining accurate Returns. I understand that this proposal was put before the Committee on the Census, whose Report is now, I believe, about to be presented.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet received any Report from Admiral Sir W. Dowell, K.C.B., as to the inquiry held into the conduct of Commander Annesley on board the Icarus; and whether he can state the result of such inquiry?

The Report has been presented, and is now under consideration. If the hon. Member will repeat the question on Thursday next, I shall be able to answer the second part of it.

I will repeat it on Thursday.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether as regards Civil Service writers, considering that the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments had confined their deliberations to general propositions, and recommended that the writer system be put an end to without saying in what manner, and had not specifically considered questions of adequacy of pay, holidays, sick leave, and other grievances of which the writers complained, the Treasury would now do so, and formulate a scheme for the permanent settlement of the case, which had been left in a transitory state by the Treasury Minute of December, 1886, and which that Minute itself stated would be done as soon as the Government had arrived at a decision upon certain ulterior questions appertaining to the Civil Service then about to come before them, which had since been disposed of?

I cannot agree that the Royal Commission confined their deliberations respecting the copyists to general propositions, or left the questions of pay and other matters open. On the contrary, they stated that they could not report that the copyists had established any grievance which it is the duty of the State to remedy. Nor can I admit that the Treasury Minute of 1886 left the position of the copyists in a transitory state. It dealt with all the questions raised respecting the copyists. The only words which can give colour to the hon. Member's contention are "pending ulterior arrangements." These words referred to the fact that the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments were then sitting, and doubtless any recommendations of that Commission would have received the respectful attention of the Government, but the Commission really confirmed the settlement made by the Treasury Minute of 1886.

I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for War with reference to that part of the Queen's Regulations of 1889, which specifies that

"Officers are not interred with Military honours unless they are at the time of their decease on full pay, or employed on the Staff, or in the exercise of some Military command or office;"

whether General Sir William Jones, G.C.B. (who was in command in the capture of Delhi, the turning point of the great Mutiny, was, at the time of his decease, Colonel of the Duke of Connaught's Light Infantry, and in receipt of the pay of £1,000 a year; and whether he was therefore entitled to a Military funeral? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman I will postpone the question until to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if inquiry will be made into the circumstances of the loss of the fishing boat Camelia (232), believed to have been run down by a steamer between Dungen-ness and Folkestone in the night of the 8th May, the master, Donaldson, and the two fishermen, the brothers Harris (being the crew) having apparently lost their lives, as their bodies have not been recovered, nor have any tidings of them been received; if the Bremen steamer the Truce, bound east, and the west bound steamer Essequibo, were passing the point of accident at about the same time; and if he is aware of the many narrow escapes of fishing boats in the Channel, and of the reckless speed and course adopted by the foreign steam liners?

The question of directing an inquiry in the case of the Camelia must depend upon the possibility of obtaining evidence of the facts. The German steamer Trave and the British steamer Essequibo are believed to have been in the vicinity at the time of the accident, and inquiries have been set on foot to ascertain whether either of them was in collision with the Camelia. I am not aware that foreign steam vessels are especially dangerous to fishing boats in the English Channel.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether Boards of Guardians may legally spend a portion of the poor rate in supplying the inmates of workhouses with newspapers, periodicals, and books; and, if so, whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the extent to which these bodies have availed themselves of this particular power?

Boards of Guardians are empowered to defray out of the rates the cost of supplying the inmates of workhouses with newspapers and perio dicals and books. I have directed that the Inspectors of the Local Government Board shall be instructed, in connection with their visits to workhouses, to give this subject their special attention, and to report to the Board as to the views and practice of the Guardians with respect to such supply.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when the Ordnance Survey maps on the one-inch scale are likely to be published for the County of Somerset; and whether, seeing that the existing maps on that scale are 80 years old, he will take steps to accelerate the publication of the new maps?

I am afraid it is impossible to fix a date for the completion of the Ordnance Survey maps of Somerset on the one-inch scale; but the engraving of the one-inch map of England is being pushed forward as rapidly as possible. Engraving is a slow process, and the supply of engravers is limited. The Director General, however, is aware of the defective nature of the old one-inch map of the south-western counties of England, and is taking steps to expedite the publication of the new map. I may add that Somerset has recently been published, both on the 25-inch and the six-inch scales.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, after payment of the £150,000 proposed in the Local Taxation Duties Bill in aid of the Metropolitan Police Superannuation Fund, the total annual amount allowed for the superannuation of the Metropolitan Police will be larger than at present; and, if so, by how much?

The annual amount allowed for superannuation grows automatically year by year, as more constables become entitled to pension under the existing scale; but there will be no augmentation of that amount as a necessary consequence of the proposed grant of £150,000, or before Parliament has had an opportunity of considering the whole question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any Order or Regulation which prohibits, regulates, or interferes with the holding of meetings by those employed in the Customs and Excise, or any other Department under the control of the Treasury; and, if so, whether he will state the terms of any such Order or Regulation?

I am not aware that any such Order exists.

May I ask the Postmaster General whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Order or Regulation as to the holding of meetings by those employed in the Post Office which was in existence before the Order or Regulation now in force?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask whether it is under the new Order or an old one that a procession of postmen was interfered with by the police on Friday evening last?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him if he will endeavour to make himself audible to this part of the House?

The question of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Creraer) is already on the Paper addressed to the Home Secretary. With regard to the first question, I have no objection to lay on the Table a copy of the Order in question if the hon. Gentleman will move for it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any inquiry will be made as to the circumstances under which the West Hartlepool steamship Hesper, 1,069 tons, which sailed from Barry with a cargo of 2,277 tons of coal on the 30th January last, was lost on its voyage to Genoa, together with its crew of 21 hands?

Yes, Sir; an inquiry has been ordered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the fact that several men are now employed in the Science and Art Department at South Kensington who have been hired through Messrs. Waterlow & Sons; if so, whether Messrs. Waterlow & Sons are paid at the rate of 1s. per hour by the Government in respect of every such man's service for the normal official day, and of 1s. 6d. per hour for overtime; whether Messrs. Waterlow & Sons are permitted to make a profit of 3d. and 6d. per hour respectively out of the work of every such man so hired to the Government through their agency; and, if so, on what ground this system of obtaining clerical labour for the Public Service has been adopted, as it is in direct opposition to the advice of the Playfair Commission of 1874; whether it is the fact that, of the Civil Service writers in the Department in question (many of whom have served from 10 to 17 years and who are in receipt of only 10d. anbour with the bonus of 1d. a day per year) as many as 45 out of 85 were recommended by the heads of their Departments for promotion to the Lower Division, in accordance with the terms of the Treasury Minute of December, 1886, and that these recommendations have been, with two or three exceptions, ignored by the Treasury; and if he will state the reasons for which these recommendations of nearly 40 public servants of long standing and admitted merit have so been ignored?

Have the Government arrived at any conclusion in regard to the appointment of a Committee, which they more than half promised me last Session, to inquire into the whole system of the employment of persons in Government Offices and allowing them to be sweated by contractors?

I am informed that 13 law stationers' clerks are temporarily employed at South Kensington, and that Messrs. Waterlow receive 1s. per hour for their services, but none of them are employed on overtime at 1s. 6d. an hour. I have no cognisance of the arrangements between Messrs. Waterlow and the men. The employment is purely temporary, to meet a pressure of work, and is in accordance with recognised regulations. I have always felt it necessary to decline to discuss the confidential recommendations made by Departments as to the promotion of copyists. The recommendations made by beads of Departments were not ignored by the Treasury; on the contrary, every case was carefully considered.

Are we to understand from the reply which has been given that Messrs. Waterlow are permitted to deduct in one instance 3d., and in another 6d., per hour out of the work of the men hired for the Government through their agency?

I am informed that 13 law stationers' clerks were temporarily employed at South Kensington, and that Messrs. Waterlow received 1s. per hour for their services. The Government have no cognisance of the arrangement between Messrs. Waterlow and their men.

I beg to give notice that when the Vote for the moneys to be paid to Messrs. Waterlow is taken, I will move its reduction by the amount payable to them in respect of this sweating-contract between the Government and themselves.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Council whether it is the fact, as reported in the Morning Post of the 15th instant, that the Charity Commissioners have decided on directing a poll to be taken on the question of the alienation of the Poor's Land at Bethnal Green from the purposes for which it was given?

The Charity Commissioners propose shortly to republish the draft scheme already published for the Bethnal Green Poor's Land so revised as to afford an opportunity to the inhabitants of the parish of Bethnal Green of expressing their opinion on the questions raised by the first publication of the draft scheme. The draft scheme, as revised, will not involve any expenditure out of the rates; and in view of the special difficulties which this case presents the Commissioners are not prepared to re-consider the matter until the draft scheme has been so re-published. The delay in this matter has been caused by the number and importance of the representations, oral as well as written, which have been made to the Commissioners as the result of the original publication of the draft scheme, and by the difficulty which the Commissioners have experienced in coming to a conclusion upon the conflicting opinions thus presented to them.

I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the quinquennial re-assessment of property in London, which will come into force in 1891, and will give the Water Companies power to exact an increased charge for their supplies, he can give the House any assurance that he will introduce a Bill during the present Session for the purpose of suspending the powers of the Water Companies to increase their charges for water consequent upon such increase in the assessment, and so prevent such companies from being in a position to force up the prices at which their undertakings will have to be purchased eventually by the London County Council?

The powers to which my hon. Friend refers are powers conferred by Statute on the Water Companies, and cannot, I think, be dealt with alone. The matter is one which should be considered in connection with the whole question of water supply. I need hardly say we can hold out no hope of dealing with so difficult a question during the present Session.

I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state by whose authority processions of postmen, proceeding to a meeting in Clerkenwell Green, on the night of Friday, the 16th, were interfered with by the police, and forced to break up; by what authority a bill, purporting to be from the Postmaster General, warning men from attending the meeting, was issued; and if a postman is in any way subject to such discipline as authorises his superior officers to order him not to attend a meeting out of working hours?

May I ask why, on the same evening, a procession of gas stokers was broken up by the police at Mile End?

With reference to the last question, perhaps the hon. Member will give notice; of it. It was by my authority that processions of postmen were not allowed by the police to proceed along Oxford street or any of the thoroughfares in which the passage of a procession at night must necessarily cause inconvenience and even danger to the public, especially on an occasion when a celebration in the city was likely to bring unusual crowds into the streets. The bill purporting to be from the Postmaster General was issued by the authority of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General. An order prohibiting Post Office servants from holding meetings outside the Post Office building for the discussion of official questions has been in existence since March, 1866. This order was relaxed by my right hon. Friend in April last, by a Circular in which he allowed such meetings, subject to specified conditions. The Post Office, like any other employer, is entitled to prescribe conditions on which the servants of the Department will be retained in the Service.

May I ask whether the Order of 1866, said to be more stringent, has ever really been enforced at these meetings?

I would ask, on what ground does the Postmaster General claim to prohibit meetings of working men after their hours of employment; whether such is a Constitutional course of proceeding; and why he has taken refuge behind the rules and regulations framed by his predecessors?

Is Oxford Street, like other neighbourhoods, prohibited to processionists? also desire to know whether it is the intention of the Home Secretary, if he remains in office long enough, to close all the main arteries of London to processionists.

It is my intention to prevent, as long as I possibly can, public inconvenience and danger being-caused by processions, or in other ways. As to the action of previous Postmasters General, I must ask hon. Members to give notice of their questions.

Is it not the fact that the procession was a small one of 200 men, which could not obstruct the traffic?

I had no reason to believe that the procession would be a very small one. It was represented to me that it would be a very large one.

Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that all processions necessarily interfere with the comfort of the rest of the public?

I must decline to argue such general questions.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us if there are two sets of rules, one for processions of working men, and one for the Lord Mayor's procession?

The Lord Mayor's procession is of immemorial standing. If it had to be considered de novo, I do not know what view might be taken. At all events, the Lord Mayor does not have his procession at night.

I addressed a very respectful question to the Postmaster General, to which he has not deigned to reply. I shall put it down for another day, and when the Estimates for the Post Office come under discussion I shall move the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary, with a view of registering a protest against what I believe to be his most un-Constitutional abuse of power.

I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment has he since had an opportunity of reading the Blue Book on the treatment of Mr. John Daly and the other treason felony prisoners; and will the suggestion as to transferring them to another prison be considered?

If the hon. and learned Member is referring to the suggestion of the Roman Catholic Chaplain, contained in the last paragraph of the Report, that certain of the treason felony prisoners should be removed for reasons of health, this suggestion was not endorsed by the Medical Officer. The Visitors state that, after prolonged inquiry, they see no reason for concurring in it, and the Prison Commissioners inform me that, in their judgment, there is no necessity at present of acting upon it. With regard to the removal of prisoners convicted in Scotland, I am still in communication with the Scotch Office on this subject.

I will call attention to this matter on Report. May I ask if the Vote on Account will be taken this week?

I hope it will be taken before the holidays.

I wish to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that Mr. Denis M'Namara, of Ennis, County Clare, was deprived of his licence by Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., and other Stipendiaries, because he refused to give an undertaking not to sell United Ireland; that, on an application to the Queen's Bench and to the Court of Appeal in Ireland, it was found impossible to review this decision; and will it be possible to deprive a vintner of the right to compensation by Government Stipendiaries after the new Bill is passed in cases of this kind?

I know nothing personally of the circumstances to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, but I understand from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the facts are not as stated in the question. I may say, however, that the Bill does not provide for the payment of compensation to any holder of a licence who is refused renewal by the existing authorities.

Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that Mr. M'Namara was not deprived of his licence by Mr. Cecil Roche, and that there was not an appeal?

I contend nothing of the kind. I say I know nothing beyond the reply I have given.

I would like to ask the Chief Secretary what are the facts in the question which he disputes?

I understand that, in the first place, the hon. Gentleman is wrong in supposing that Mr. M'Namara's licence was opposed for refusing to give an undertaking not to sell United Ireland. I understand it was opposed for an offence under the Licensing Act. It was not done, as the hon. Gentleman would seem to imply, by Mr. Cecil Roche sitting as a Resident Magistrate, but by the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions; though, no doubt, Mr. Cecil Roche was on the Bench. The matter did not come before the Court of Appeal, but it did come before the Court of Queen's Bench; and I believe, in the fourth place, that the licence was not opposed after it had been suspended for a year.

It did come before the Court of Appeal, and that will give us the measure of the right hon. Gentleman's accuracy in the other points he has dealt with.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the system of valuing licensed premises by the Inland Revenue Department for the purposes of Probate and Succession Duties, set forth in the Return just distributed to Members, has ever received the sanction of any legal tribunal, or has ever been questioned in a Court of law; and whether, if it simply represents the views of the Department, those views have been in any way modified by the decision in "Sharp v. Wakefield?"

The practice of the Inland Revenue is based on the well-settled rule of law that goodwill forms part of the estate of deceased persons, and that the goodwill of a public house passes with the public house. This practice has never been questioned in a Court of Law. I must remind the hon. Member that it is the executors or other accountable persons who bring in the capital and annual values into the affidavit and Succession Duty accounts, and that the business of the Department is to check what is thus brought in. The practice has been to assume that the licence will continue. No question on the subject has been raised since the decision in the case of"Sharp v. Wakefield."

I desire to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he will include Act 2 and 3 Edw. 6, c. 54 (local), for the keeping of the Sessions and county days of the Isle of Anglesey, in Beaumaris, in the First Schedule of the Statute Law Revision [H.L.] Bill?

It would not be possible to include the Act referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the Statute Law Revision Bill for the present Session. It is antecedent to the period covered by those Bills, and the Committee have expressly determined not to include any Acts in the Schedule to the Bill which have not already been submitted to the Statute Law Revision Committee.

I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Census of 1891 will be laid upon the Table?

We hope that the Report will be presented during the course of this week, and no time will be lost in laying it on the Table.

I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to act upon the suggestions of the Committee on Sweating, or to give facilities for a Debate on the Report of that Committee?

I must refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 8th inst. to the hon. Member for Camber-well; and, having regard to the wish of the Government to deal with the question of factory legislation, I am unable to promise facilities for a Debate on the Report of the Sweating Committee.

The right hon-Gentleman is a kind-hearted man, and I would ask him whether, in view of the fact that in that Report is to be found statements that would be almost incredible were they not statements that were made on oath before the House of Lords—statements so strong as to be an indictment on our civilisation—lie will not promise facilities for the discussion of a matter of such great public interest?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that we desire to deal with the matter by legislation as far as we possibly can. Some of the points mentioned in the Report will be dealt with in the Bill relating to factory legislatiou, and I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be kind-hearted enough to give facilities for that Bill passing.

I never obstructed.

Will the Government give facilities for the carrying of that Bill by dropping some of those Bills they have already brought in?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in order to consult the convenience of hon. Members, he will undertake not to bring on the Vote for Elementary Education until after the Whitsuntide holidays; and whether he will, in due course, name a day for that purpose with adequate notice?

Adequate notice will be given before the Vote for Elementary Education is taken, and it will not be dealt with before Whitsuntide.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Report of the Berlin Labour Conference will shortly be laid before the House?

I hope the Report of the Berlin Labour Conference will be laid before the House about the middle of next week.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the notices sent to licensed dealers in plate with regard to the claiming of drawback, whether he intends to adhere strictly to the terms of the notice that all claims must be filled up and sent by post to Somerset House on or before tomorrow, otherwise no claim for drawback will be admitted; whether he is ware that the forms of request were received in Sheffield as late as Saturday last, and that considerable inconvenience has been occasioned to manufacturers and their employés to get the information together, and that it will be in many cases almost if not quite impossible to furnish the information by to-morrow?

Out of 14,000 cases there have only been three in which that point has been raised. I will see what can be done in the case of Sheffield, but I have no doubt that generally the order will work smoothly and successfully, and I will see what can be done in individual cases.

May I ask when the Government propose to introduce the Bill referred to on the 21st April as about to be introduced in a few days relating to superannuation in the Army?

To-morrow.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen in the newspapers a cable from Ottawa that, prior to the prorogation of the Dominion Parliament on Friday, Sir John A. Macdonald, in answer to a question as to the result of the discussion at Washington with reference to the Behring Sea seizures, said that—

"He wag unable to give any definite information with regard to the fisheries negotiation; a message had arrived from England which the Ministry could not understand, and he had written for an explanation, which had not yet arrived; and that Mr. Charles Tupper was on his way home from Washington;"

whether the return of Mr. Tupper indicates the close of the negotiation, and whether he will communicate to the House the terms of the message which the astute Prime Minister of the Dominion and his Ministers cannot understand.

The return of Mr. Tupper to Canada does not indicate the close of the negotiations. The message has since been explained by a later telegram. It did not relate to the Behring Sea negotiations.

May I ask whether a Returns howing the superannuation in all Departments of the State will be laid on the Table before the Committee stage of the Local Taxation Bill?

A Return similar to that presented by Mr. Hibbert, but fuller, will be presented. It has been in course of preparation for some days, and will be laid on the Table shortly.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the letter, dated the 16th of May, to a Scotch gentleman named Ramsey, respecting the bonding of spirits, from his Secretary, was written by his directions? It states that he is afraid the Bill for the bonding of spirits cannot be introduced at present.

Of course, it is impossible to say whether such a Bill can be introduced or not. It is a very difficult subject.

Seeing that the Whitsuntide holiday is only to last three days, and it takes one day to go to the North of Scotland and another to return, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether ho will not withdraw the Whitsuntide holidays altogether, except Whit Monday, and give us three days at the end of the Session instead?

On what day does the First Lord of the Treasury propose to take the Vote on Account?