I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now state what is the result of the consideration which, in August last, he promised the Treasury would give to the question of how to meet the claims of the attendants and messengers at the South Kensington Museum to receive the same benefits of superannuation as are enjoyed by men doing similar work in kindred Government Departments?

I am not in a position to state the actual result of the consideration which I have given for many months past to this question, but I may say that I have made a suggestion which I hope will dispose of the matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the case of leprosy in a Swedish emigrant, as reported in the Liverpool Courier of 22nd May; whether the woman in question was permitted to land in and pass through England, to pass the examination of the Medical Emigration Officers of Health at Liverpool at their survey of the Cunard steamer Cephalonia on the 17th April last, and the second inspection at Queenstown by an officer of the same Department; whether it is true that the woman in question was not allowed to land by the Port Authorities in Boston, U.S.A., after inspection by their Medical Inspector and several eminent American scientists, who declared the case to be one of genuine leprosy; and that the Cunard Company were, in consequence, compelled to bring her back to England; if it is true that on her arrival in Liverpool she was conveyed to the Brownlow Hill Workhouse, and there examined, as reported in the Liverpool Weekly Mercury—

"by Dr. Hope, Assistant Medical Officer of Health for the city, Dr. Hill, the Board of Trade Officer, and Dr. Robertson, who entertained little doubt that the case was one of leprosy,"

The woman in question was permitted to land at Hull and pass through England. The Board of Trade have no Statutory authority to examine passengers arriving in this country from abroad. The woman did pass the examination of the Medical Emigration Officers at Liverpool before embarking upon the Cunard steamship Cephalonia. These officers regarded the case as one of lupus of a non-contagious character; she brought with her a medical certificate to that effect. She had a husband and six children in America whom she was going to join; and my officers did not think there was sufficient justification for preventing her proceeding in the ship, but, in consequence of her appearance, it was required that she and her immediate party should be kept in one compartment, isolated from the rest of the passengers. The woman was not re-inspected by the Medical Officer of the Board of Trade at Queenstown; such re-inspection would be unusual. I learn from the Cunard Company that this passenger was allowed to land at Boston and remain on shore for 12 days, and that she was returned, not so much on account of the disease, as that her husband could not pay for her maintenance in hospital. She was isolated as a matter of precaution on her passage home, and her apartments were afterwards thoroughly fumigated, stripped, and disinfected, and she was sent by the Cunard Company to her home in Sweden, accompanied by a special attendant. On passing through Liverpool the patient was, I understand, taken to the Brownlow Hill Workhouse, where she was visited, unofficially, by the two Medical Officers of the Board of Trade who had previously examined her. These officers report that her later symptoms had more of the appearance of leprosy, as understood by them. Every precaution is taken by the Board of Trade and its officers to prevent, as far as possible, the propagation of contagious and infectious diseases. It is to the interest of all steamship companies carrying passengers to immediately isolate any suspicious case that may break out during the voyage, and subsequently fumigate, disinfect, and paint any space occupied by such a case, and I am informed that this was done in this particular case.

Does not this case exemplify the necessity of taking steps to give more power to the medical officers on board steamers of rejecting certain passengers, and thereby protecting the rest from any infection which may be promulgated in consequence of the defective Board of Trade arrangements?

I do not think this case exemplifies anything of the kind, nor do I believe that the present arrangements are defective.

Am I to understand that a case of leprosy—one of the worst diseases in the world—is to be looked upon so lightly that Englishmen, and passengers generally, on board a steamship may be exposed to such an infection?

No, Sir. As I have already explained, the case was considered to be one of lupus, and not of leprosy; but care was taken even then to guard against its spreading.

Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the American Authorities as to whether this was not a case of leprosy passed by the Board of Trade but rejected by the American Authorities?

No, Sir, I will not.

It is perfectly notorious.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the case that the School Board of Rosemarkie contemplate removing the old academy at Fortrose from its present freehold site to a feu at a distance from the teachers' dwelling-house; at whose expense, whether ratepayers or endowment, is the new school to be built; whether the new school is to be an ordinary Board school or a higher class public school; whether the same is to be vested in and under the management of the School Board as a Board school, or in name of the School Board as the Governing Body of the endowment; whether the School Board have obtained the sanction of the Department to the contemplated change; and what is the cost of the proposed removal?

The School Board of Rosemarkie propose to remove the academy to another site which the Board hold to be more eligible. The question of the tenure upon which the new site is held is not one which comes under their Lordship's cognisance, but there is no objection to the erection of a Board school on a feu. The School Board is the Governing Body of the endowment, and the question of the form in which the new school is to be vested is one on which they will doubtless be guided by their legal adviser. The Board propose to raise a loan of £1,850 on the security of the rates for the purpose, and have obtained the sanction of the Department to that loan.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has any information respecting the action of the police in certain cases which are reported to have occurred in Amritsar, a city in the Punjab, with a population of over 150,000; whether, under the Punjab Police Act, or any other law in India, it is permissible for the Police Authorities to keep descriptive rolls of parties who have been in prison, and, while these parties are at liberty and are charged with no offence, to subject their persons to rigorous examination in the public streets; whether certain girls were so examined in public places in Lahore; whether he is aware that a girl named Vid Koer was thus examined in a public bazaar, and that, in consequence of this treatment, she absconded, was found by the police, detained in custody, and not allowed to see her parents or to be released until she signed an agreement denying the examination of her person in public, although the examination was witnessed by many people who are ready to testify thereto; whether he is aware that a Brahmin girl, aged 20, named Dhau Deir, was, against her protest, and in spite of her cries, taken into a public street and examined, no occasion for this as regards wrongdoing on her part being even alleged; whether he can state how men and women have been so examined, and whether the particulars of such examinations are contained in descriptive rolls in the Police Register; who is the officer responsible for these occurrences; whether he has been punished in any way; and whether an inquiry has been instituted, and, if the inquiry is simply of a Departmental kind, whether the Secretary of State will give instructions for an independent and thorough investigation?

No, Sir. My noble Friend the Secretary of State has no official information that enables him to instruct me to answer the question. The matter will be referred to the Government of India in the usual way.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have made any payments, and for what purposes, to, and which of, the Anglo-Indian newspapers published in India; whether it was with the knowledge or approval of the Secretary of State that an offer was made to the Times of India, a newspaper published at Bombay, as stated in a leading article in that journal, "to become the official organ of the Government of India;" whether the proprietor of the Times of India is correct in saying that, in answer to such offer, he gave "so clear and distinct a negative as to admit of no misconception;" and whether the Secretary of State will lay upon the Table the correspondence relating to this matter?

In answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I have to say that, except payments for advertisements, the Secretary of State is not aware of any payments being made by the Government to Anglo-Indian newspapers. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. In reply to paragraph No. 3, the Secretary of State is not aware of any such occurrence arising, or statement being made. In answer to the last paragraph, I have to say that there is no correspondence, and therefore none can be produced.

Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the statement made in the Times of India is not correct?

The Secretary of State for India is not aware that the Times of India has ever made such a statement.

I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with it.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that about two years ago a Census was taken of the public houses and beer houses in the Parliamentary Borough of Burnley, which proved that, out of 177 houses of this description, 165 were "tied houses," whilst only 12 were free; whether there is reason to believe that a similar state of things exists in other boroughs and counties in the United Kingdom; and whether, if the Inland Revenue Department possesses no information on this subject, he will cause inquiry to be made?

No, Sir; I have no information as to the Census to which the hon. Member refers, and I have no knowledge whether the state of things said to exist in Burnley applies to the rest of the United Kingdom. As at present advised, I am doubtful whether officers of the Inland Revenue have a locus standi to institute an inquiry into what is a matter of private contract.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can now state when the English and Scotch Bills for the education of the blind and deaf will be introduced?

The Scotch Bill is down for Second Reading in the other House this afternoon, and the English Bill will be introduced there as soon as certain questions of some difficulty that have arisen in connection with it are disposed of.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Bill authorising the Decennial Census will be brought in; whether the Departmental Committee, relative to the Census, have made their Report; and whether it is intended to present the Report to Parliament?

I am not in a position at present to give any information as to the date when the Bill authorising the next Census will be brought in. The Departmental Committee referred to have made their Report, and it is under the consideration of the Government. The Report will shortly be presented to Parliament.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the statement made to Mr. Mead, the Police Magistrate sitting at Thames Street, that for many years past it has been the practice in the parish of Wapping to serve notices demanding a voluntary Church Rate on the same form as is used for the general, sewers, and poor rates, and that the Magistrate has expressed the opinion that many persons have paid the rate, believing that they were compelled to do so; whether in other parishes voluntary Church Rates are collected in a similar way; and whether the Local Government Board will take steps to prevent Local Authorities applying for voluntary Church Rates by means liable to produce the impression that the payment of them is compulsory?

My attention has not been called to the statement made to Mr. Mead, the Police Magistrate at Thames Street, that for many years past it has been the practice of the parish of Wapping to serve notices demanding a voluntary Church Rate on the same form as is used for the general, sewers, and poor rates. I have no information as to other parishes in which voluntary Church Rates are collected in a similar way. The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction as regards the form in which the General and Sewer Rates are levied in the Metropolis. The Board, however, concur in the opinion that the including of a voluntary rate in the forms of demand note for the Poor Rate or other rate levied under statutory authority is open to much objection. The views of the Board on this subject are communicated to the officers concerned, where they learn that the practice referred to has existed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is true that the Government of the Bahamas has refused its consent to the adoption of the Merchandise Marks Act; and whether he will lay the correspondence upon the Table?

The Government of the Bahamas has twice introduced into the House of Assembly, Bills corresponding to the Merchandise Marks Act, but has failed to carry them. It seems hardly worth while to lay the correspondence on the Table; but the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps call at the Colonial Office and see it, and then consider if the presentation is really desirable.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Livery Companies of the City of London are gradually realising their property; and, in particular, that 30 acres of land at Barking, constituting Morells Charity of the Goldsmiths' Company, have been sold, and that another property of the same Company, namely, a portion of Messrs. Glyn and Company's premises in Lombard Street, has been conveyed away to that firm for £85,000; and whether, in these circumstances, he will take steps to act upon the first recommendation of the Royal Commission of the City of London Livery Companies, which was as follows:—

"We think that the Companie3 should he placed by Act of Parliament under such restrictions as regards the alienation of their real and personal estate as would remove all danger of the loss of any portion of their property."

My attention has not been called to the fact that the Livery Companies of the City of London are gradually realising their property. As regards the two instances to which the hon. Member calls my attention, I may mention that I have this morning received a communication from the Clerk of the Goldsmiths' Company, in which he states that no part of the 30 acres of land at Barking has been sold, nor has such a sale been under consideration. The price which was obtained for the house in Lombard Street sold to Messrs. Glyn is stated to have far exceeded any price ever previously obtained for property in the City. The purchase was made with the approval of the Charity Commissioners, and the money was invested in the name of the Official Trustee of Charitable Funds. I cannot undertake to propose legislation such as that suggested.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether the Report of the Charity Commissioners' Inquiry into the endowed charities of Denbighshire is ready for publication; and whether, in accordance with the desire of several County Councils, the Inquiry can be extended into other Welsh counties?

The inquiries into all the parishes of Denbighshire have been completed, and the Reports on all the parishes except four have now been received, and the Commissioners are engaged in completing the information necessary to enable them to present these Reports to Parliament. The Commissioners understand that the Treasury desires to have an opportunity of considering these Reports before authorising expenditure in respect of further like inquiries in other counties.

Will the Commissioners hasten the publication of the Report?

We are anxious to do everything we can to hasten the publication of the Report; but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the matter rests with the Assistant Commissioner, who has been very much occupied since he had charge of the matter; but I believe he is now giving his attention to it, and I trust that it will soon be carried through.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the alleged increased business and insufficient staff in the Registry of Deeds Office, Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the letter of Mr. James T. Ellis, Public Record Searcher, which appeared in the Freeman's Journal, of 8th May last; whether, as therein stated, the number of deeds registered for the five years, 1880 to end of 1884, was 78,900, and for the five years, 1885–9, the number was 81,600; whether he is aware that of the 2,700 deeds registered in excess of the number given for the 'previous five years, the greater portion is made up of Land Commission Deeds, which, owing to the number of granting parties, involve greatly increased work in the preparation of index books; whether it is correct, as stated by Mr. Ellis, that in the six index letters quoted in his letter there are 797 pages for the five years ending 1884, and that this number increased to 1,252 for the five years ending 1889; at what date will the consolidated indexes for the years 1880–89 be available for public use; and whether, considering the complaints which are made as to the insufficient staff, he will have it adequately increased, or have the seven hours' scheme of attendance applied?

My attention had not been called to Mr. Ellis's letter until this question was put on the Paper. Mr. Ellis, though described as a Public Record Searcher, has, I believe, no official connection with the Registry of Deeds. The duties of the Registry and the staff required for their performance formed the subject of inquiry by a thoroughly competent Committee in 1885, and the present staff is considerably in excess of the number which the Committee recommended as sufficient for the proper discharge of all the work of the Department. There is no intention to increase the number of the staff; but I hope that the rule requiring a regular daily attendance of seven hours in the Registry will be very shortly introduced. I cannot say when the consolidated indices for the period from 1880 to 1889 will be completed; but I am not satisfied with the progress which has been made since 1885, nor am I satisfied that the work of the Office is discharged as promptly as it could be. I am considering the best means of securing the completion of these indices, and if it be found necessary to afford some temporary assistance in order to effect this object at an early date the Treasury will give the necessary sanction.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the power which was conferred upon the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland by the "Public Works Loan (Tramways, Ireland) Act" of 1886, to make advances upon the security of their fully paid-up shares to any public company which had, at the time of passing the said Act, or within 12 months thereafter obtained an Order in Council, has been withdrawn by a Treasury Minute; and, if so, when was it withdrawn, and for what reason?

The power in question was given to meet a special and temporary difficulty which has passed away, and the Treasury has decided that it is not desirable or necessary to make further loans under the Act quoted.

What was the date of the Minute?

I did not say there was any Treasury Minute.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the cause of the delay in granting the sum of £116,000 recommended so strongly by the Light Railway Commissioners, and approved of unanimously by the Grand Jury of County Donegal at the last Spring Assizes, in favour of the Stranorlar and Glenties Line?

It is not possible for me at present to state the result of the consideration of the various railway schemes in Donegal.

As the matter is of public interest, and large sums of money have already been invested by contractors in initiating schemes, will the Government be soon in a condition to announce what course will be taken?

I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to put his question to my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Freeman's Journal of 27th May last, of the proceedings of a trial before two Resident Magistrates at Portumna, in which five men of the district were charged with having committed a riotous assault on two constables named O'Gowan and M'Grady, and two emergency men, when the charges against all the accused were dismissed; whether he has seen the evidence which shows that the constables and the emergency men had been drinking together from the morning of the day on which the alleged offence was committed; that Constable M'Gowan at the trial denied some of the statements which he had sworn in the deposition previously made by him; that Constable O'Grady at Mrs. Kelly's yard fired off his rifle loaded with buckshot, and M'Gowan and he attacked the accused with their rifles; that, the emergency man Kingsbury struck the accused Dewin with a loaded whip; and that Kingsbury admitted at the trial that he had been previously fined for drunkenness, and also for firing off a revolver in the public road; and what steps he intends to take with reference to the conduct of the constables and the emergency men on this occasion?

It is the fact that the Magistrates dismissed the case, partly on a point of law, and partly on account of the nature of the evidence.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings before Colonel Dunne's Select Committee upon Irish Taxation (1864), wherein complaint was made in regard to the narrowness of the scope of the Inquiry, resulting in an incomplete Report, and furthermore, that serious questions of law arose as to the true construction of the Union Statute, 1800; and whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to frame the terms of the Order of Reference to the proposed Select Committee upon the above subject wide enough to embrace the question of the competancy of the high contracting parties, or at least one of them, to enter into Articles of Union outside its legislative function and involving its own annihilation, without a plébiscite or other cognate authorisation from its electorate; the question of the; original justness of the proportions of financial contributions therein; and inquiry into the causes that before and since the Union period have occasioned a want of uniformity in the incrementation of the value of the realty and taxable basis of Ireland as an integral portion of the Empire relatively to the rest of the United Kingdom; with power, if deemed expedient, to examine legal experts, and to suggest ways and means whereby relief may be afforded to the Irish taxpayer without trenching' upon the British ratepayer?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to Colonel Dunne's Committee. Whatever complaints were made with regard to the narrowness of the scope of that Inquiry, it was sufficiently comprehensive, at any rate, to employ the Committee for two years, and to result in an incomplete Report, as the hon. Member points out. I do not propose to include questions of history in the terms of the Reference, as I consider that this would not lead to any practical result, and would probably postpone the Report to an indefinite period. The intention of the Government is to secure a practical investigation into the present incidence of taxation in Ireland, and its relation to the taxation of the rest of the United Kingdom.

When will the terms of Reference be placed on the Table?

I have been engaged upon the Reference, and I hope to be able to place it on the Table of the House in the course of a few days. We are anxious to obtain the assent of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to it.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the number of Higher Division Clerks is in certain Departments considerably in excess of requirements under the present classification of the Service; and whether, in view of the fact that all re-organisation has been rendered practically impossible by the Resolution adopted on the 12th of June, 1888, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to give the House an opportunity of again considering the matter, with the view of enabling them to fix establishments on a proper scale without further delay?

In June, 1888, a Motion was moved in this House condemnatory of the principle upon which pensions had been awarded to public officers retiring upon re-organisation of office. The Government, admitting the necessity of care on such occasions, asked the House to adopt an Amendment on the Original Resolution to the effect that—

"This House, whilst of opinion that, when the re-organisation of a Department becomes necessary, full inquiry should he made into the wants of other Departments with a view to the continued employment of redundant officers, is not prepared, pending the inquiry of the Royal Commission upon Civil Service Establishments, to anticipate its Report by laying down any absolute rule as to the provision of employment for persons not required in the Department to which they have been originally appointed."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many of the men of the Edinburgh Artillery Militia now under canvas at Barry Links, Forfarshire, are unprovided with great coats; whether many of them are also unprovided with straw for bedding, but are only allowed two blankets apiece; whether these men have suffered considerably from the coldness of the nights; and whether he will instruct the proper authorities to supply them with great coats and bedding, or additional blankets?

The General Officer commanding reports that 20 great coats were deficient. A demand for these was received at the Army Clothing Depôt on the 9th, and they were sent on the following day. The tents were for four nights unsupplied with straw, through some mistake, although the straw was at hand; but the men have had their regulation supply of blankets and waterproof sheets, and no complaints were made to the General commanding.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true that an Englishman has been fired upon and killed by an Italian sentry at Genoa; what were the circumstances which led to his being fired upon; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?

A Report has been made by Her Majesty's Consul that a fireman belonging to a British steamer lying in the port had been shot dead by a sentry posted on one of the batteries. The Consul has been informed by the General in Command that the sentry asserted that he had repeatedly challenged the man, who continued to advance upon his post, and was shot at a distance of a few paces from him. The man had got out of his direct way back to his ship, and his conduct cannot be explained. The matter has been referred to Her Majesty's Ambassador, whose Report we are awaiting.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can yet inform the House when the Bill in relation to the Sea Fisheries in Scotland will be introduced, or whether it will be printed this Session; and when the Report of the Salmon Fishery Commissioners for Scotland will be laid upon the Table?

The Bill will be introduced very shortly in another place, and the Report referred to will, I believe, be circulated in a few days.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if it is within the powers of the Boundary Commissioners appointed under "The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889," when inquiring into the circumstances of parishes which have no detached parts, to detach a portion of the parish for the purpose of adding it to another parish, or whether the reference to the alteration of boundaries in Section 49 of this Act refers only to such parishes as have detached parts?

I would rather not make abstract statements on a subject on which the Boundaries Commissioners are at present dealing with individual cases. I may say, however, that where a parish which has no detached parts is situated in more than one county the Boundary Commissioners are empowered to detach a portion of it and add it to another parish, so as to secure that a parish shall not be in more than one county.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that between Holyhead and Milford Haven there is no port or harbour of refuge into which a boat drawing eight feet six inches of water can run at all states of the tide; that the absence of such harbour accommodation seriously cripples the success of fishing and trawling on that coast, and occasions serious loss of life every year, he will appoint a Departmental Committee to visit Fishguard, Aberystwith, Aberdovey, Barmouth, St. Tudwell's and other places, to inquire what steps could and should be taken for the further protection of the lives and industry of fishermen and traders along the Welsh coast?

The hon. Member's question appears to have reference chiefly to fishing harbours, and I would refer him to the terms of the Treasury Minute of the 4th of May, 1887, which has been communicated to the House. If the Local Authorities of the districts to which the hon. Member refers could unite in promoting the construction of a harbour at any particular place, their object might be attained by their making an application under the provisions of the Treasury Minute to which I have referred; but I cannot appoint a Departmental Committee for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member, as I think this would hold out hopes which could not be realised.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state what arrangements have been decided upon with respect to the collection of hospital dues at the ports of Constantinople and Smyrna?

The final arrangements have not yet been decided on. They are still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of the two constables injured in Tipperary, the injuries were inflicted before 1st July, 1889, and the presentments made by the Grand Jury on the 15th July, 1889; and whether these dates were previous to the inauguration of the combination on the Smith-Barry estate?

It appears that the two constables referred to as having obtained compensation received it in respect of injuries inflicted in March, 1889. I was, therefore, in error in the statement I made on Monday about these two men. I am informed that two other policemen, named Curran and Keating, were injured subsequent to the inauguration of the conspiracy on the Smith-Barry estate. I have inquired into the character of their injuries, but have not had time to receive a reply. Perhaps the hon. Member will ask a question later.

Has any policeman got compensation for injuries since the beginning of the combination on the Smith-Barry estate?

I rather think not, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. John Maher, of Lorrha, County Tipperary, has reported to the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary that Sergeant Lord, of the Lorrha Constabulary Station, had refused to pay him an amount due to him, and had forged a receipt for the same, and had sent in the forged receipt to his superior officer as a vouchor that he had paid the money; whether Mr. Maher has also reported the case to the local District Inspector; and what action has been taken (or will be taken) in reference to this charge of forgery and fraud made against this police sergeant?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the man referred to has put forward a claim for some shillings for car-hire alleged by him to be due since 1888. The local officer has inquired into the case, but cannot find that there is any ground for the claim.

Is it intended to proceed against this man for forgery and fraud?

If there is a bonâ fide charge, there will be no difficulty in taking proceedings.

I shall ask a further question on this subject.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he has read the report of the election of harbour engineer for the Port of Limerick, held on Monday last, and if it is legal that representatives publicly elected by a constituency consisting of importers and exporters, and by delegates from the Limerick Corporation, in accordance with an Act of Parliament, could legally proceed to such election by ballot; and whether Sir James Spaight, who assumed to preside at such meeting, as President of the Limerick Chamber of Commerce, was entitled to give two votes on such election?

The subject of this question is one upon which I have no official information; but even if I had the means of obtaining such information, I must point out that the question is one upon which I ought not to give an opinion, relating as it does to the legality of an election which will, I presume, if disputed, be tested in the usual way.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the local valuation lists and rate books give the names of the owners as well as of the occupiers of all rateable hereditaments; and, if so, whether he will cause a Return to be prepared of the number of public houses owned by brewers in each city, municipal borough, and Petty Sessional Division, respectively, in England and Wales, in each of the years from 1880 to 1890?

The valuation lists usually give the names of the occupiers and owners of the rateable hereditaments in a parish at the time when the lists are made up, but they are not corrected as regards these particulars when changes occur, and they do not distinguish the owners who are brewers. They would not be available for such a Return as is suggested. With respect to the rate books, the names of the owners at the time of making the rate should be entered in the rate book; but it too often happens that the parochial officers are not very careful to obtain accurate information as to the owners of the hereditaments when the rates are collected from the occupiers. As in the case of the valuation lists, the rate books do not distinguish the cases where the owners are brewers. To obtain a Return from the rate books merely of the public houses in England and Wales, it would be necessary to apply to the overseers of all the parishes in the country, which number nearly 15,000. The overseers are unpaid officers, and in a large number of cases they have no paid assistants. It is quite certain that a Return of this character could not be obtained unless payment were made for its preparation; and even if payment were made, many months would elapse before it could be completed, and, when completed, its accuracy could not be relied upon.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the manner in which the Governors of the Cork Lunatic Asylum are said to have shelved the Report of Messrs. Plunkett, O'Farrell, and T. J. M. Courtenay, Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums; whether the Board of Governors refused to give the Report to the Press until "they had considered;" whether it is true the Report suggested many reforms, and made serious complaints as to the want of personal cleanliness allowed to exist with regard to some of its inmates, and also as to the sanitary arrangements in certain parts of the house; and whether the Inspectors stated that, in their opinion, the Board had not properly attended to the wants of the patients; and what is the number of patients at present in the asylum?

Inquiries are being made, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question down again.

I will put it down tomorrow.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposal has been received from the Portuguese Government, offering to submit to the arbitration of certain European nations the question of the Delagoa Bay Railway Company?

A joint proposal of that character has been made by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, America to the Government of Portugal, who have accepted it in principle.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether District Inspector Concannon on Thursday, the 5th June, endeavoured to introduce a police reporter into a meeting hold in the Corn Exchange, Cork, convened by the Mayor of the City for the purpose of promoting a testimonial to a member of the Cork Town Council; what reasons are given by the police for endeavouring to intrude on such a gathering; and whether any remonstrance will be addressed to Mr. Concannon for exceeding his duty?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the District Inspector asked the Mayor if a reporter would be admitted, and on the Mayor replying No, nothing further occurred. The meeting was convened for the purpose of starting a testimonial to a parson undergoing imprisonment in connection with boycotting.

Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman, because a person is in prison and his friends outside get up a testimonial, this detestable practice of shadowing these people is to be persisted in? Has not the right hon. Gentleman learned better?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution unanimously adopted by the Newtownards Farmers' Association, at a meeting held on the 26th May last; and whether he intends to make provision in his Land Purchase Bill in the direction pointed out in this resolution?

The hon. Gentleman asked me this question the other day. I then stated that the resolution had not been brought to my notice, and I have not yet seen it. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to for- ward me a copy of it I shall be very glad.

I may say I did forward a copy.

I regret I have not received it.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will state the number of hours overtime performed by telegraph operatives in the Central Telegraph Office during the week ending 7th June instant; also, how many hours overtime performed at the same office during the first week of June, 1889; whether clerks there have been threatened with penal consequences for refusing to work overtime from 12 noon, although their duties were from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m.; whether, notwithstanding that every available officer was pressed on overtime duty, telegrams are often delayed for nearly an hour owing to the insufficient staff; and whether, having regard to this delay, and to the exceptional strain which long hours entails on the clerks, he will consider the desirability of increasing the staff at the Central Telegraph Office?

The number of hours overtime performed in the Central Telegraph Office during the week ended the 7th instant was 10,260, and during the corresponding week of last year 10,037. The work in this week is exceptionally heavy, and the amount of overtime is, therefore, correspondingly high. It is spread over a force of about 2,400 persons. In one or two instances telegraphists who have demurred to render assistance in times of extreme pressure have been informed that it would be necessary to consider the question of removing them from the duty extending from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m. to make way for those upon whose help the Department might rely, and it is, perhaps, to this that the hon. Member refers as being a threat of penal consequences. I may mention that the duty in question is only performed five days a week. It is not the fact that telegrams are often delayed to the extent mentioned by the hon. Member. Some delay has, however, occurred on a few of the circuits, owing to the extreme pressure, and, in view of the amount of overtime performed, it has been in contemplation to make an early application for authority to increase the staff.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will state the full particulars about the punishment of postmen in London for attending the meeting of their trade on Clerkenwell Green, 16th May; how many were punished; how many were fined; how many deprived of their stripes; if he will state whether it is the intention of the Department to dismiss the men who refuse to give a written declaration that they will not attend Union meetings in future; and if he will state definitely whether or no postmen are allowed to form a Union?

In reply to the hon. Member I have to state that certain postmen having, in defiance not only of the established regulations, but of a special warning which had been addressed to them only a few days before, thought fit to attend a meeting on Clerkenwell Green, which did not comply with the Rules of the Service, I felt constrained to vindicate the authority of the Department. Altogether 31 men have been punished by fine, and of this number eight have been deprived of their good conduct stripes. Obviously a distinction which, as its name implies, is given for good conduct, cannot continue to be worn by those who defy regulations. As regards those of the 31 who are under suspension, the intention of the Department is to restore them to duty as soon as they give satisfactory assurances for their good behaviour. Their restoration, therefore, as the hon. Member will see, is in their own hands. Postmen are at liberty to form associations for their mutual benefit, or for the discussion of matters in which they have a common interest, so long as they do not transgress regulations or organise resistance to the authority of their superior officers.

Are punishments of this kind imposed in other branches of the Civil Service for similar offences?

I have not inquired into that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain in what respect the meeting on Clerkenwell Green did not comply with the Rules of the Service?

I think that the House is aware that under the rules as to the holding of meetings, men who propose to attend them are requested to give notice of their intention to hold such meetings; that such meetings should and are to be, confined to persons in the Postal Service; and that, if it is thought necessary, the authorities should be able to have their official shorthand writer present.

As this was an open-air meeting on Clerkenwell Green, I should like to ask whether the regulations will not absolutely preclude all postmen from attending an open-air meeting, and whether that is a fair construction of the rules?

No, that is not a fair construction of the rules; but it would be quite competent for the postmen to hold an open-air meeting if they complied with the rules—i.e., if they gave notice of their intention to hold the meeting; if they gave satisfactory assurance that the meeting would be confined to persons in the Postal Service, and if the shorthand writer was present.

Did the postmen on this occasion raise any difficulty or suggest any refusal to have an official reporter as a representative of the Postmaster-General at this meeting?

In order to make this matter clear to the country will the right hon. Gentleman state whether this meeting, for attending which these men have been suspended and punished, was held out of their working hours?

In answer to the last question I presume, at all events, that the meeting took place out of the working hours of such postmen as attended, but not, of course, out of the regular working hours of the whole Service. With regard to the first question, the men had not given the Department the opportunity of considering whether the presence of a shorthand writer would be required, because they gave no notice of their intention to hold a meeting.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the extensive circulation of spurious florins and shillings now going on in this country; and whether any steps can be taken to prevent such circulation?

I am informed that there is no reason to believe that there is any considerable circulation of spurious florins and shillings.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable uneasiness in the mind of the public, especially among the working classes, on the subject of certain jubilee coins now circulated, and will he make some statement to allay that uneasiness?

I thought that the statement which I have just made would do so. There is no reason to believe that there is any serious circulation of any spurious jubilee coins.

Is it, or is it not, the fact that many poor people believe that numbers of these coins have been imported from Germany?

I am not aware that jubilee shillings have been imported from Germany. I will ask the hon. Member to put down the question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in the position to give the House any information regarding the reported slaughter by Arnauts, with the connivance of the Turkish Authorities, of a number of Christian refugees in the neighbourhood of Kossova, in North West Macedonia, as they were endeavouring to make their way to Servia?

No information has been received at the Foreign Office on the subject.

Will the right, hon. Gentleman inquire? This is a very serious matter, for it is reported in the Continental papers that more than 80 persons were killed.

As I have previously explained, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Representatives to report instantaneously on reports sent by telegraph to English newspapers. It is their duty to inquire into the accuracy of rumours before they report on them, as I am sure they will do in good time.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Australian Governments have yet decided to adopt the reduction of the rate of postage to the United Kingdom to 2 ½d.; and, if so, whether they have attached any conditions to such decision?

I have much pleasure in informing my hon. Friend and the House that, according to a telegram received on the 29th of May, the majority of the Australian colonies, as represented in a Postal Conference at Adelaide, have announced their intention to adopt the reduced postage of 2½d. for letters to this country. They have, at the same time, made certain other proposals; but the telegram does not make it clear that their acceptance of the 2½d. rate is conditional on the adoption of these proposals, which are at present under discussion.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Australian Governments have made any suggestions to the Imperial Government as to taking part with them in any guarantee to Cable Companies against losses that may ensue on the proposed reduction of cable rates from 9s. 6d. to 4s. for public messages; and, if so, whether the Government has decided to comply with their suggestions, or to take any steps towards promoting this proposal?

It is a fact that the principal Australian Governments have made a proposal that the Imperial Government should join them in payment of the subsidy now and for some time past paid by them to the company owning the Australian cables, and should also join in guaranteeing the company against half the loss which might accrue from the reduction of the cable rates to the figure mentioned. But, after very careful consideration, the Government has not teen able to accede to the proposal.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will lay upon the Table of the House, and cause to be printed, a Paper showing the grounds on which he arrives at the estimate of £100,000 as the probable additional annual expenditure involved by the educational changes of this year, showing in detail the proportions of the excess due to the New Code, and to the Code Bill respectively?

I have no objection, upon general grounds, to take the course suggested in my hon. Friend's question; but it must be understood that the figures will be an estimate only, and will merely show what we expect to be the immediate increase upon the present Vote.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any substantial truth in the statement which appeared in the St. James's Gazette, of yesterday (11th June), purporting to give in detail the lines upon which a settlement either had been or was about to be arrived at between England and Germany respecting their spheres of influence in Africa?

No statement can be made upon the point at present.

I should like to ask whether the Government are prepared to adhere to Lord Salisbury's declaration in the City that it is very undesirable to come to any agreement which we have not ascertained would be acceptable to the trading companies, missionaries, and others, who have advanced this great work; and whether the Government are still of opinion that this matter is one upon which the public opinion of England and Parliament ought to be consulted?

I am sure that the Prime Minister will adhere to any statement which he has publicly made. Further than that I cannot go.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it will be convenient to lay upon the Table of the House at an early date the Papers and Correspondence in reference to the additional military contribution proposed to be levied on the Straits Settlements?

This matter is still the subject of correspondence, and as soon as this is completed, Papers will be laid.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention, has been called to the case of Mr. Thomas Harrison, of Hollinwood, Oldham, who is now lying in Strangeways Prison, Manchester, for Contempt of Court; whether he is aware that Mr. Harrison has never committed any offence except in connection with the publication of a pamphlet entitled The Coal Trade and Railway Rates, reflecting upon the action of a Railway Company and certain colliery proprietors; whether the order for a writ of attachment against Mr. Harrison was made in Chambers instead of in open Court, and whether it is the law that a man may be committed for contempt otherwise than by an order made in open Court; whether Mr. Harrison is now detained in prison for a contempt for which he has already humbly apologised to the Court; and whether this is in accordance with the usual practice?

In answer to the question of the hon. Member, my attention had not been called to the case to which he refers; but I am informed that Mr. Harrison was restrained by injunction from publishing certain letters received by him from a Railway Company, and that with full knowledge of that injunction he proceeded to widely circulate a pamphlet containing the letters in question. An application to commit Mr. Harrison for contempt of Court was thereupon made to the Judge in Chambers. Mr. Harrison was represented by counsel, who, as far as I am aware, never objected to the hearing of the application in Chambers, which was in accordance with the law and the usual practice. Upon that occasion Mr. Harrison admitted his offence, and tendered a humble apology, upon which the learned Judge made an order that no attachment should issue against him provided he paid the costs of the application as between solicitor and client. Mr. Harrison, however, failed to pay such costs, and was committed to prison accordingly.

I bog to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the number of "tied houses" in this country is constantly increasing; whether he is aware that the leases of such "tied houses" contain a clause providing that the lessee shall

"have and purchase of and from the lesson and of and from no other person or persons, all the beer, ale, table beer, and cider;"

I am not aware that the number of "tied houses" is increasing, as suggested in the question of the hon. Member. There is, in my opinion, nothing illegal in such a clause as that referred to in the second paragraph of the question. A condition that the beer and ale and table beer should be of good quality would, in the absence of express stipulation, be implied, but the price must depend upon the special bargain in each case.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is true that in 1886–7 a large sum of money voted by Parliament under Vote 19, for pensions and compensations to retired officers, was returned to the Treasury, as an unexpended balance, by the War Office; and whether he is prepared, as an act of grace and under the special circumstances under which the trial of "Mitchell v. Regina" took place, to grant as an act of grace to the suppliant, in consideration of his services of over 31 years in the corps of Royal Engineers, and the services of his father, the late John Wray Mitchell, Royal Artillery, for a longer period, some grant of money as an equivalent for loss sustained by early retirement from the Army, in consequence of the operation of new and enforced rules of retirement which did not govern the Army when he entered it?

The surplus of Vote 19 for 1886–7 was surrendered to the Exchequer according to law, and is no longer at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government. I am informed that it is not the intention of the War Office to ask for any further compensation for Colonel Mitchell.

May I ask whether, if the suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina" is made to pay the taxed costs of the Crown on the action under petition of right, Messrs. Hare and Co., the agents to the Solicitor to the Treasury, would only get one-half the allowed fees, and the other half go into the Exchequer receipts of the Crown; and whether this arrangement is in contravention of paragraph 32 of the Solicitors Act, 1843.

The suppliant has been relieved from paying the costs of the Crown in this case. The arrangement with Messrs. Hare is an old one, which has worked well, and the legal point raised by the hon. Member is not one with which I am competent to deal.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Holiness the Pope has declared—

"That marriages celebrated in Malta by all those who profess the Catholic religion, whether both contracting parties be Catholics, or whether one of them be a Catholic and the other a non-Catholic, are not, and shall not be, valid if they are not celebrated according to the form established by the Council of Trent;"

The answer to the first three questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative; and, with regard to the last, I think I had better refer the hon. Member to a letter of the Prime Minister which appeared in the Times of the 4th inst.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the interest felt in the subject, and the importance of its proposals, he will undertake that an opportunity will be afforded for reasonable discussion of the Savings Banks Bill, and can now mention a date for its Second Reading; whether he will now fix a day for the Second Reading of the Employers' Liability Bill; and whether he will now inform the House when the Government propose to afford it definite and regular opportunities of considering Supply?

I must refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in reply to a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian on the 10th inst. Then I stated that the Government felt it their duty to proceed from day to day with the Local Taxation Bill, and would make no arrangements with regard to public business until the Committee stage of that Bill was completed.

Perhaps, as the right hon. Gentleman has inserted a condition in his answer—that it was intended to proceed day by day with the Local Taxation Bill, unless he had occasion to interrupt the proceedings on account of some measure of a public character; he also stated on the same day that he would be able to announce the intentions of the Government with respect to such a measure—he will permit me to ask whether he is able to make a statement, which is of great importance, as to the course of public business. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will lose no time in letting the House know what are the means to be taken with regard to the Bills before the House.

The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly accurate in stating that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Local Taxation Bill, unless it is necessary to interpose a Motion with regard to public business. I am not in a position to give any notice of such a Motion. So soon as I am in a position to do so, I will avail myself of the first opportunity to make a statement, and I am sure I shall be favoured with the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. Until then, I must defer my statement.

I hope, also, independently of the question of any special measure, the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the time of year at which we have now arrived, and feel that it is becoming requisite speedily to announce the intentions of the Government as to their policy. This week I think it was understood we were to know.

The right hon. Gentleman is not so accurate as he usually is. I carefully guarded myself. I said that I hoped "in a few days" to be able to give the statement referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.

When is it intended to proceed with the Savings Bank Bill?

I think I have practically answered that. The Government intend to proceed with the Local Taxation Bill as far as they can. If the Bill referred to can be taken after 12, it would then be taken, but it cannot then be taken if it is desired to have a discussion upon it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what administrative action the Government have decided to take in view of the "Evidence and Report of the Lords Committee on Sweating" to put a stop, by more efficient inspection and more stringent forms of contract, against subcontracting or otherwise, to the practice of sweating, so far, at any rate, as work done for Government Departments is concerned, as to one of which Departments the Director of Contracts has himself stated that—

"The evidence given before your Lordships has tended to show that our contracts have been used for some years as a vehicle for sweating, and that the whole of the sweating business has been carried out almost under the protection of the War Office."

The remark which the hon. Member quotes applied only to accoutrements, and with regard to these I must refer him to the answer he received to a similar question on the 25th of July last.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state if any War Office contracts have been given to foreign firms, and if so how many?

A Return giving the information the hon. Gentleman desires will be presented to the House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government has considered the Report and recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Blind and Deaf; and whether it is proposed to legislate for Ireland as well as for Scotland and England; and, in such event, whether effect will be given to the suggestions of the Royal Commission in special reference to the needs and circumstances of Ireland?

The Government have before them the Report and recommendations of the Royal Commission referred to. They hope to propose legislation for Ireland on the subject so soon as the state of Public Business admits. In framing their proposals careful attention will be given to the suggestions of the Royal Commission.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to illustrated letters in the Daily Graphic of 31st May and 3rd June, containing an account of the wanton destruction of sea birds and their eggs by a landing party from H.M.S. Sir Richard Fletcher, on the Island of Grassholme, in the Bristol Channel, on the 23rd May; whether the acts described in the letters constitute a breach of "The Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880;" and whether he will take steps to prevent the repetition of such acts by persons using Her Majesty's ships?

This subject has already been brought by the hon. Member for Pembroke to the notice of the First Lord of the Admiralty, and, perhaps, the hon. Member for Swansea will allow me, by anticipation, to reply to his question in conjunction with that of my hon. Friend. Although the account given in the newspaper is somewhat exaggerated, it is the fact that an officer of the Royal Engineers did land on Grassholme, which is an isolated rock far out at sea, and did shoot some sea birds under the mistaken idea that the Wild Birds Preservation Act did not extend to the spot. The Commander-in-Chief has expressed his disapproval of the proceeding, and His Royal Highness has given orders that will prevent its repetition.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why is the Rev. John Power, Rathgormac, County Waterford, followed by a Government notetaker and by police when engaged in his duties, even when calling on the sick and dying in the ministration of his sacred duties; and can he state how long it is intended that Father Power shall be thus followed?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the rev. gentleman mentioned has been inciting to boycotting and intimidation in order to compel tenants to give up a surrendered farm which they had taken. In pursuance of this object he has been addressing indoor and open-air meetings, and whenever the police have reason to believe that he is about to hold an open-air meeting with this object he is followed by a police notetaker with the usual escort with a view to a prosecution being instituted against him. I am informed that the police do not follow him into any house, or in any way interfere with the ministration of his duties. So soon as the rev. gentleman discontinues the illegal practices mentioned, the duty of the police in the matter will at once cease.

If this priest is, as alleged, guilty of these illegal practices will he be prosecuted? If not, why not?

Did the right hon. Gentleman obtain the information from the constables whose conduct we impugn? The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is directly opposed to what I state in the question.

I obtained the information in the only way in which the Irish Secretary can obtain it. If the hon. Gentleman has any further statements, and will be good enough to lay them before me, I shall be very glad to examine them. As to the question of the hon. Member for East Mayo, there are many cases in which the police are cognisant of illegal acts, and yet are unable to carry them to prosecution.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true, as reported in the Cork papers, that summonses were last week issued at the prosecution of District Inspector Ball, Fermoy (County Cork), against Patrick Keefe, Thomas Kent, William Kent, George Mulcahy, John Fuohy, Patrick Walsh, John Donovan, and James Donovan; if he can state whether these prosecutions are brought with the approval or sanction of the Irish Law Officers; and whether he is aware that of the above-named defendants two of them, namely, Thomas and William Kent, are at present confined in Cork Gaol for offences arising out of the alleged boycotting of a farm in connection with which these summonses are now issued?

The prosecutions in this case are still pending, and therefore it would not be proper for me to make any statement on the subject. I shall be obliged if the hon. Gentleman; will defer the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that John Murphy, an emergency man, who was charged at Conna (County Cork) Petty Sessions last Friday, "with discharging a revolver on the public road" at a woman named Julia Fitzgerald and others, was acquitted by Colonel Longbourne, R.M., and two other Magistrates on the ground that "defendant had not got the revolver now;" also that the same defendant was charged by the Excise authorities with carrying the revolver without a licence, and fined the mitigated penalty of £2 10s. and costs; and whether he can state what are the reasons which induced Colonel Longbourne, R.M., to recommend that this fine be further reduced?

I am informed that the man mentioned was charged not with firing at any person, but with having discharged his revolver on the public road, the shot being fired in the air. The defendant was not acquitted on the ground alleged in the question, but because the Bench of Magistrates considered, from the evidence before them, that the defendant had reasonable grounds of alarm at the time he discharged the weapon in the air with the object of frightening without causing injury. The Bench recommended the remission of the Excise penalty on the ground that, in their opinion, the defendant was not responsible for the neglect to take out an Excise licence, the revolver having been supplied to him for his protection by his employer, by whom the licence should have, in their opinion, been taken out for him.

I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been directed to the fact that not a week elapses without some emergency man firing off his revolver; and whether anything will be done to put a stop to such riotous and rowdy conduct?

The fact has not been brought under my notice, nor am I aware that there has been any cases of serious breaches of the public peace.

What about the case of Kinsella?

And there was the Templemore case. In these cases two men were killed, and nobody was hanged for it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether instructions will be given that more supervision shall be exercised over the issue of licences to men of this character, in view of the frequent occurrences of outrages of the kind indicated?

I imagine there is supervision exercised. It is owing to the unfortunate state of Ireland that these men require revolvers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman direct some inquiry to be made into the character of these men before the issuing of these licences?

May I ask whether in this case the fine was remitted by the Lord Lieutenant?

I have no information on that point.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, considering the effect of "The Local Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act, 1888, and the remarkable diminution latterly of commercial and legal business in Ireland, there is still sufficient employment for two Judges and 10 officers in the Court of Bankruptcy, Dublin; and whether the Government intend to take any steps with regard to this state of things?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it has come to his knowledge that farmers are giving up the growing of corn, because of the very serious damage done to the crops by the great increase of grubs and insects, consequent on the rapid diminution of plovers, by the systematic robbery of their eggs; and whether he will bring in a Bill declaring a close time for plovers' eggs?

Until the appearance of the hon. Member's question, I have never heard any suggestion made by agriculturists that corn growing has been discontinued owing to the scarcity of plovers. There are many districts to which I believe plovers never resort, where corn is grown extensively, and the corn crops in those districts do not appear to be more subject to the ravages of insects than the corn crops in other localities in which plovers are numerous. As to a close time for plovers' eggs, the only complaint which has ever reached me, and which I own rather commends itself to me, is that the season for plovers' eggs is too limited already, and it would be a hazardous experiment for any Minister, I think, to endeavour to further restrict it.

I beer to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether all arrangements have now been made by Lloyds', with the sanction of the Board of Trade, for connecting Tory Island lighthouse and signal station by submarine cable with the main land of Ireland; and, if so, when this service of safety is likely to be put to work?

As the application by Lloyds' to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order under "Lloyds' Signal Stations Act, 1888," has been withdrawn, there is no need for the sanction of the Board of Trade to the establishment of a signal station on Tory Island. I have, however, communicated with Lloyds' on the subject, who inform me that, after considerable difficulty with the landowner, the conveyance of the requisite land has been completed, and possession will be immediately taken by Lloyds'. The contract for the manufacture and laying of the necessary telegraphic cable will, it is expected, be signed in the course of a few days, and also the contract for the erection of the necessary buildings, and it is believed that the signal station will be in working order within a few weeks, provided that the weather permits of the cable being laid within that time.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will entertain the request for a Committee of Inquiry into the alleged excessive violence displayed by the Constabulary at Tipperary and Cashel, on the 25th and 27th of May?

The case appears to be strictly parallel to others that have, from time to time, occurred during the last 10 years. I do not see any reason for departing from the precedent set, no doubt after due consideration, be hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention boon called to the inquiry which has been held by the Town Commissioners of Cashel into this matter, and has he seen the Report, signed by 14 out of 18 members of that body, which relates to 17 specific acts of violence and improper conduct on the part of the police at Cashel?

No, Sir, I have not seen that Report.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the precedent afforded by the Belfast case in 1886 as one applicable to the present case?

Of course, I have the Belfast riots in my mind. There is, however, no parallel between those serious transactions and what occurred at Tipperary and Cashel the other day. We should require legislation to establish a tribunal like that which was created for Belfast.

I agree that there were great excesses in the case of Belfast which do not exist in the present instance, but I wish to know, as a matter of principle, whether it is not in the interest of the police themselves, when the gravest charges are made against them, that an opportunity should be given for inquiry before some efficient tribunal?

There is a great deal to be said for the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but a Committee of the House of Commons, composed of Party gentlemen, is about the worst tribunal in the world to consider the case—an opinion which the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed himself to hold when he decided on the Belfast case. The police have been chronically attacked during the past 10 years by hon. Members below the Gangway, and the charges now made with regard to Tipperary and Cashel are far milder than those made on previous occasions in which inquiry was refused.

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in England charges against the police are invariably followed by judicial investigation, instituted and ordered by the Police Authorities themselves.