I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether some of Her Majesty's ships of war are so undermanned in the Engineering Department that, in an engagement, it would be absolutely necessary to draft men from the guns to make up the deficiency, in order to secure the full steaming power of the engines?

No; such is not the case. The complement is amply sufficient to secure the full steaming power of the engines. If the maximum speed were maintained for a long period help might be required from deck hands to assist in trimming coal.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the growth of the maritime population in the towns and villages upon the River Colne; and whether he will provide some station in the locality where facilities could be granted for training for the Royal Navy or for entering the Royal Naval Reserve?

The Admiralty are making inquiries as to whether a suitable site for a drill battery can be obtained in the locality in question; and also as to the number of seafaring men who would probably avail themselves of the facilities for training that might be so afforded.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, referring to the promise which he gave to the hon. Member for the Rugby Division (Mr. Cobb) on the 20th of August last, and to the determination which he expressed in reply to the same hon. Member on the 18th of February last that something should be done as to the sewerage works for Harrow Weald, he can now state whether there is any probability of anything being done; and, if so, when; and whether, if the delay is continued, he will direct some steps to be taken to compel the Hendon Rural Sanitary Authority to proceed to execute the works?

Since my reply to the hon. Member for the Rugby Division, I have repeatedly pressed the Sanitary Authority with reference to the provision of the sewerage works for Harrow Weald. I am glad to be able to state that the Sanitary Authority have now succeeded in their negotiations for the purchase of eight acres of land for purposes of sewage disposal, and that they have applied for sanction to a loan of £3,500 in connection with the cost of purchase and the execution of the necessary works. It is requisite, however, that the Board should be furnished with plans of the works proposed, and I am informed that plans and sections will be laid before the authorities at their meeting to-day.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that plans were laid before the Local Authority 12 months ago?

I do not know whether that is so or not; but a loan is now being applied for in order that the works may be carried out.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether ho can state to the House the nature of, or whether he will lay Papers upon the Table showing the various proposals made during the past 12 months, to or by the Secretary of State in Council, and to or by the Government of India, and to either, by any other parsons in relation to particular railways in India, or in relation to any general scheme of Indian Railway finance, together with any correspondence thereon?

My noble Friend the Secretary of State is of opinion that it is not expedient to give the Papers asked for in the question, nor would it be convenient or practicable to do so. He wishes me to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he will have an opportunity of discussing the matter on the statement in connection with the Indian Budget.

I beg to give notice to the right hon. Gentleman that if he does not lay these Papers on the Table before the discussion of the Indian Budget takes place I shall feel it my duty to submit to the House a summary of the proposals made to the Government, with the criticisms of the Government of India upon them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is a fact that Rajah Brooke has seized a large part of the Independent State of Brunei, against the wishes of the lawful Sovereign of the State; and, if so, has Rajah Brooke broken the agreement made between the Sultan of Brunei and Her Majesty's Government, also his own agreement with the Sultan; whether Her Majesty's Government has received a strong protest from the Sultan of Brunei, informing them that Rajah Brooke has interfered with the independence of the State of Brunei, and thereby violated the terms of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and His Highness, dated 17th September, 1888; and if Her Majesty's Government will take steps to insure that their Treaty with the Sultan shall be respected, and if they will award compensation for any losses suffered by the Sultan in any breach of such Treaty?

Rajah Brooke has annexed the Limbang District, which was nominally under the Sovereignty of the Sultan of Brunei, though his authority over it does not appear to have been recognised by the inhabitants for some years. The annexation is subject to the approval of Her Majesty's Government. The Sultan of Brunei has protested. We are not yet in possession of sufficient information to enable me to make any statement as to the course which Her Majesty's Government may feel bound to take in the matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a Memorial from the fishermen of Gravesend, praying that boats from Greenwich and Blackwall may be prevented from fishing in the Lower Hope with illegal nets, called "stobard nets," by which the fry and spawn of all kinds of fish are destroyed, and the livelihood of the fishermen taken away; also that sewerage matter may be prevented from being brought down the river and deposited at the entrance by the steamships Barking and Bazalgette, whereby great harm is done to the fishing; and whether the Board of Trade will take such steps as may be necessary to remove the nuisance complained of?

I have received the Memorial to which the hon. Member refers, in which complaint is made of the use of stow be it nets, and the deposit of sewage in a part of the River Thames which is under the jurisdiction of the Thames Conservancy. A copy of the Memorial was forwarded to the Conservators, who have replied that instructions have been given to their Harbour Master to carefully watch and report all cases of a breach of their bye-laws.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause our Minister in Morocco, Sir W. Kirby Green, to make representations to the Sultan in order to alleviate the alleged ill-treatment of the prisoners confined in the prisons at Tangiers and Tetnan?

The attention of Her Majesty's Minister has been already called to the subject, and he has authority to make representations respecting the state of the prisons to the Moorish Government whenever he sees any prospect of doing so with success. I regret to say that, according to his latest Report on the question, he had found that diplomatic representations were ineffectual to abate the evils complained of.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of all letters, agreements, and receipts given by Admiral Colomb, relating to his invention of the Flash Signals?

As the question of this officer's services in the introduction into the Navy of the system of flashing signals is still under consideration, it would be inexpedient to present to Parliament at the present time any Papers on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain from the Financial Adviser of the Egyptian Government the amount of commission paid to Messrs. Rothschild and Sons for issuing the new Egyptian 3½ per Cent. Loan?

This is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Egyptian Government.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether the Charity Commissioners have, since the date of the Report of the Royal Commission on the City Livery Companies, in 1884, dealt with Morell's Charity of the Goldsmiths' Company; and, if so, in what way, both generally and with special reference to 30 acres of land at Barking, part of the corpus of the Charity?

The Charity Commissioners are taking proceedings for the establishment of a new scheme. The scheme does not deal with the land at Barking.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the great inconvenience which is occasioned in the several Public Departments by the existence of vacancies in the staff, and the stagnation of promotion which has occurred since the appointment of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, the Treasury will expedite the settlement of the various establishment questions now under their consideration, and sanction the promotion of those clerks of the Second Division who have already been recommended by the Heads of their Departments under the new Regulations set forth in the recent Treasury Minutes and the Order in Council?

The Treasury has been busily engaged upon these questions, and material progress has been made towards their settlement. But the reduction of various establishments to a fixed cadre, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, is a matter concerning which a great variety of opinions may be legitimately expressed, and which demands the most careful adjustment. The promotion of Second Division clerks to the upper class in that Division and to staff posts, must necessarily depend on the schemes adopted for the entire Departments, as it is these schemes which will determine the classification and distribution of the work.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what is the height from ground floor of the House to the Committee Rooms and the Ladies Gallery, and would it be possible to put up a lift or lifts for the convenience of Members and of ladies visiting the House?

I find that the height of this building, from the ground floor to the Committee Rooms, is 39ft. 3in. It would be possible to introduce into the staircase leading to the Ladies' Gallery a small lift to contain three people, but it would be an expensive undertaking.

Is there not already a lift for coals, and could not the ladies be substituted for coals?

Such a lift does exist, and it certainly could be used either for the ladies or the coals; but I think it would be very difficult to combine the two. I can give no undertaking at present.

During the recess will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the matter?

I have no objection to do that.

Has the right hon. Gentleman obtained any estimate of the cost?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can fix an early date for the holding of the promised inquiry into the way in which the Corporation of Newcastle-under-Lyme have expended the proceeds of a loan of £23,624, originally borrowed for certain specific purposes, several of which have not been carried out; whether, when an urban Sanitary Authority borrows money under the sanction of the Local Government Board, that Board has any control which will enable it to secure that the money is expended for the purposes for which it is borrowed; and whether such authorities are under statutory or other obligation to publish to the ratepayers any accounts which will show how the proceeds of loans are expended and from time to time otherwise dealt with?

The Local Government Board have received a communication from one of the Councillors of the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, in which it is alleged that certain monies which have been raised under the sanction of the Board have not been wholly applied to the purposes for which the loan was sanctioned. The Board have forwarded a copy of the communication as regards these allegations to the Town Council, but have not yet received their reply. The Board have been informed of a further proposal of the Town Council to borrow. No sanction to a further loan will be given without a local inquiry, and at that inquiry the question as to the appropriation of the proposed loan will be considered. In the case of Local Boards and other authorities, whose accounts are subject to the audit of the District Auditors, it would be the duty of the Auditor to satisfy himself that monies borrowed for a particular purpose are applied to that purpose. In the case, however, of a Municipal Corporation the accounts are not audited by the Auditors appointed by the Board. Cinder Section 233 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, the Treasurer's accounts are open to the inspection of the Council, and an abstract of these accounts is to be open to the inspection of all the ratepayers of the borough, and copies thereof are to be delivered to ratepayers on payment of a reasonable price. These provisions are made applicable to the accounts of a Town Council acting as an Urban Authority by Section 246 of the Public Health Act.

Am I to understand that an inquiry will be made if the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied In regard to the manner in which the money has been expended?

The inquiry I have spoken of would be an inquiry as to the circumstances connected with a further application for a loan. In regard to all applications for power to raise money by loan an inquiry is held; but I have pointed out that the Local Government Board have no power to appoint Auditors. They do not possess the same control over the expenditure of money in the case of Corporations as they do in the case of Local Boards.

If the application for a further loan is not persisted in have the Local Government Board no authority to inquire as to the expenditure of the money already borrowed?

No, Sir; we have no authority; none.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary for War what contracts and for what total number of bayonets have been made with Messrs. Wilkinson, and what number of bayonets have been delivered under such contracts; whether, subsequent to the respective contracts or any of them being originally made, any alterations were made in the shape of the bayonets or the test to which they were to be submitted; and whether the short bayonets or knives now being used with the new magazine rifle are those for which the first contract was given to Messrs. Wilkinson?

Only one contract has been made with Messrs. Wilkinson for bayonets, namely, for 150,000. Originally they were to have been of the pattern known as the Enfield Martini, 1877, and to a specification dated September, 1888; 42,000 were made under this order. In September, 1889, it was decided that the remaining 108,000 should be made of the 1888 pattern, and to a revised specification, which was sent to the contractors on November 11, 1889. These are the short bayonets used with the magazine rifle, for which the test naturally differs from that of the longer weapon of the 1887 pattern. Consequently, the bayonets ordered in 1889 are not those for which the original contract was made.

In the new contract was the price altered?

I believe there was some alteration in the price.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police submitted an estimate of £138 for gratuities to the police who performed extra duty, and the Secretary of State granted £100 only, and, inconsequence, the allowances have had to be reduced below the usual scale; and, if so, will he say why the usual course has not been followed?

also asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Police Order quoted in the Daily Telegraph, of Saturday last, relating to the grant of refreshment allowances or gratuities to the officers and men of the Metropolitan Police Force; whether it is the fact that the police have been deprived of the usual refreshment allowance to which they are entitled under the Rules; what is the Rule governing the grant of refreshment allowances, and was the claim, in respect of which the £100 (mentioned in the Order) was given, made under that Rule; have any other payments of that character been made; and whether any steps have been taken to mitigate the pressure of exceptional work falling upon officers and men of the Police Force?

I have also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the grants of refreshment allowances or gratuities to the Metropolitan Police for extra service in times of emergency, whether the sum of £138 represented the allowances, calculated on the usual scale for the extra work done by the police during the recent gas and dock strikes; whether that sum was reduced to £100; whether he is aware that this reduction has caused great discontent amongst the men, and whether he will explain his reasons for the reduction?

I will answer the questions of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), and my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts), and Holborn (Mr. G. Bruce), numbered 26 and 28, at the same time. Refreshment allowances are governed by the Regulations of the Police Force, and are allowances for expenses incurred, subject to two conditions, namely, that a man has been on duty over nine hours continuously, and that he was on duty too far from his home or Division to return for meals. This refreshment allowance has never been refused, and has never been reduced in any case which comes within the Rules. Last September the Commissioner asked that the refreshment allowance should be granted to men who were not entitled to it, because they had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Rules, but who had done extra duty or had suffered loss of leave in connection with meetings in Hyde Park, and these demands were made on several occasions. They involved the principle that the police had an equitable right to be paid for loss of leave or for overtime beyond their usual spell of eight hours' duty. This principle has not hitherto been admitted in the administration of the police. It appears to me contrary to the terms on which the police are employed. It carries with it the consequence of payment for all overtime beyond an eight hours' day. I did not feel justified in allowing this novel claim. But whilst I declined to grant a refreshment allowance, which had not been earned, I awarded in recognition of the zeal and good services of the police a round sum of £100, to be distributed by the Commissioner at his discretion among those men who had been most inconvenienced by extra work or loss of leave. The Commissioner asked that this gratuity might be increased to £138, on the ground that £138 would enable him to grant the refreshment allowance, which I had just declined to allow as unsound in principle, and contrary to the Rules. I had had no previous estimate of this amount I declined this application. This was in February last. No distribution of the £100 gratuity was made till the 13th inst.; and the distribution, contrary to my intention, is not on the basis of rewards for exceptional hardship, but on the basis of a reduced refreshment allowance. It is very possible that discontent has been caused by the manner in, which this gift has been distributed. On May 28, I awarded another gratuity of. £200 for extra work done by the police on other occasions when the refreshment allowance had not been earned. Altogether, I have distributed in gratuities of this kind, beyond and outside the Rules governing refreshment allowances, over £900 since July last. I also, in December last, sanctioned the substantial increase of 1,000 men to the Police Force, largely with the view of mitigating the pressure of exceptional work falling upon officers and men, and my desire has always been to treat the Force with consideration and liberality, and to recognise, so far as I could, the zeal and devotion displayed by the Metropolitan Police of all ranks.

How many of the 1,000 men have been already added?

If I am to answer the question with perfect accuracy I must ask for notice. The increase was sanctioned in December last, and is to be made at the rate of 100 men a month. MR. T. M. HEALY: Is that the increase which was sanctioned by the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt)?

No; it was sanctioned by me in December last.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to confer with the Chief Secretary in order to see how English money is spent upon the police in Ireland.

When will the question of the addition to the Police Force, and the consequent provision of expense, be brought before the House?

I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question. It will not be in the Vote this year.

Am I to understand that this House has no voice as to the number of the police?

All I intended to say was that no Vote of the House will be asked for in order to meet the expense.

Then how is the expense to be met?

Out of the income of the Metropolitan Police Fund.

Is it not the case that the income of the Metropolitan Police Fund was not too much in the past year; and how is it to be made sufficient to meet the necessities of more policemen?

On the Police Vote the fullest explanation will be given to the House.

Do I understand the Secretary of State to say that no Vote is going to be taken this year in the Estimates for the sum which is to be paid out of public money for the Metropolitan Police?

Certainly.

Is it intended to bring forward the Police Vote at such a time that the House may have an opportunity of discussing it?

The Police Vote will lie brought forward on an early day.

May I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, before the Second Reading of the Police Bill is taken, he would publish the fixed scale (within the meaning of Clause 3) which he proposed to adopt for ordinary pensions in the Metropolitan Police Force.

Publication of the scale at the present time would be premature. It is enough for me to say that it is my intention, if the Bill passes in its present shape, to adopt the maximum scale in the schedule as the scale for ordinary pensions in the Metropolitan Police Force, and not to prescribe any limit of age as a qualification of the right to claim pension after 25 years^* service.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Greenwich Hospital Accounts will be in the hands of Members; and whether any opportunity will be afforded for their discussion?

On the 20th June. The usual facilities in discussing Estimates will be offered.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether steps are being taken, or will be taken, to enlarge the docks at Sheerness, so as to obviate the necessity for large ships having to go to Chatham?

The Admiralty are at the present time considering a suggestion to lengthen one of the docks at Sheerness for accommodating vessels of a certain class, as it is proposed by the present Board of Admiralty to build vessels of a larger size at Sheerness than have hitherto been constructed there.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the experience gained of the traffic on Constitution Hill during the height of the season, this road can now be thrown open to cyclists?

I have not received any official Report on the subject; but it seems to me that the volume of traffic on Constitution Hill is steadily increasing.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether a Circular has been issued by the Science and Art Department, to the effect that in future no pupil on the register of an elementary school can be examined in science by that Department; whether he is aware that several School Boards in Scotland have, on the strength of encouragement held out to them by the Department, incurred considerable expense in providing laboratories and apparatus, as well as teaching power, all of which will, under the new conditions imposed by the Circular referred to, be rendered useless; and whether, in the circumstances, the Department will withdraw the conditions imposed by the said Circular so far, at least, as it refers to Scotland?

May I ask whether the Minute in question will apply equally to Board Schools in England?

The Circular in question was issued to check the duplication of payments caused by the overlapping of the functions of the Education Departments in the three Kingdoms and the operations of the Science and Art Department; but representations having been made to me that paragraph 2 of the Circular will have a detrimental effect upon science instruction in many schools, I am considering the possibility of substituting for the rule there laid down some regulation which, without being open to the same exception, will promote the object we have in view.

Will a similar Rule apply to Ireland?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to put the question down.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the East Central letters of the French Mail, which arrived on Saturday night at 6.40, and should have gone out by the 8.15 delivery the same night, were still in the office on Sunday night; whether the block in the East Central Office on Saturday night was as great as is usually the case at Christmas time; and what is the cause of such unusual pressure? I have to ask, further, whether it has been reported to him that on Friday last, on the Western District, postmen who should have finished their delivery at 4.20, and be on duty again at 5.20, only finished their delivery at 5.40, and were then deprived of their usual time allowance for tea; whether such delay was caused by the non-arrival in due time of the district bags from the Central Office; and what was the cause of such delay; whether it is the case that a large quantity of circulars which were received at the General Post Office on the 13th instant were not despatched till 10 a.m. on Monday the 16th instant; whether, in consequence, the usual 10.20 a.m. delivery was delayed fully half-an-hour; whether a special staff was asked to work on all through Saturday night; and whether, in the ordinary course, such circulars would have gone out on Saturday morning? I have also to ask how much has been expended at the E.C. and W. District Post Offices in payment for extra duty caused by the suspension of postmen at those offices for attending a Trade Union meeting on the 16th May; and why the letters by the Dutch mail arriving at 8.15 a.m. on Saturday and Monday were not delivered until between 11.30 and 12.45; whether this was two hours beyond the usual and proper time; and whether he can take steps to prevent this delay, which causes great inconvenience to business men in the City?

To questions Nos. 29, 30, 31, and 33 the answer is, in each case, There is no foundation for the statements suggested. To question 32 the answer is £5 6s. 6d.

The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is the same which he gave me two or three days ago. I should like to ask him on what authority he makes the statement that there is no foundation whatever for these allegations? I can only say that the information has been supplied to me on the very highest authority.

I have made the statement on the best official information I could obtain at the Post Office.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will state the number of postmen who had a part of their wages forfeited for attending a Trade Union meeting on 16th May, the ordinary weekly wage of the men, and the total amount forfeited?

Thirty one; but three having given satisfactory assurances for their good behaviour, the punishment in their case has been remitted. The wages of the men ranged from 18s. to 32s. The total amount forfeited cannot be stated at present or until it be known how many of the men, besides those who have already done so, are prepared to give satisfactory assurances for their good behaviour.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state what are the satisfactory assurances these men have given?

They have given their word, which I regard as a satisfactory assurance.

Do, the Regulations apply to the superior officers as well as the working men?

I beg to ask the Post master General if he will state whether the persons he sent to obtain, or from whom he did obtain, the names and numbers of the men who attended the meeting on Clerkenwell Green on 16th May, have reported some men as being at that meeting who were not there; and whether the officers who performed this work were the ordinary overseers or assistant overseers, or whether they were from the Confidential or Criminal Investigation Department?

It is the fact that some of the men who were reported as being at the meeting on Clerkenwell Green on the 16th May have stated that they were not there, or that they happened to be passing on their way without any intention of attending the meeting. In all such cases the assurances of the men have been accepted. The officers employed were of various grades, and did not belong to the Confidential Inquiry Branch.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether Mr. Raynor, assistant or second class overseer, and Mr. Birch, foreman porter, at the Western District Post Office, were sent to Cavendish Square on 16th May to take the names and numbers of the postmen who assembled there for a Trades Union procession; whether these gentlemen went on their own responsibility; and, in either case, whether their information was made use of; whether, in consequence, Mr. Raynor lost all control over his subordinates, and had to be removed to a new position; and whether such officials will be so employed in future?

I have to say that the officers employed on this occasion acted under the instructions of their official superiors. It would therefore serve no useful purpose to mention the names of individuals so employed. Mr. Raynor has been removed to a fresh duty, but not in consequence of his having lost control over his sudordinates. For the future the same or some other Post Office servants will be similarly employed as occasion may require.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in 1882 a meeting of postmen, including delegates from country postmen, was held in the Memorial Hall, to which the public were admitted, at which a Member of Parliament and several postmen made speeches; and whether postmen were punished for attending or speaking at such meeting?

I am not aware of the circumstance to which the hon. Member refers, and the shortness of the notice has not admitted of my making inquiry.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has taken any steps to ascertain the objects and methods of organisation and action of the Postmen's Union; whether he will communicate the result to the House; and whether, if he should be satisfied that it does fully represent the postmen, and that they wish matters affecting their wages, hours of labour, &C., to be negotiated between the Department and their Trade Union officials, he will take steps to give effect to their wishes?

No, Sir. I must absolutely decline to discuss matters affecting the postmen, except with the I postmen themselves.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he declines to treat with anyone but the postmen themselves? Is the Secretary to the Postmen's Union to be excluded from discussions as to the interests of the men?

The postmen are perfectly well aware that the person described as the Secretary to the Postmen's Union is not, and never has been, a Post Office servant; and it is the universal rule that matters relating to persons engaged in the Service can only be discussed between them and their superior officers.

Do these men, on becoming postmen, forfeit their right to join a Trades Union; and has the right hon. Gentleman any right to subject them to quasi-military discipline?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ancient contention of the employers of this country was that they alone should settle any disputes with their workmen, without the interposition of the Secretary of a Trades Union? There were continual conflicts in consequence; but since the employers of labour have taken the more common-sense plan of discussing these matters with the Secretary of the Union there has been much peace. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not take the advantage of the experience gained by the employers of labour, and adopt the same plan in his Department?

I must point out that I have only endeavoured to carry out the Regulations of my Department, which, I may add, have been considerably relaxed for the benefit of the men. In regard to the question of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), the most recent experience indicates, I think, the advisability of maintaining a firm and resolute attitude.

I wish to have a decided answer in the affirmative or negative as to whether these men are prohibited from joining a Trade Union, or whether they are not?

I can only say, again, that the men are quite free to form or join Associations for their mutual benefit and mutual consideration of matters affecting their status;but it is impossible for the Department to recognise any combination which attempts to dictate to it on matters relating to its administration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact, as stated by Lord Salisbury—

"That mixed marriages in Malta, where one party is a Roman Catholic and the other is not, remain in the same position which they have previously held, and are not in any way affected;"

Yes. It is not intended to alter the law regulating mixed marriages in Malta. I cannot say, positively, within what limits it has been the practice of the Governor of Malta to issue licences authorising Protestant ministers to celebrate marriages. Further inquiry will be made as to this. But our intention is that Protestants shall not be placed, in any respect, in a worse position.

What does Sir Lintorn Simmonds want at Rome? Who asked him to be sent there? Was it the Maltese people?

He went there in order to settle some matters affecting the welfare of the people of Malta. Of course, he was sent by the responsible Government.

Did the Catholics of Malta ask that he should be sent to Rome?

Not that I am aware of.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if any decision has as yet been come to by the Treasury as to what line or lines of light railways are to be constructed in Mayo under the Light Railways Act of last year?

Negotiations are going on, and I hope that a satisfactory arrangement may be arrived at.

Seeing that the chief aim of these schemes was to give employment to the people of the district, and that the spring crops are now cut down, and the people will have nothing to do until harvest time, will the Government endeavour to over come this unaccountable delay in making these lines? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Mr. Barton, whose line in Donegal is being pushed forward, is the same Mr. Barton who reported upon the line to Belmullet, and why should his schemes be favoured while nothing for Mayo is being favoured?

It is obvious that the hon. Member ought to give notice of a question of that kind, containing as it does allegations in which I do not agree.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that large bodies of constabulary assaulted with batons and chased the people of Tipperary Town on Sunday 25th May, without previously giving them authoritative notice to disperse, and although no resistance was offered or attempted; whether it is true that on the same day Colonel Cadell, R.M., referring to Father Humphreys and the honourable Members for East Mayo, East Tipperary, Mid Tipperary, South Gal way, and South Louth, who were conferring together, gave the orders to the police: "Men, draw your batons," and "Charge, and clear these fellows out;" whether it is true that similar assaults on the inhabitants, many of whom were women, were committed in Boherlahan village in the presence of Mr. Bruan, R.M., and at Cashel, in the jurisdiction of Mr. Shannon, R.M., and in both cases without any preliminary request to disperse being made by the proper authority; whether it is true that on Mr. Bruan entering Cashel at the head of a body of military and police, he was publicly addressed by Mr. Shannon in the words, "Bravo, Bruan! we have bátoned them like hell in Cashel to-day," and whether he will consider the advisability of separating the magisterial from the police functions of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland?

I am informed the people were not dispersed without previous warning. With regard to Mr. Bruen, previous notification was given. The statement as to Colonel Caddell that gentleman completely denies. Mr. Shannon likewise denies that he used the language attributed to him. I quite agree with the last part of the question, and I shall take care that arrangements are made even more effective than those now existing.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman takes the denial of the Magistrates mentioned, rather than the statements made by eyewitnesses and ear-witnesses, and by hon. Members in their place in this House?

Those Magistrates were eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses of the facts.

Will evidence on oath be received if tendered; or does the right hon. Gentleman prefer to take the simple word of Magistrates who are themselves incriminated?

I should like to know the circumstances under which the evidence on oath would be tendered.

Five hon. Members agree in making a statement. Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that sufficient for an inquiry?

No, Sir. The grounds for an inquiry on oath are not so simple as the hon. Member seems to imagine. I am strictly following precedent.

Is the word of Colonel Cadell to be taken in preference to the word of five hon. Members?

Colonel Caddell is a man in everyway worthy of credence.

If four or five affidavits are laid before the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman order an inquiry on oath?

I have no power to order an inquiry on oath.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Constabulary Code provides for an inquiry?

For a Departmental Inquiry. If sufficient evidence is placed before me which, in my opinion, justifies a Departmental Inquiry, that may be held; but I will give no antecedent promise on the subject until I see the nature of the evidence.

Is the House to understand that the very explicit words alleged to have been used by Mr. Shannon are due to the imagination of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon).

Does the Chief Secretary consider the words of five Members of this House worthy of the same credence as the words of Colonel Cadell. Does the right hon. Gentleman desire to imply that they are not worthy of consideration?

No, Sir; I do not.

Is it customary for Resident Magistrates to exercise judicial as well as executive functions?

It is perfectly true that any Resident Magistrate may be called upon to exercise judicial as well as executive functions; but he does not exercise a judical function in regard to the same services and transactions as he exercises an executive function. The two functions are divided.

Does the right hon. Gentleman call a baton charge an executive function?

Certainly, Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of warders that constitutes a complete staff in each of the three classes into which the ordinary prisons of Ireland are divided; whether the staff in all classes have to do the same duty, and observe the same hours; what is the average number of hours per week each warder in each class of prison has to work; how often has a warder in each class to do night duty per month; how many holidays or half-holidays (exclusive of half-days before and after night duty) a warder gets in a month; is a warder ever entitled to a holiday except on the recommendation of the Governor; if the staff of a prison is reduced, owing to sickness or from any other cause, must the other warders in the prison do the duty of the absent warder or warders; do the warders performing such extra duty get any extra pay; and have old-service warders been deprived, by a Minute of the Treasury, of the pension they were entitled to as prevailing at the time they entered the Service?

The General Prisons Board report that the number of warders is not uniform in any class of prisons, but is regulated under Treasury sanction, according to the circumstances of each prison. The duties and hours of the staffs of the different prisons necessarily vary considerably according to circumstances. The average number of hours of actual duty per week may be taken to be about 82 in the larger prisons. In small prisons, where the staffs are limited, these hours are sometimes necessarily exceeded, but in these cases the general duties are of a much lighter character. In most prisons night duty is taken by each warder about three or four times in the month. In most prisons the warders get a half-holiday on every second Sunday and prison holiday. No holidays are granted, except on special application, but each warder is entitled to 14 days' annual leave. When the staff of a prison is temporarily reduced owing to the sickness of a warder or other cause, sometimes the other warders of the prison are required to do the duty of the absent warder; in other cases extra assistance is supplied, if possible, from another prison. There is no provision enabling the Board to give extra pay in such cases. The Board are not aware what Treasury Minute is referred to; but the Prisons Act of 1877 (section 27) provides that old prison officers shall hold their offices on like terms and tenure as before the Act.

Have not many warders refused the half-holidays because they had to wear uniform?

I have no such information.

Is it not the fact that before the right hon. Gentleman took office warders were allowed to spend their holidays out of uniform?

It may be so, but I have had nothing to do with it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the inquiry made by the Constabulary Authorities into the conduct of Constables O'Gowan and M'Grady, as disclosed in the evidence given in the dismissed cases of riot and assault brought by them against five men before two Resident Magistrates at Portumna, on 27th May last, whether he can now state the result of that investigation?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the officers who inquired into the case find that the constables, while not drunk, had taken more intoxicating liquor on the occasion in question than men employed on responsible duty should indulge in. With regard to one of the constables, I am informed some further steps will be necessary before his case can be dealt with. The case of the other constable does not now arise in connection with this matter, as lie is being discharged from the force in consequence of a serious breach of discipline, subsequently committed.

Has there been any finding upon the evidence given by the constables, which was found to be false?

I have given the hon. Member all the information I possess.

Has it been found that the constable who said he discharged his gun in self-defence was justified in discharging his gun?

The case of one constable is still sub judice, and the other constable has been dismissed.

Is there any objection to prosecuting the constables for perjury, as they apparently perjured themselves in getting up the case against the five men?

The whole matter is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what are the authorities or official persons who determine whether any individual is so notoriously engaged in boycotting or intimidation as to be rightly subject to shadowing by the police in Ireland; whether such authorities or official persons take any evidenee before they order a man to be shadowed; whether the accused has any opportunity of defence; and is there any limit fixed to the period during which a man may be shadowed without being brought before a legal tribunal to be tried for the offence in which he is held to be notoriously engaged?

The Divisional Commissioner or other Local Authority responsible for the carrying out of the law' in the district directs the duty in question. The directions are given on information being forthcoming that the suspect is actively engaged in promoting illegal practices. It is not usual to inform the suspected person that he is being watched. To do so would render the obtaining of evidence with a view to prosecution more difficult. No limit of the nature mentioned in the last paragraph can be fixed, but, as I explained! Yester day, the shadowing is at once stopped as soon as there is any ground for thinking it unnecessary.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply to the new method of shadowing, by which one constable walks abreast of the shadowed man and another at his heels?

It applies to all shadowing in Ireland.

On what authority can anyone connected with the police give directions which could not possibly be for the detection or prevention of crime?

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a record of these orders for shadowing is kept, so that it may not be in the power of any constable to inflict this nuisance without leaving some trace of it behind?

There is always some such record kept, I imagine. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) the prevention and reduction of crime is the justification for this shadowing.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state on what authority, or upon what suspicion of crime, three ladies—namely, Lady Sandhurst, Miss Conybeare, and Miss Vivian—were shadowed by the police in Tipperary in the early days of July last year?

If the hon. Member will give notice of that question I will make inquiries on the subject.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this system of shadowing has gone on to such an extent, and is of such an indiscriminate character, that two most respectable persons, who came from Manchester to Tipperary from mere motives of curiosity and to gain information, were also shadowed by the police to such an extent that that they were obliged to return to Dublin in disgust; and whether one of the persons shadowed was not connected with the right hon. Gentleman's Election Committee in Manchester?

I think the hon. Gentleman has got an incorrect version of the facts; but I will, if he wishes me to do so, make further inquiry.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any statistics as to the number of persons shadowed, and the number of police employed in that service?

I must have notice of the question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not know the number?

Of course I do not know the number. I do not carry these statistics in my head.

With reference to the new method of shadowing—namely, walking side by side with the person shadowed, and another policeman following at his heels—1 desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman what constitutes the superiority of that system over the old method?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any charge of boycotting or intimidation has been made against the Rev. David Macrae, a minister of religion at Dundee, who is at present travelling in Ireland for the benefit of his health; and on what grounds he was recently "shadowed" by the police while travelling from New bridge to Clongorey?

I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Rev. Mr. Macrae, of Dundee, and his wife, when visiting Clongorey on Thursday last, were shadowed by a policeman-man name Keating, who followed them from point to point on a bicycle, going everywhere the visitors went to; and whether he can say why they were so shadowed?

I have asked for information, but have not yet obtained it. It is, therefore, necessary that I should ask for further time.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state under what provision of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill the tenants of town parks in Ireland are entitled to relief without the consent of the landlord; and whether he will introduce a clause to enable them to have fair rents fixed in respect of their holdings?

Of course, the purchase must be by mutual consent.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Committee who were appointed to investigate the subject of colour blindness amongst our Mercantile Marine have yet reported; and, if not, when they will be likely to do so; and if he could briefly state the mode adopted for testing?

I conclude that the hon. Member refers to the Committee of the Royal Society, which is investigating this subject. The Committee was only appointed in March, and I have not yet heard when it is likely to make its Report.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Boards of Guardians in Ireland are empowered, as similar Bodies are in England, to defray out of the rates the cost of supplying the inmates of workhouses with newspapers, periodicals, and books; whether he is aware that the President of the Local Government Board in England has 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; whether he will give, if he can do so legally, similar directions to Local Government Board Inspectors in Ireland; and whether, if the law in Ireland is in this respect different from the law in England, the Government will introduce a measure for the assimilation of the law in Ireland to the law in England on this subject?

There is no enactment specifically authorising Boards of Guardians to provide a supply of literature for workhouse inmates from the rates, though it is possible they may have such authority under their general powers. I am aware of the action taken in England referred to in the second paragraph. I am causing similar action to be taken in Ireland, and shall give the whole matter careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether civil processes for damages have been issued by Mr. Thomas Barry, P.L.G., against District Inspectors Ball and Sergeant, R.I.C., Currabeha, Fermoy, in which the defendants are charged with assaulting and wounding the plaintiff; and whether, since plaintiff announced his intention of proceeding by civil bill for the assault, he has been served with a summons for having obstructed the police?

The legal proceedings appear to be still pending, and it would not be proper for me to make a statement in the matter.

It is because legal proceedings are still proceeding that I put the question on the Paper.

I am unwilling to answer a matter of fact in the question, because it might prejudice the action.

What is the matter of fact which might prejudice the case?

As far as I am concerned I should be glad to answer the question; what I refer to is the question of the dates of the two actions.

When Mr. Barry said that he would proceed against the police did they say that if he did so they would bring that charge against him?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is in error. As he presses the question I will inform him that the police summons was on the 6th; the notification of the civil case was on the 9th.

That is not the point, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. The point is that Mr. Barry, having informed the police that he should proceed civilly against them they immediately served him with notice of prosecution.

I know nothing of any threat on the part of Mr. Barry.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state, for each of the months since September last, the number of Catholic prisoners confined in Derry Gaol, and the terms for which they have been imprisoned; whether any Catholic clergyman has, during that period, been permitted to visit such prisoners; has any Catholic service been conducted in the prison chapel during that period; whether he still refuses to sanction the appointment by the Bishop of the Diocese to the prison chaplaincy of such clergyman as the Bishop may see fit to nominate?

May I ask if the hon. Member for Camborne, when in prison, received the ministrations of a Catholic chaplain?

The answer to the first paragraph is too long to read to the House, but I have directed a copy to be sent to the hon. Member who puts the question. Many of the prisoners have been confined but a very short time in Londonderry Prison, as since December last those Roman Catholic prisoners; whose sentences amounted to a month or more have from week to week been removed to another prison to which a Roman Catholic clergyman is attached. In accordance with the practice of the Service, in relation to prisoners of any denomination other than those of the paid chaplains attached to a prison, the Governor of Londonderry Prison duly reports to the nearest officiating Roman Catholic clergyman the committal of every new prisoner of that religion, with an intimation that permission can be had for visiting such prisoners. Such permission has, however, been availed of by the Roman Catholic clergyman of the district only eight times during the period in question, and then only at the request of individual prisoners. Owing to the refusal of the Vicar Capitular to nominate a successor to the late Roman Catholic chaplain, as fully explained in reply to a Parliamentary question in February last, no service has been conducted in the Roman Catholic Chapel in this prison during the period named. The Board are and have been most anxious that the Roman Catholic Bishop should nominate a clergyman to this prison, and in two letters addressed to the Vicar Capitular in September last they specially invited him to nominate some clergyman as successor to the late chaplain. Up to the present, however, they regret to state no such nomination has been made.

Was this one of the questions with regard to which Sir L. Simmonds was sent to communicate with the Pope, while pretending to go over about the Malta marriage question?

Order, order!

IS it not a fact that the Rev. Dr. O'Doherty, the Roman Catholic chaplain of Derry Gaol, was dismissed from his office because he refused to attend a local inquiry held by Mr. Joyce, and refused to answer questions which he considered ought not to have been put to him as a Roman Catholic chaplain; has his action been ratified by the Vicar Capitular of the diocese; whether since September last there has been no Roman Catholic chaplain in Derry Gaol; and whether Catholics under lengthened terms of punishment have been removed to Belfast and other prisons?

The hon. Gentleman will obtain better information by putting a question on the Paper.

As a matter of personal explanation, I may say that I have asked every one of these questions before.

Has not Dr. O'Doherty been re-nominated?

Mr. O'Doherty was dismissed for breaking the Prison Regulations. If hon. Members wish for the details I must ask them to put a question on the Paper. I think it will not be denied that the ordinary procedure expected from a prison official was not followed, and we cannot accept his re-nomination by the Bishop of the diocese.

Have the Government gone the length of remonstrating at Rome as to the conduct of the Bishop?

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Roman Catholic prisoners should be permanently deprived of the consolation of their religion, in order to gratify his feelings as to the duties of the Roman Catholic Bishops? I think that this is not an unreasonable question, seeing that many months have elapsed during which these prisoners have been without any of the administrations of their religion.

I have done my very best to minimise the evil effects of the action of the Vicar Capitular in this case, by sending the prisoners, as far as possible, to other prisons; I wish that my efforts in this direction had been seconded by the acting Bishop.

Was not a summons served on Dr. McAlroy, chaplain of Tullamore Gaol, to give evidence before Mr. Joyce relative to a suit of clothes which was taken in to the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) when a prisoner in that gaol; and is it not a fact that although Dr. McAlroy refused to appear or give evidence he was neither dismissed or censured; and whether he, the Chief Secretary, can explain why Father O'Doherty has been differently dealt with?

I musk ask for notice of that question.

Was not the only offence of the Rev. Dr. O'Doherty that Mr. Joyce, the Prisons Board Inspector, had written a letter asking him to come over and give evidence in an investigation in a friendly way, and that Dr. O'Doherty had not done so?

What are the ill-effects of the action of Dr. O'Doherty?

The principal evil effected is that some of these prisoners have been deprived of the administrations of their religion.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, with reference to the confidential character of communications which passed between the Attorney General and the counsel for General Mitchell, whether he is aware that Messrs. Hare & Co., Agents to the Treasury, produced in Taxing Chambers Court of Queen's Bench a copy of one of these confidential letters to Master Archibald, taxing master, in support of a series of claims in their bill of costs in connection with the compromise; whether the gallant plaintiff reported the fact some weeks ago to the Attorney General; and whether Master Archibald struck out the whole of the items, and commented strongly on the course pursued by the Agents for the Crown?

The hon. Member has been completely misinformed. One letter from Colonel Mitchell's counsel was produced at his request; otherwise it could not have been read. As I, in common with other members of the Government, have received a large number of letters from Colonel Mitchell, it is not possible for me to say whether he had referred to the fact or not. There is not the slightest foundation for the suggestion that Master Archibald commented strongly or adversely on the course pursued by Messrs. Hare & Co. in the matter referred to in the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will, in view of the decision in the Courts of Law in "Mitchell v. Regina," cancel the letter dated Treasury Chambers, 31st March, 1888, addressed to the Secretary of State for War?

Search has been made, and no Treasury letter, relative to the Mitchell case, of the date named, or approaching that date, can be traced. If the hon. Member will furnish me with fuller particulars further search will be made.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he expects to be able to state to the House the long-promised proposals of the Treasury for the extinction of the remainder of the hereditary pensions, including some of the most contested of them; and whether, meanwhile, these all alike continue to be paid in full?

With regard to the proposals that were promised by the Treasury for the extinction of the remainder of the hereditary pensions, it is necessary that every case should be gone into separately. I am so much engaged at present that I am unable to give that minute attention to the subject which I desire that it should have. The pensions will be paid, as the Government have no option in the matter.

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Ives Division of Cornwall, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the intention of the Government to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the licensing system, especially with regard to the question of compensation, he will consider the desirability of instructing County Councils not to part with any money allocated to them for the extinction of licences until the Committee has reported to the House?

I understood the hon. Member was not going to put this question, and, therefore, am not prepared with an answer. The Committee referred to in the question at one time appeared to be desirable, but now it appears it is objected to. It must not be assumed the Government had the attention ascribed to them.

Arising out of this question I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice. The following letter appeared in the Times of this morning:—

"Lord Wolmer has addressed the following letter to Mr. J. Shelly, Chairman of the Executive of the Devon and Cornwall Literal Unionist Association:—

'Great George Street, Westminster, June 14.

'Dear Mr. Shelly,—Lord Hartington desires me to thank you for the information which you have given him of the strong opinions averse to certain clauses of the Local Government Bill, held by many of the staunchest and most valuable members of the Liberal Unionist Party in Devonshire and Cornwall. The opinion of these gentlemen is naturally a matter of much importance to the Liberal Unionist Party, and Lord Hartington desires me to assure you that he has given the very fullest consideration to the views and objections which they have put forward. The Government have consented to accept the Amendment proposed by Mr. Heneage, to insert a clause to the following effect:—"Provided always that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as altering the existing law affecting the renewal of licences, or as giving to the holder of any licence any right or privilege other than that now enjoyed by him." Before it was known that the Government were willing to accept this Amendment, it is certain that many earnest temperance reformers honestly feared that the Bill would have the effect of altering the legal position of the publican: but now that this clause is to be added to it, Lord Hartington is unable to understand how it can be seriously contended, either that a vested interest not at present existing is created by this Bill, or that temperance legislation in the future can be prejudiced by it. The Government have also determined to propose next year that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and consider the questions on compensation which have been raised by the present and other proposals. The facts elicited by such an inquiry and the Report of such a Select Committee cannot fail greatly to facilitate the progress of temperance legislation in the future. The consideration of these facts will, Lord Hartington hopes, tend to allay the opposition of Liberal Unionists to the present attitude of the Government on this question.

'Believe me yours very truly,

WOLMER.'"

Perhaps the House will allow me to make a personal explanation in relation to this letter. I am authorised by Lord Hartington to say that he saw the draft of my letter to Mr. Shelly before it was sent, but that he did not particularly notice the expression "determined to propose," and that if he had he should have altered it into "are prepared to assent to," but that he did not, and does not now, attach the importance to the distinction which the right hon. Member for Derby appears to attach to it.

The noble Lord's remarks are hardly in the nature of a personal explanation.

After what the noble Lord calls a personal explanation, I have to repeat my question to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, whether the statement made by Lord Wolmer, on, behalf of Lord Hartington, to induce the Liberal Unionists to vote for this Bill, is or is not well founded?

I thought we discussed this subject sufficiently last night; and I then stated to what extent the statement of the intentions of the Government was accurate. Lord Hartington appears to have been under the impression that the Government, were willing that a Committee should be appointed. I have already explained, in answer to the hon. Member for Barrow, that the Government were under the impression that such a Committee was desired in many parts of the House, but certainly it was not the intention of the Government to move for such a Committee, and it is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to accept such a Committee, unless it is the strong desire of the House they should do so.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to the statement that the announcement of the Committee was not made to influence public opinion?

I am strongly of the belief that that was so; but the hon. Gentleman is quite able to form his own opinion, and is not bound by mine.

Is it the present intention of the Government to propose the Committee next year?

I stated a few minutes ago that we had certainly no intention of moving for such a Committee.