I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the resolution passed on the 11th inst by the United States Senate, calling on the President to negotiate for securing the modification of the present rules regarding the importation of American cattle into the United Kingdom; and if Her Majesty's Government will, in the declared absence of any other commercial lever for the reduction of hostile tariffs, require that the modification by America of the proposed prohibitive duties upon the products of the United Kingdom shall be a condition precedent to any negotiations whatever?

Restrictions upon the importation of cattle into the United Kingdom are based solely upon sanitary considerations, and have no regard to the fiscal system adopted by other countries.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether grocers' licences are included in the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Bill?

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question. Grocers' licences are not included.

Are other off-licences included?

No; there are no off-licences included in the Bill at all; but there are Amendments on the Paper asking the House to insert off-licences in the suspensory clauses of the Bill.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, by the Tariff Bill passed by the House of Representatives of the United States nemine con-tradicente, and only awaiting the confirmation of the Senate and President to come into force, it is proposed to increase the duties on Sheffield pocket knives to 100 per cent, ad valorem from 50 per cent, as now, on Sheffield razors to 75 per cent, ad valorem from 50 per cent., on Sheffield carving and cooks' knives to 70 per cent, ad valorem from 35 per cent, as now, on Sheffield table cutlery to 50 per cent, instead of 35 per cent, as now, on Sheffield scissors and shears to 45 per cent, instead of 35 per cent, as now, on Birmingham breech loading guns from 80 per cent, to 100 per cent, ad valorem; and if analogous prohibitive duties are placed by the Bill upon other productions of Great Britain, and notably of South Wales, Lancashire, Glasgow, and Belfast?

It is also posroped by the Tariff Bill to increase the duty on hops.

I cannot say offhand whether it is proposed to alter the duty on hops. In reply to the question on the Paper, I stated, in answer to a somewhat similar question on the 6th of May, that

"It appears to he intended in the new Tariff Rill, submitted to the House of Representatives of the United States, on the whole to increase the Import Duties on Sheffield cutlery and edged tools from 50 to 100 per cent., though in some classes of edged tools a decrease seems to be intended. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to judge what the amount of value will be."

I beg to give notice, in consequence of the answer of my right hon. Friend to this question, and also to my previous one, that as the American Tariff proposals will inflict great injury upon the trade of Sheffield and upon British traders and artisans in other parts of the country, I shall, if they are carried into operation, invite the House to consider, as soon as practicable, whether a free market should be longer given to the competing productions of a foreign State putting prohibitive duties upon British goods.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any decision has been arrived at as to the action to be taken in reference to the telephone; and, if so, whether he can state it to the House?

I have to announce that the Government do not intend to give notice to purchase the undertakings of the telephone companies at the end of the first period of their licence, namely, the 31st of December next.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the conduct of the Local Board of Llandilo, Carmarthenshire, in expending a sum of money in a manner which they are not by law authorised to expend it; whether, on the 12th of June, in reply to a communication on the subject, he stated that the Board had acted illegally in authorising such expenditure, and that the decision of the Auditor in allowing it could not be sustained in law; whether he declined to interfere with such unauthorised expenditure by the Board, and such illegal decision of the Auditor; and whether he will re-consider the matter with a view to compelling the Board to act legally, and to directing the Auditor to disallow the amount?

The Local Government Board received an appeal from two ratepayers of Llandilo against a decision of the District Auditor in allowing £3 18s. 4d. in the accounts of the Local Board for the year ending Lady Day, 1889, in respect of the lighting and repair of a clock in the tower of Llandilo Church. The clock in question, it appears, was presented to the town in commemoration of Her Majesty's Jubilee, and is stated to have been placed in the Church tower because it was regarded as the most suitable place for it. The Board, upon the appeal against the disallowance, decided that as the clock, although presented to the town, was not the property of the Local Board they had no statutory authority for the expenditure which they had incurred, and the Board informed the Local Board and the District Auditor accordingly. The Board, however, considered that the circumstances were not such as to require that the members of the Local Board who had authorised the payment should be called upon personally to refund the sums in question, and they therefore in the exercise of the discretion vested in them by the statute allowed the charge to remain in the accounts. The Board's decision applies only to the expenditure in the year ended Lady Day, 1889. If future expenditure of the kind is incurred and charged on the rates it can be objected to at the audit, and will no doubt be disallowed by the Auditor.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the proclamation of the last Chief Commissioner of Police but one (Sir Charles Warren), relative to meetings in Trafalgar Square, still holds good after two years; if the police will receive orders to interfere with a meeting called in Trafalgar Square of Temperance Reformers, to discuss the Compensation Clauses; and if the Home Office will confer with the London County Council on this matter?

The Regulation issued by Sir C. Warren on the 18th of November, 1887, as to meetings in Trafalgar Square, still holds good, and I am advised that no re-issue is necessary. I have no information as to any intended meeting in the Square; but I must repeat what I stated in this House on the 15th of May, 1888, that until this Regulation is countermanded the duty of the police will be to prevent any public meeting being held in the Square, or in the adjacent thoroughfare.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inhabitants of London are entirely opposed to the holding of meetings in Trafalgar Square?

Yes; I believe that is so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the quality of the projectiles recently obtained from abroad, by reason of the lower foreign tender, was equal to that proposed to be supplied from Sheffield at a somewhat higher price; and in what way it was or will be tested to show that the £14 per projectile saved in cost was not lost in the material and the excellence of Sheffield manufacture?

The tests for armour-piercing projectiles are laid down by the Ordnance Committee, and are the same wherever the shells may be manufactured. The contract is placed with a firm of great reputation, and the proofs have been quite satisfactory.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a considerable number of Militia battalions are still without musketry instructors; and, if so, what is the reason of the deficiency?

There are 31 vacancies for musketry instructors. Candidates for commissions in the Army are not allowed to take these appointments; and most of the present subalterns are thus debarred. On the other hand, captains, though eligible, do not care to give up their company duties, hence the deficiency. During training, however, there is no difficulty in obtaining suitable officers, either from the line or from other Militia battalions.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a large quantity of American piracies of British copyright publications of engravings and etchings are being imported into this country, with the cognisance of Her Majesty's Customs, without any steps being taken to seize the same for their infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act, inasmuch as they bear no imprint showing where they were printed, in accordance with that Act; and whether steps will be taken to put a stop to a trade which is highly injurious to the-interests of British Art?

The Merchandise Marks Act does not require a statement of origin. The Commissioners, of Customs inform me that they have no-knowledge of the circumstances mentioned in the question, but will be glad to make inquiry if specific information is laid before them.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the reason why the standard of qualification for the entry of engineer students was raised this year, and why, since the examination, that standard has been lowered to that of last year; and how many candidates attained the higher standard of qualification, and how many inferior candidates have been, or are to be, accepted below that standard?

The standard of qualification for the entry of engineer students was raised this year, because the advantages offered by the engineering branch of the Navy were such as to justify the Admiralty in believing that a more capable class than heretofore would compete. This expectation was justified in the main. This standard still remains in force; but, as I explained before, six candidates who came up to the previous standard were specially entered in order to complete the number of entries required for the year.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will be good enough to lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the letter from the Foreign Office, dated the 12th February, 1889, addressed to the Colonial Office, with the enclosure therein referred to; also, Sir Hercules Robinson's Despatch to Lord Knutsford, dated the l5th April, 1889 (No. 270), with the enclosure to the said letter, being a Minute of the Prime Minister of the Cape, Sir Gordon Sprigg, addressed to the Governor of Cape Colony, and dated Cape Town, 9th April, 1889?

These Papers form part of a correspondence, and cannot he given separately. It will be considered what Papers it is desirable to present to the House, and I will inform the hon. Member as soon as I can.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Report of the investigation into the circumstances of the mutiny on board H.M.S. Egeria will be laid before the House?

The Report of this inquiry has not yet been received at the Admiralty. It has never been customary to make such Reports public and there is no reason in the present instance to depart from that rule.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the alleged action of the Scottish Leader newspaper in forcibly removing, by the aid of the police, all the compositors who were members of the Trade Union (on the 26th May 1890); if they acted in their legal right in so doing; and if the terms of agreement, which the men were compelled to sign, have been brought to his notice; and, if so, do they constitute a violation of the Truck Act? In putting this question, I wish to make a brief explanation. I believe this is the first occasion in which such a question has been asked in this House. These men consider themselves to have been ill-treated, and they come to Parliament as a last resource in order to guide the public in the matter. The compositors in question were employed on the Scottish Leader newspaper in Edinburgh, and they were dismissed for joining a Trades Union—

Order, order! The hon. Member is exceeding the limits of a question.

Do I understand that I am at liberty to put my question?

The question on the Paper is perfectly in order.

Then I beg to put it.

I am informed by the Scotch Office and by the Chief Inspector of Factories that they have no information as to the facts referred to. Inquiries will, however, be made by both Departments without delay.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Stevenson Road is itself the boundary between the English and German territories; whether the boundary is drawn with regard to the strategical requirements of any future railway or other means of communication connecting the Lakes Tanganyika and Nyassa; and whether there is already existing free transit for English goods across Damaraland; and, if not, whether, in view of the German extension permitted to the Zambesi, this matter will receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government?

The Stevenson Road itself is not to be the boundary. The boundary is certainly intended to be drawn so as to facilitate communication by railway or otherwise between the two Lakes. Transit across Damaraland is subject to local imposts and conditions, as in other territories where no special agreement to the contrary exists; but negotiations are still proceeding with reference to that quarter, and the matter will be borne in mind.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the principle laid down in the Agreement with Germany in reference to East Africa, "that the Hinterland belongs of right to the Power holding the Coast Line," will be applied to the Portuguese possessions in Africa in cases of dispute between Great Britain and Portugal?

May I ask whether the same principle is to be admitted by Germany as applicable to the territory running east- wards from Walfish Bay to the corner of Bechuanaland?

It is evident that the principle cannot be of universal application. Each case must be considered on its own merits.

Are the Government prepared to recommend the cession of some of the Channel Islands to Prance in return for concessions in respect of the Newfoundland Fisheries?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Heads of Agreement published in the Berlin Official Gazette, and reprinted in the Times of June 18th, represent the terms of Agreement with Germany so far as yet concluded: whether this Paper will be laid upon the Table of the House; and when other Papers relating to the negotiations with Germany as regards Africa, and as regards the proposed cession of Heligoland, will be circulated?

Either in translation or transcription the text of the publication in question does not appear to be quite accurate. Lord Salisbury's Despatch, which has been laid on the Table, represents the outline of the proposed Agreement as in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. That outline is in course of development, but the details are subject to modification. It is, therefore, inexpedient to present anything further until the Convention has been completed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the Government to present to Parliament Papers relating to the Agreement with Germany for the settlement of African questions before the Bill for the surrender of Heligoland is introduced; and, if so, when these Papers will be presented?

Papers relating to the Agreement will be presented to Parliament. I understand that it is intended to introduce the Bill for the cession of Heligoland in the House of Lords. The hon. Member's word surrender is inappropriate. The Papers cannot be completed until the negotiations are finished, but they will be presented as soon as possible.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when the negotiations are likely to reach a point that will enable a Bill to be introduced?

I cannot say whether it will be possible to introduce a Bill before the Convention is signed.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government will take steps to ascertain whether the people of Heligoland are satisfied to become Germanised?

We have ground for believing that the arrangements made will have removed the chief objections to the transfer; but we could hardly expect or wish that we or the Heligolanders should part without mutual regret.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government will take steps to ascertain whether the people of Heligoland are satisfied to become Germanised?

We have ground for believing that the arrangements made will have removed the chief objections to the transfer; but we could hardly expect or wish that we or the Heligolanders should part without mutual regret.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether be seriously intends to desert the loyal minority in Heligoland?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before agreeing to the cession of Heligoland, Her Majesty's Government consulted the Naval Authorities on the actual or possible strategic value of the Island of Heligoland; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will do so before further proceeding with the proposed cession?

Yes, Sir.

I am sorry I did not catch the drift of the answer. Will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury not give a more intelligible answer to my question as to whether the Naval Authorities have been consulted, or whether they will be consulted in the future?

I am sorry that the answer I gave was not intelligible to the hon. Member, It was a distinct affirmative to the question put—that the Government had consulted the Authorities before they came to a decision on this question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that General Sir Andrew Clarke has publicly denounced the cession of Heligoland?

Very likely, Sir; he has denounced a great many things.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the recent Treaty has not yet been put into force at Samoa, and when it will be?

The necessary steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the other contracting Powers, but some time is required for making the local arrangements.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the case of Charles Jackson, formerly constable under the Metropolitan Board of Works, and dismissed for bringing certain accusations against the officials of the Board of Guardians of Wandsworth and Clapham?

Several letters have been addressed to the Local Government Board by Charles Jackson. I have no information as to the circumstances under which he was dismissed from his employment under the Metropolitan Board of Works; but in the letters which have been received from him he makes no allegation that he was dismissed in consequence of bringing accusations against the officials of the Board of Guardians. He has been an inmate of the workhouse of the Wandsworth and Clapham Union, and has made certain complaints. Copies of his communications have been forwarded to the Guardians.

I beg to ask the" Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that it is reported from Hong Kong that Chinese gambling houses are on the increase there; and, if so, whether the Government can adopt any means for their suppression?

No Report on the subject appears to have reached the Colonial Office, but inquiry will be made.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will inform the House how many County Councils have passed and forwarded to him resolutions in favour of the Compensation Clauses of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill, and how many resolutions condemning them?

So far as I can find—and a special eye has been kept on communications from County Councils in the mass of correspondence I have received—two County Councils have sent me resolutions against the so-called Compensation Clauses of the Local Taxation Bill, and one County Council, while expressing a general approval of the Local Taxation Bill, has declined to offer an opinion one way or another on the clauses to which the hon. Member refers.

Does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman apply to Corporations as well as County Councils?

I have answered the question on the Paper, which relates to County Councils.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has received remonstrances from the principal Educational Authorities and Managers of higher elementary schools in England and Scotland against Article 40 of the Science and Art Department, which excludes scholars in public elementary schools from being henceforward examined or earning grants in science; whether he has seen the statement of the National Association for the Promotion of Technical Education, which describes this circular "as one of the most serious blows which have been struck for some years at the development of scientific and technical education"; and whether, having regard to the feeling with which the circular has been received, he will cause it to be withdrawn?

Representations have reached the Department that the effect of the circular in question will be detrimental to science instruction in many schools, and, although I am not prepared to endorse the language in which the circular has been described, I have already stated in answer to a question that this matter is under consideration, with a view to a serious modification of the Minute.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what alterations in Naval Officers' uniform have been sanctioned; and whether, for the convenience of officers, he will cause such to be made known without delay?

No alterations in the established uniform of Naval Officers have yet been sanctioned by the Admiralty. A Committee of Naval Officers, under the presidency of Admiral his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, is at present inquiring into the subject, but I cannot state when they will be ready to make their Report.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the intention of the Treasury to secure uniformity as to the regulations with reference to leave and sick leave throughout the Civil Service, paragraph 9 of the Order in Council of 21st March, 1890, will be made to apply to all clerks in the Second Division: and, if so, whether the annual holidays referred to in paragraph 8 of such Order in Council are to be subject to deductions for sick leave under Departmental regulations which were in force prior to the issue of the Order in Council?

Clause 9 applies to all clerks of the Second Division, and I think the terms of it are sufficiently clear to require no further interpretation.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has observed the following statement in the Primiero de Saniero of 12th June, an Oporto daily newspaper, respecting a serious crime alleged to have been practised in Shiré by the English Consul: (translation)

"Persons who have arrived by the African Packet, which also brought the protest of the Governor of Quillimane, confirm the facts. One of the two Sepoys was shot against a tree. The other was beaten to death with sticks at Chicomo, where Consul Buchanan had recently hoisted the English flag…. The two Sepoys had been sent on a mission to Inhacuana Lundo by Jose Cardero, Governor of Alassangire…The two Sepoys were made prisoners when crossing the river, and were murdered;"

The latest Despatches from the Acting Consul mention no such occurrences, but inquiries are being made.

I had intended to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will lay upon the Table, as Parliamentary Papers, the following documents in connection with the licensing case of "Sharps.V. Wakefield;" the statement of the case, and the judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal? but at the request of the right hon. Gentleman I will postpone it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether lie will instruct the Public Prosecutor to act, in reference to the verdict of manslaughter returned by the Coroner's Jury, 9th June, in the case of the running down of the smack Osprey by the steamship Henry Morton?

The Director of Public Prosecutions undertook the prosecution in the Osprey case on the 13th inst., and procured the committal of the defendant for trial on a charge of manslaughter on the 18th inst., and will conduct the case at the ensuing Maidstone Assizes.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether General Sankey, in his recent visit to Donegal to decide on the fittest route for a light railway in North West Donegal, was officially accompanied and advised by a Mr. Edmund Murphy, J.P., an official of the Board of Works; whether he is aware that Mr. Murphy is a Grand Juror of County Donegal, and in that capacity took a prominent part at the last Assizes in advocating one of the competing lines proposed for that district; and whether, though himself an official of the Board of Works, he was one of a deputation that waited on the Board of Works in connection with this railway line; whether, as a matter of fact, the line advocated by Mr. Murphy, and presumably recommended by him to General Sankey, meets with general opposition from the people of North West Donegal; and whether he has sanctioned the practice of officials of the Board of Works taking part officially in securing the adoption of a line of railway in which they are personally interested; and, if not, whether he will convey an expression of his opinion to the Board of Works for the guidance of their officials?

I am informed that General Sankey at Easter paid a visit to Donegal for the purpose of informing himself as to the best route. He was accompanied by Mr. Murphy, but there was no official character attached to the visit. I am not able to enter into details with regard to the question.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question, whether he has sanctioned the practice of officials of the Board of Works taking part officially in securing the adoption of a line of railway in which they are personally interested?

No, Sir. I have neither sanctioned it nor said anything about it. I am not aware, as a matter of fact, whether Mr. Murphy is an offi- cial of the Board of Works. I take it that it was the duty of General Sankey to avail himself of the resources or knowledge of anyone who was capable of giving him information.

The hon. Gentleman says he is not aware whether Mr. Murphy is an official of the Board of Works or not. I regret that that answer will render it necessary that the question should be repeated, because the crucial point is whether Mr. Murphy was-an official or not.

In my judgment it does not affect the question at all.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give any further information as to 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; whether it is a fact that no opposition to the proposed line has been received from any quarter; and whether, in view of the-Board of Works' Report—

"That the merits of the proposed Light Railway were superior from all points of view as compared with any other Light Railway which might he constructed opening up communication through the same district as the proposed line,"

I regret that I am not in a position at the present moment to make any statement in regard to this line. Any declaration of the decision of the Treasury might seriously prejudice the negotiations now going on.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea how soon the Government will be able to approach the question?

I hope the House will be content for the present with the answer I have given. Negotiations are going on with regard to these lines, and I am doing the best I can to bring about a satisfactory arrangement, so that I may be able to make an announcement to the House. I can assure the hon. and learned Member and the House that, as far as I am concerned, no unnecessary delay will take place. I am endeavouring to make arrangements that will be to the interest of the counties through which these lines will pass.

Is it not the fact that all the arrangements have been before the Treasury for a period of six months? I do not say whether the time has been too long or too short; but they hare been under consideration for a considerable period. May I hope that before the end of the Session, or before the Irish Estimates are brought on—which may not be until December—the arrangements will be completed?

There will be no delay on my part.

Does not this line run through a large portion of an estate that is merely waste land, but for which the owner asks for compensation?

I have no knowledge.

Will the final arrangements in regard to these lines be made before the matter is brought before the House? If so, what use will there be in bringing the matter before the House at all?

I hope that final arrangements will be made shortly, but it will be very difficult to make them unless the Government assume the entire responsibility.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury are prepared to sanction the grant recommended by the Board of Works for the construction of the Baltimore Extension Light Railway, and what is the cause of the delay in proceeding with the undertaking which passed the Grand Jury of the County of Cork at the Summer Assizes last year?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has asked me to state that negotiations are going on which he hopes will result in the making of the railway.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount of Poor's Rate duo in respect of holdings valued under £4 5s., for which the immediate lessors are liable under 1 and 2 Vic. c. 56, in the Union of Londonderry?

The Local Government Board are informed by the Clerk of the Londonderry Union that the total amount of Poor's Rate due by immediate lessors in respect of holdings in the Union valued at and under £4 per annum is £13 14s. 5d.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. John Malone, cattle buyer for a Glasgow firm of salesmasters, has been systematically followed by policemen when attending to his busines at fairs in the County Clare; whether he will state the reason for this proceeding; and if Mr. Malone's claim for compensation in consequence of loss incurred by reason of this police shadowing will receive the favourable consideration of the Government?

John Malone was watched at certain fairs because there was reason to believe that he was a boycotting agent. I am not aware, nor do I believe, that he was prevented from doing any legitimate business.

Does the right hon. Gentleman act on the principle that because a man is suspected of ruining other people's business his own business ought to be ruined also?

I have explained that I do not believe this man's business has been ruined.

May I repeat a question which I put the other day? Is a permanent record kept to justify a responsible authority in ordering a particular individual to be shadowed?

I imagine that there are records kept in all cases of shadowing, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the question on the Paper?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount of Poor's Rate due by the immediate lessors in respect of holdings valued at £4 and under in the Union of Castleblaney?

The Local Government Board are informed by the Clerk of the Castleblaney Union that at present only one immediate lessor in the Union owes Poor's Rate in respect of holdings valued at and under £4 per annum, the amount due being £4 6s. 1d. Payment has been promised.

As the holding is so very small will the Local Government Board insist on payment being made?

I cannot answer that question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether complaints have reached him that, although Mr. Stephen Connor, of Daughloon, Strokestown Union, County Roscommon, served his landlord, Mr. J. H. Mahon, with, a notice to have a fair rent fixed on the 11th October, 1887, no hearing of the case has yet been had?

The Land Commissioners report that the facts are substantially as stated. The application, however, is being inserted in the list for hearing at Strokestown on the 24th July.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Vice Lieutenant of County Tyrone has rejected the prayer of a Memorial, very extensively signed by the principal inhabitants of Dromore and vicinity, asking for the appointment of Mr. P. M'Laughlin to the Commission of the Peace; if the refusal to appoint Mr. M'Laughlin is due to the fact that he is a Catholic; if, at the same time, the Lord Chancellor has appointed an additional Protestant (Mr. Frederick Guy) to the Dromore Bench of Magistrates, although it has been recently brought to his notice that there are already nine Protestant and only one Catholic Magistrate in the district; and if he is aware that the Catholic population in the district largely preponderates?

I am informed that a Memorial in favour of the appointment to the Magistracy of the County Tyrone of Mr. M'Laughlin, a farmer residing in the Dromore District, was presented to the Vice Lieutenant of the County, and was not acceded to, but the refusal to appoint Mr. M'Laughlin was not on the ground of his religion, as tin; Vice Lieutenant is always glad to recommend Roman Catholics when properly qualified persons of that religious denomination are brought to his notice. The Vice Lieutenant, in recommending the appointment of Mr. Frederick Andrew Guy (who is a Presbyterian), informed the Lord Chancellor that Mr. Guy was recommended to him by persons-of every religion and class in the district, and that, having inquired into his qualifications, he found him to be well-fitted to be a Magistrate. I have no information as to the relative proportion of the several religious denominations in the district.

What are the grounds of the refusal?

I cannot say: it is a matter which rests in the discretion of the Vice Lieutenant.

I beg to give notice that I will raise the question again.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the case of J. Weldon, J.P., Ashill, Kilmallock, County Limerick, who assaulted a cattle dealer from Tipperary, at Knocklong Fair, in October last, and in whose case, at the last Spring Assizes in Limerick, a Jury awarded to the said cattle dealer a sum of £50 and costs, whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor will be directed to the conduct of Mr. Weldon?

I understand the Lord Chancellor has considered this case, and taking the circumstances into account sees no reason for further action.

What were the circumstances which, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, induced him to treat this case of assault lightly?

It is not my duty to explain, but I believe it was-found that the facts of the case were of a very trivial nature.

Was not Mr. White, of Glengaruff, removed from the Commission of the Peace when he assaulted a man in the same way although it was only a case of debtor and creditor?

The fact that it was a case of debtor and creditor may have made the circumstances more important.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the prosecution of Patrick Keefe, William Kent, Thomas Kent, George Mulcahy, John Tuohy, Pat Walsh, John Donovan, and James Donovan, of Coolagowan, Cork, on a charge of boycotting, whether he is aware that a large number of prosecutions and imprisonments (including that of Father O'Dwyer and a number of respectable farmers in the locality) have already taken place in connection with charges arising out of the alleged taking of this same farm at Towermore; and whether it is open to Mr. Robert Browne, the present holder of this farm, to bring these prosecutions under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act; and, if so, why have the Local Constabulary Authorities gone to the expense and trouble of instituting this large number of prosecutions when it lay within the power of the private individual concerned to move in the matter?

I understand that there were three previous prosecutions in connection with offences committed in consequence of the farm having been taken by a new tenant. The boycotting conspiracy in this case was so determined, and its results were so serious, as to affect in a most prejudicial manner the peace of the whole district, and was carried on so generally as to be even introduced into the Roman Catholic Chapel, where, for over two months, the most disgraceful scenes were enacted Sunday after Sunday. It is open to any person to prosecute for any offence committed against himself. But in prosecutions for criminal conspiracy, unlawful assembly, and all prosecutions where the general public peace is involved, the prosecutions are invariably instituted by the Crown.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 20 persons, including a Roman Catholic priest, have suffered terms of imprison- ment for refusing to work with or deal with particular individuals?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he will state what the present practice of the Irish Land Commission is as regards obtaining the Report of an official valuer on the hearing of fair rent appeals; whether such Report is now obtained by the Land Commission on their own Motion in all or in any, and, if so, in what cases, and at whose expense; and whether either of the litigant parties can, on application, cause such a Report to be procured on payment of any fee or without payment?

The Land Commissioners report that in appeal cases where the appellant has stated that the appeal is brought merely with reference to the holding for the purposes of rent, the Land Commissioners, so far as is possible, direct valuations to be made by the Appeal Court valuers prior to the hearing of the appeal. The Commissioners obtain each valuation on their own motion, and in such cases and for such sittings as they consider most desirable. The valuations are obtained without expense to the parties. When obtained, the result is forthwith communicated to the appellant free of charge. Either party can obtain a detailed copy of the Valuer's Report for Is. The valuer communicates the date of his intended inspection to both landlord and tenant. Both prior to, and at the hearing, if either party makes it manifest to the Commissioners that, special circumstances exist which render a valuation desirable, the Commissioners, when it is possible to do so, order a valuation to be made.

Do I understand that there has been a violation of the Act in all cases where a valuer has been employed?

No, Sir; where a question of value arises, the Commissioners have power to appoint a valuer. It is not absolutely imperative.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a population of over 4,000 people, inhabiting a group of islands at the mouth of Galway Bay, are altogether unprovided with postal accommodation, the group including the islands of Garamna, Littermullen, and Littermore, with other smaller islands; whether he is aware that among the inhabitants of these islands are two Roman Catholic Clergymen, two Poor Law Guardians, 11 National School Teachers, and a considerable number of shopkeepers and other residents, who feel it a great hardship in having no postal communication with the mainland; and, whether in view of the fact that the cost to the Government of a three day service, with which the people would be satisfied (including an office on one of the islands), would only be £12 16s. a year, while smaller communities in the immediate neighbourhood are provided with a daily post at more than quadruple the amount, he will consider the possibility of granting the request for this postal service?

In reply to the hon. Member, I am glad to be able to state that I have sanctioned the establishment of a post three days a week from Carraroe to Tiernee, an arrangement which I understand will be acceptable to the inhabitants of the islands referred to by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. H. D. Fisher, of Waterford, has been imprisoned for the publication of reports of National League meetings in the Munster Express, although it was proved at the trial that he did not sign the certificate of registration as publisher, and no evidence was given that he was the editor or publisher of that newspaper?

I am informed that, notwithstanding the circumstance mentioned by the hon. Member, ample evidence was produced that Mr. Fisher was printer and publisher of the newspaper mentioned.

Was there evidence forthcoming that Mr. Fisher signed the certificate? Will he indicate what the nature of the evidence was which fixed him with the responsibility?

No Sir; I cannot. If there is any doubt as to the legality of the conviction, it is possible for the person aggrieved to obtain a remedy.

Was the charge against Mr. Fisher that he had published reports of branches of the Irish National League which had not been attempted to be suppressed by the right hon. Gentleman?

If the hon. Gentleman requires details, I must ask him to put the question on the Paper, but I have no doubt that the reports were of a criminal nature.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Belfast News Letter of the 17th instant, of the proceedings at the last meeting of the Board of Guardians at Ballymena, County Antrim; and whether, considering the serious charges preferred against the master and other officials of the workhouse there, he will direct a sworn inquiry to be held for the purpose of investigating these charges?

The Local Government Board inform me that they had this matter before them, and that, in accordance with their usual practice, they purpose in the first instance to forward to the master and matron a copy of the complaints made against them, and to require them to furnish an explanation in writing. The Board will then be in a position to determine whether a sworn inquiry should be held.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the application for advances up to the end of March last, under the Land. Purchase Acts of 1885 and 1888, amounted to £8,708,808; for what sum applications have been lodged between the end of March and 15th June; and, if the average of applications per month be maintained, at what date the funds at the disposal of the Land Commission would be exhausted?

The Land Commissioners report that the applications under the Land Purchase Acts to the end of March last amounted to £8,708,808. The amount of advances applied for between the end of March and the 16th of June, inclusive, was £257,356. The total amount of advances applied for to the 16th of June, 1890, was £8,966,164, from which is to be deducted for applications refused £930,571. This leaves a balance of £1,964,407 available for future applications. Assuming that the amounts sanctioned will continue per month at the average of the past, which, however, must be mere conjecture, the funds in question at the disposal of the Land Commission would be exhausted in about 14 months.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the City of Rome having struck the Fastnet Rock on Sunday, 8th June, about 5 a.m., whether, although daylight, the lamp of the light house was alight; and whether it was only after the vessel struck that the guncotton fog signalling apparatus on the rock was put into operation?

The Board of Trade have directed an inquiry to be held into the circumstances attending this casualty. Until the Report of the Court has been received I am unable to express any opinion in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, on the occasion of a professional visit by Mr. O'Meara, solicitor, to Mr. M'Enery in Tullamore Gaol last week, Mr. O'Meara was compelled to hold his interview in an open corridor, and in the presence of a warder; and whether, on return to his cell, Mr. M'Enery was subjected to a searching of his person?

The Governor of the prison reports that the interview was held in the usual place and in the usual way. There was no departure from the usual practice, nor was any objection taken at the time.

How is it that Mr. M'Enery is unable to have an interview with his professional adviser except in the presence of a warder, whereas, in another case, Mr. Shannon, for the Times, was able to see prisoners alone?

Speaking from recollection I do not think the hon. Gentleman has stated the facts correctly, but I have answered the question on the Paper.

Perhaps the Home Secretary will say what the practice is in England.

Order, order! That ought to be made the subject of a specific question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the potato blight has appeared in the South of Ireland; and, if so, whether the Government intend taking any action in connection with it?

I have received no report on the subject, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put down the question for another day.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will dismiss any Post Office official or employé in Ireland who joins the Postmen's Union?

No postman in England has been dismissed on the grounds suggested by the hon. Baronet, and I certainly shall not follow a different practice in Ireland from that prevailing in England.

I beg' to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the wide-spread demand among the leaseholders of Ireland in favour of the Leaseholders (Ireland) Bill, and of the postponement of the Land Purchase Bill, he will afford facilities for the passage of the Leaseholders (Ireland) Bill into law this Session?

No, Sir; apart from other objections I think a conclusive objection is the present state of public: business.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any rule of the Commissioners of National Education compelling District Inspectors, when examining for results, to mark the answers of the pupils secretly, so as to prevent either teacher or pupils from observing the marks recorded for each pupil in each specific subject; and whether, if there be no such rule, he is prepared to represent to the Commissioners of National Education the advisability of issuing general instructions to their Inspectors to have the marks recorded in the marking paper in presence of the teacher and pupils, as a guarantee of the good faith and impartiality of their marking?

The Commissioners of National Education report that there is no such rule as that indicated in the question. The marks of the oral portion of the examination are recorded in the marking paper in the schoolroom as the examination proceeds, and, as a rule, in the presence of the teacher; those of the written part cannot be entered until the exercises of the pupils have been read. All the marks of the oral and written portions appear on the examination roll, which is sent to the school and retained there. The Commissioners do not deem further instructions to Inspectors on the point necessary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that in an action before Judge Gibson and a special jury, in Dublin on the 18th instant, Rev. M. B. Kennedy, CO, Meelin, County Cork, obtained a verdict for £100 damages and costs against Sergeant Hyde, R.I.C., Meelin, for trespass, and assault on the reverend plaintiff; whether the Constabulary Authorities will take rote of the conduct of this policeman as detailed in the trial; and have the Constabulary Authorities or the Government paid the expenses of this constable in whole or in part or do they intend so to do?

I believe that a new trial will be applied for. I cannot, therefore, enter into particulars in regard to the case.

Will the Government pay the £100, and from what source will it be paid?

I cannot reply, until the whole case is settled.

I' beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that last year, when the two honourable Members for Clare (Mr. Cox and Mr. Jordan) attended at Ennis in response to a summons sent to them by the Registrar of the Clare Infirmary, of which institution they are Governors, to take part in the election of a physician to the infirmary, they were shadowed by the police during their entire stay in Ennis, and that during the entire time the election above mentioned was proceeding, a police guard was stationed in the immediate vicinity of the infirmary; and whether ho can state by whose direction the police acted in the manner above described?

I have not had sufficient notice of the question, and must ask the hon. Member to defer it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. C. P. Redmond, editor of the Water-ford News, has been sentenced by Messrs. Considine and Irwin at Waterford on June 6th, to three months' imprisonment for publishing a resolution of the Kilgobenet Branch of the Irish National League; whether Mr. Redmond was sentenced to a further term of imprisonment for publishing in another issue of the Waterford News another resolution of the same branch; whether Mr. Redmond was convicted on a third charge, stated by the Court to be a graver offence than the other charges, to 14 days' imprisonment, and ordered at the expiration of that period to enter into security himself in the sum of £200, and two sureties of £100 each, to be of good behaviour, or in default to go to prison for four months: whether there is an appeal from the last sentence; whether the Magistrates refuse to impose a sentence which would give a right of appeal; whether the same course of refusing an appeal has not been adopted recently by the same Magistrates in the case of Mr. Fisher, editor of the Munster Express; and whether he is aware that every decision of Messrs. Considine and Irwin brought before Judge Waters has been reversed by him?

Mr. C. P. Redmond was sentenced, as stated in the question, to three months' imprisonment for using, intimidation towards three persons by means of a published report of the proceedings of the Kilgobenet branch of the Irish National League, which appeared in the issue of his newspaper of April 5, 1890. He was also sentenced on the 7th of June to a like term of imprisonment for using intimidation towards three other parsons by means of a similar publication in the issue of his newspaper of April 12, 1890. This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the previous one, as the two publications were connected with the one matter. The order mentioned of 14 days' imprisonment and to find sureties was made on the same date for using intimidation towards Matthew Walsh by means of a published report of the proceedings of the Dungarvan Branch of the Irish National League, which appeared in the issue of his newspaper of April 26, 1890. The case was a very bad one; I presume the character of the sentence was modified by the fact that on the same day the same man had been sentenced to imprisonment for three months. There is no appeal, nor does there appear to have been any doubt connected either with the law or the facts of the case which rendered an appeal necessary. I believe there has been a difference of opinion on more than one occasion between the County Court Judge in question and the Magistrates; but in every case where the difference came up for decision by the High Court, that Judge was proved to be wrong, and the Magistrates to be right. Matthew Walsh has for a long time been subjected to boycotting and intimidation, and the Magistrates stated the report was of a most intimidatory character, and the worst that had come before them; that if they had had cognisance of this offence before the previous cases they would have felt it their duty to impose a very severe sentence; but as they had already sentenced Mr. Redmond at the same sittings to imprisonment, and desired rather to-restrain such conduct than to punish the defendant, they would not make a cumulative order, but exercise their preventive jurisdiction. There is no appeal from the last sentence, but if it was made without any sufficient evidence it can be reviewed by the Superior Courts. The Magistrates refused to alter the order on the ground, which was not disputed, that there was no legal point involved, and also on the ground that in a similar case the Queen's Bench Division had recently held on a case stated that there was ample evidence to justify the conviction. An appeal was refused in the-ease referred to for similar reasons as in Mr. Redmond's case.

May I ask the Chief Secretary whether, when the Criminal Law Amendment Bill (Ireland) was before the House, he did not distinctly promise that there should be an appeal in every case?

May I also ask in regard to one of the Magistrates—Mr. Considine—if it is not the fact that he is completely without legal training of any kind? When under cross-examination as to his legal qualifications did he not admit, in the most candid manner, that his only qualification was that he had kept two dinner terms in the Inner Temple?

No, Sir. I am not aware that that is the fact. With regard to the allegation that I could have control over the judicial acts of the Magistrates, I beg to give it—and not for the first time—an emphatic contradiction.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice of giving short sentences by the Irish Magistrates in order to prevent appeal began immediately after a speech he made at Birmingham?

No, Sir; I am not aware of it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Head Constable Judge and the police in Portumna have been going amongst the Clanricarde tenantry with a list of the tenants who they say paid their rents; who supplied this list to Head Constable Judge; and by whose orders this constable and the police under him are doing this duty of bailiff for Lord Clanricarde?

A full Report has not yet reached me. I must ask the hon. Member to defer the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by what authority, and for what reason, groups of policemen hung about the entrance to the Town Hall of Cashel at the time appointed for the last meeting of the Municipal Commissioners, and took down the name of each Commissioner as he entered?

The Constabulary Authorities report that it is not the case that there were groups of police as alleged. Only four men were on duty at the time; of these, two were on ordinary beat duty, and two who happened to be on patrol and who observed those who entered and left the Town Hall, but no note was taken as alleged.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has been arrived at by the Treasury with regard to the claim, of Admiral Colomb for compensation in respect of his invention of flashing signals?

I am sorry I am not able to answer the hon. Gentleman, who has been good enough at my request to postpone this question; but I hope in a few days to give him a definite answer.

I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether anything has been decided with regard to the appointment of the new Chief Commissioner?

On this subject I wish to ask whether it is true, as stated in yesterday's Standard, that there is reason to believe that through the action of Lord Salisbury the differences between Mr. Matthews and the Chief Commissioner of Police will be adjusted, and in that event Mr. Monro's resignation will be withdrawn?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve of the appointment of Sir Edward Bradford as Commissioner of Police, to the office just vacated by the resignation of Mr. Monro. I need say nothing to the House of the distinguished career and services of Sir E. Bradford.

Is Sir E. Bradford an old military officer or not?

Was Sir E. Bradford the gentleman who has been a distinguished Resident and Representative in Jeypore?

Can the right hon. Gentleman state what experience Sir E. Bradford has had with regard to the control of civil bodies responsible for order?

Sir E. Bradford has had a wide and varied experience in many offices of the Public Service. At the present moment he is employed in the India Office. He was for some years Governor General's Agent for Rajpootana. In that capacity he conducted the whole military and civil service of the district, and rendered most valuable services to his country. He has also been for many years an officer in the Madras army.

Has he ever been in charge of any police force such as we have in the Metropolis?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Member means.

Among Europeans.

He has commanded the police, as I have stated.

I wish to ask whether the services of this gentleman have always been employed in Asiatic countries, and not among people of English race.

No, Sir; he has been employed in this country in connection with the India Office since 1887.

Has he in the India Office been connected with bodies which can at all be considered to have such functions to perform as the police of the Metropolis have?

I believe Sir E. Bradford to be, both by character and experience, thoroughly qualified.

I beg to give notice that when the Leader of the House moves the proposed Standing Order [Mr. W. H. SMITH here rose, but Mr. WHITBEEAD declined to give way] for carrying over Bills from one Session to another, it is my intention to move as an Amendment—

"That the Motion for a Standing Order involving so great a change in the usages of Parliament and the Constitution ought not to be considered until, the House, agreeably to former practice, has had the advantage of the previous consideration of the subject by a Committee of this House."

I was anxious to save the hon. Gentleman the trouble of giving notice of his Amendment. I have considered the suggestion which was made in the notice of the Amendment given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian during the past week, and the many suggestions which have reached me from hon. Friends in different parts of the House, and it was my intention to give notice of the following Resolution:—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether, by means of an abridged form of procedure, or otherwise, the consideration of Bills partly considered in this House could be facilitated in the ensuing Session of the same Parliament."

With your permission, Sir, I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board a question of which I have given him private notice; and as the matter is one that is personal both to him and to myself, I trust the House will allow me very briefly to recall the circumstances. On Tuesday night last I named the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board as one whose vote I asked should be disallowed because he was pecuniarily interested in the matter affected by the Bill. I was not allowed to make the Motion, and the hon. Member rose and, as I understood him, stated to the House that his only connection with the matter was that he had lent his brother money, and that he was not a shareholder in a brewery. I say that is what I understood him to say. A great many other hon. Members on this side of the House also understood the same, and I am bound to say, having examined a very large number of the principal newspapers of the country, I find that, almost without exception, that was the idea conveyed to them. For instance, the Times—if that can be called a principal newspaper—says: "Mr. Long and Sir M. Hicks Beach have denied that they were interested in any brewery."

Order, order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am bound to say that what occurred took place in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees is the sole judge of it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to make any Motion, but if he does I think it ought to be in Committee, provided that fresh circumstances have occurred that would justify the re opening of the question. If the hon. Member is going to ask a question he would be in order.

That is what I am going to do—to ask a question. I am bound to say that since the hon. Gentleman made his statement in Committee he has sent a letter to the Times, in which he states that he did inform the Committee that he was a shareholder in a brewery company. I, for one, accept that statement. My questions to the hon. Gentleman, are these: (1.) Washenot one of the founders of the Bath Brewery Company? (2.) Does not his name appear on the Memorandum of Association? (3.) Was he not, and is he not now, one of the directors and chairman of the company, receiving the usual fees? {4.) Has he not all along been, and is he not now, an ordinary shareholder, entitled to his proportion of the profits of the company, and has not the said Brewery Company in its possession no less than 90 tied houses, which are affected by this Bill?

I desire, in the first place, to thank the hon. Member for Sunderland for the very full and sufficient notice he was good enough to give me of his intention to bring forward this subject. I desire also to thank him for having given me this opportunity of making a short, and I hope a satisfactory, explanation to the House. I make no complaint of the fact that the hon. Gentleman did not carry away from the Committee that impression of my remarks which I intended to convoy. I desire to apologise to the House for not expressing myself on that occasion so clearly and fully as I ought to have done. I hope the House will allow me to say in excuse for this omission on my part that I was completely taken aback at the moment. I had no notice that such a question was to be referred to, and was not in the House when the hon. Member for Cirencester made his speech. I did at the time feel somewhat acutely what appeared to be an imputation implying dishonourable motives inconnection with my Parliamentary action. With reference to the question, Was I not one of the founders of the Bath Brewery Company? I am not quite sure what a "founder" is. I had no interest in this company until I was asked by local gentlemen personally known to me if I would accept that position in the company, and I said I would if all things were satisfactorily and properly conducted, Secondly, I believe my name does appear as one of the first shareholders. I should like to be allowed to add that my interest in this concern amounts to £1,000, and that I am chairman, and receive my fees as such. I believe the statement as to the tied houses to be correct. I feel I owe an explanation to the House as to why it was that when the question was raised I did not enter upon this point. The fact is, as I have already said, that I was somewhat taken aback, and, in the second place, my attention was directed solely to the point raised by the hon. Member. I admit that it ought not to have been so, but for the moment it did not occur to mo that my position as the Chairman or a Director of the Company was a matter which I ought to have mentioned to the Committee. I did mention the fact that I was a shareholder. I should like to be allowed to add that after I sat down it occurred to me that I had not sufficiently taken the Committee into my confidence. I went into the Lobby and consulted one or two hon. Gentlemen as to whether I ought to add a further statement to what I had said. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House assured me that my statement was sufficiently complete, and, following their advice, I did not make any further statement. I hope the House will believe what I most sincerely assure them, that I had no intention whatever of concealing my connection with this Brewery Company or in any way minimising my position with regard to it. My desire was to state fully what my position was, and I very much regret I omitted to state I was Chairman of that Company. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving mo this opportunity of correcting what I said.

Perhaps the House will allow me to say I accept the statement made by the hon. Gentleman with willingness, fully believing that he acted from pure inadvertence. But, of course, in saying that, I still retain my own conviction that it is not desirable that this Bill should be pushed forward by the votes of Members interested in the trade.

Order, order!