I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India would grant a Commission to inquire into the whole question of the Salt Tax in Orissa, and the effects resulting from the administration of the tax being placed under the Madras Authorities; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Report from the Bengal officials concerning the present manner of levying the tax and its result on the population?

No, Sir. In the opinion of the Secretary of State it is not necessary at present to appoint a Commission. A special Report has been called for respecting salt affairs in the district of Orissa.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that, according to the last Report of the Registrar General, in addition to 25,132 cases in which the cause of death was "ill defined or not specified" in medical certificates of death, 15,747 deaths occurred in England and Wales, in 1888, in which the cause of death was not certified either by a medical man or coroner; and whether, taking that fact into consideration, Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the sufficiency of the existing law as to the disposal of the dead, for securing an accurate record of the causes of death in all cases, and specially for detecting them where death may have been due to poison, violence, or criminal neglect?

There were 25,132 deaths in 1888 in which the cause of death was "ill-defined or not specified," and 15,747 deaths in which the cause was not certified by either a medical man or coroner; but it is not the fact that the 25,132 deaths were all of them cases in which there was a medical certificate, or that they were in addition to the deaths in which there was no certificate forthcoming. The great bulk of the 15,747 uncertified deaths are, I am informed by the Registrar General, included in the 25,132 deaths in which the cause was either not specified or not sufficiently defined for due classification. As regards the 15,747 deaths without medical or coroner's certificate, it must not be assumed that these were all cases in which there was no medical attendance. Many of them were, doubtless, cases which had been attended by unregistered medical practitioners, who cannot give legally recognisable certificates. The proportion both of deaths in which the cause is ill-defined or not specified and of uncertified deaths has been gradually diminishing. Thus, in the years 1881–1887 the proportion of the ill-defined deaths averaged 5·7 per cent, of all deaths registered, but in 1888 it was only 4·9 per cent. As regards uncertified deaths, the proportion in 1879 was 4·7 per cent., and this fell gradually, until, in 1888, it was 3·1 per cent. As I stated in reply to a previous question of the hon. Member's, the Registrar General has good reason to know that a very large proportion of the cases of uncertified deaths are reported by Registrars to Coroners prior to their registration, although those officers, in the exercise of their discretion, decide that it is unnecessary to hold inquests. It is too late to entertain the question of the appointment of a Select Committee this Session, but I will promise the hon. Member that the question of the expediency of such a Committee shall be carefully considered during the recess.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if a representative of the trading interests of Canada, Australasia, South Africa, and India, will be appointed to the Committee now in process of formation, to consider the Treaties of Commerce which are about to expire?

No, Sir. It is proposed to confine this Committee to representatives of the commercial interests in the United Kingdom.

Then in what way is the colonial interest to be considered?

The commercial policy of our self-governing colonies, with one great exception, is altogether different from our own.

I Leg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Recorder of Liverpool in some prosecutions of betting clubs which have recently been before him, in which the defendants succeeded in getting off; whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the "Waterloo Club," and to the evidence that it was a betting club, and to the summing up of the Recorder in this case, in which he is reported to have said that—

"The Legislature had never taken a decisive course in regard to betting. Betting under the Act of Parliament had a special meaning, namely, that one person paid or received what was wagered by others. It would not be against the Act if two members of the club made a bet, and the one paid the other."

The defendants were found not guilty on the charges of "keeping," "using," "permitting," and "assisting;" whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the "Tarleton Club," in which the defendants had been fined by one of the City Justices for keeping the club open for betting purposes, which conviction was quashed by the Recorder of Liverpool upon an exception taken by the counsel for the defendants to the convictions, on the ground that they proceeded against the defendants as owners or occupiers of the premises, whereas, though they were shareholders, the premises were rated as occupied by the Tarleton Club Company, Limited; and whether he is prepared to recommend legislation to remedy these defects in the law, as evidenced by the above cases?

I am informed by the learned Recorder that the report of what he said in the case of the Waterloo Club is not accurate. What he did say was that the Legislature had never prohibited betting, or made it unlawful, but had only made bets irrecoverable by law. He also said that the statute 16 and 17 Vict., cap. 119, under which the defendants were indicted, had been held to apply to places where money was received in advance on one side, and not to betting generally. Unless this club could be proved to be such a place the defendants were entitled to their acquittal. With regard to the Tarleton Club, the defendants had been convicted as "owners" and "occupiers." There was no evidence that this was the case, as the counsel for the Justices admitted. The above cases do not, therefore, disclose any serious defect in the law; and I can hold out no hope of legislation on this subject at any early date.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give to the House any information in respect to the negotiations now proceeding for the settlement of Swaziland?

I regret that the negotiations have not reached a stage at which it would be possible to give the House any information except that Her Majesty's Government are at present waiting for a reply from the Government of the South African Republic to the latest communications of Sir H. Loch.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what the purport of the instructions sent to the High Commissioner is?

It is impossible for me to give the House that information.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government will be in a position to furnish the desired information?

The length of time that must elapse will depend on the time it would take to get the answers from the South African Republic.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House what is the estimated extent in square miles of the territory placed by Royal Charter under the control of the South African Company, and the estimated population of the native tribes inhabiting it; whether Mr. Cecil Rhodes, the Chairman of the Company, is under an obligation to report to the High Commissioner of South Africa, or is independent of him; and whether he can say what is the number of soldiers or police in the employ of the company, and what is the name of the officer in command of them, and from whom he receives his commission?

No territory is placed under the control of the British South African Company by the Royal Charter. The effect of that Charter is to enable the company to exercise as a corporation any concessions and any powers of control granted by local rulers. Mr. Rhodes is not chairman of the company. As one of the officers of the company (managing director in South Africa), he is bound under Section 18 of the Charter to communicate freely with the High Commissioner, and to pay due regard to any requirements, suggestions, or requests which the High Commissioner may make to him. The number of police in the company's employment is believed to be 500. There is also a body of 150 miners and settlers, called pioneers. The officer temporarily in command of the police is Colonel Pennefather. He, of course, receives from the company any commission which he may hold for the purpose of his police command.

Is he obliged to report to the High Commissioner?

Any action the Company may take they are bound to report to the High Commissioner.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any step has been taken to meet the wishes expressed to Her Majesty's Government by the deputation from Cyprus last year, either in the way of reforms in the civil administration or of relief from taxation; and, if so, whether he will state what changes have been introduced?

The views of Her Majesty's Government on the representations of the deputation from Cyprus will be found in the Parliamentary Paper C, 6,003, recently distributed, especially in the Secretary of State's Despatch of the 22nd of March, 1890, at p. 23. Various reductions of expenditure have been made, and some other reforms will be initiated, as described in the papers referred to; but it would be impossible to state the particulars within the limits of an answer.

I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the question on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy for the year 1889 will be laid upon the Table?

I am informed by the Commissioners that this Report is now with the printers, and they hope to be able to lay it on the Table of the House at the end of the week.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Report of the Inspectors of Lunatics for the year 1889 will be laid upon the Table?

The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums hope to be in a position to lay the Report in question upon the Table of the House during next month.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will undertake, with reference to the proposed construction of a graving dock at Gibraltar, to follow the precedent set in the case of the Somerset Dock at Malta, and submit to Parliament all designs and papers referring thereto before entering into any contract or arrangement for its construction.

The design and details of the Somerset Dock at Malta were not submitted to Parliament, but certain correspondence and plans showing the position of the new dock were presented to Parliament after the work had been taken in hand. The responsibility for the selection of a suitable site and plan of the proposed dock at Gibraltar must rest with the Government, and the Board of Admiralty are fully prepared to accept that responsibility.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the Western Mail, of the 19th instant, in which it is reported that great dissatisfaction exists among the Rifle Volunteers of Cardiff, in consequence of the amalgamation of the two detachments; whether, in consequence, only very few members attend parade; whether it was a well known fact that the amalgamation was very distasteful and would be resented; whether previous to the amalgamation both detachments were numerically strong and efficient; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made, in order to make arrangements that will be satisfactory to members of both detachments?

The amalgamation referred to was a regimental arrangement, which would have been carried out much earlier if it had not been for debts on the part of one of the detachments. It is reputed that since the amalgamation the attendance has improved, and that the strength is greater than before it took effect.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury Minute relating to the Upper Division Clerks will be laid upon the Table?

I regret that I must refer my hon. Friend to several previous answers I have given, explaining the reasons for the length of time which it takes to deal with this important question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States Government intend to increase the duties upon English hops by 25 per cent.?

According to a late edition of the Tariff Bill published in America, it appears that the duty on British hops is to be raised from 8c. to 15c. (4d. to 7½d.) per lb., or nearly doubled.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether complaint has been made that the plastering, or a portion of it, at the new Metropolitan Police Office has been sub-let by the contractor to a piece-master named Charles Peak; whether complaint has been made that the subcontractor is an unfair employer; whether his attention has been called to a report of a case tried at Bow Street on 10th June, when the said Charles Peak was summoned by four plasterers for money due to them, and condemned to pay the claim and all costs; and whether complaint has been made that the plastering is being done in an imperfect manner, and with adulterated or inferior material, so that the Clerk of the Works has been compelled to condemn some of the work?

Charles Peak was employed by the contractor to superintend the work of the plasterers at the new Police Offices. He was not a subcontractor. He was paid a weekly wage, and he did not pay the men or supply the material. He engaged the men, and had the power of dismissing them. No complaint has been made to the Receiver of Police that Peak is an unfair employer. I have not seen a report of the case in question, but I am informed that it had nothing to do with Peak's employment at the Police Offices. Complaint has been made that some of the architraves and mouldings had not been done in accordance with the specifications. They have been condemned by the architect, and will be made good by the contractor. The further services of Charles Peak have been dispensed with.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when does Lord Carrington's term of office, as Governor of New South Wales, expire; has any successor been appointed to succeed him; and whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has unofficially submitted the name of Lord Carrington's successor to the Prime Minister, Sir Henry Parkes; or is it his intention to do so?

Lord Carring ton has expressed a wish to resign in November. No successor has yet been appointed. The Secretary of State's Despatch of the 8th July, 1889, presented to Parliament in the Paper C, 5828, shows the views of Her Majesty's Government as to consulting the Colonial Governments before appointing Governors, and I have nothing to add.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement contained in an interpellation to the French Government, of which, according to a Reuter's Despatch dated Paris, 19th June, M. Deloncle has given notice to the effect that in 1862 Lord Cowley, on behalf of Great Britain, and M. Thouvenel, on behalf of France, signed a declaration by which the two countries mutually agreed not to interfere with the independence of Zanzibar, and that Germany gave her adhesion to this declaration in 1862; and whether any such agreement as that alleged was entered into between France and this country; and, if so, was the consent of France to the abrogation of the agreement obtained before entering into the arrangement regarding Zanzibar, announced in Lord Salisbury's Despatch to Sir E. Malet of the 14th inst.?

The agreement in question was entered into, but Her Majesty's Government are not of opinion that it is interfered with by the assumption of a Protectorate of the dominions of the Sultan with his full consent.

Is it true, as stated in an Exchange telegram published this afternoon, that satisfactory communication has passed between the French and English Governments on the subject of the Protectorate of Zanzibar?

No, Sir; that is not true. I can only say that information of the intention of England to assume this Protectorate has been conveyed to the French Government, but it had not reached the hands of the Minister when he made his speech on the matter to the French Assembly. Information has been conveyed, but no reply has yet been received.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why non-commissioned officers of Militia Corps (on Army engagement), performing the duties of pay sergeants of companies during training, are not remunerated in the same manner as those performing similar duties in the Regular Forces?

The allowance given to the Regular Forces was granted when the captain's contingent allowance was modified. No change has been made for the present in the contingent allowance of the Militia captains; but should any be adopted, the subject raised by the hon. Member will not be lost sight of.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in the case of entailed estates it is the practice of the Inland Revenue Department on the succession of each heir to charge any Probate, Succession, or other Death Duty in respect of heirlooms such as jewels, gold and silver plate, books, &c, often of great value; if so, upon what scale; and, if not, can he explain on what grounds?

Heirlooms, such as jewels, plate, pictures, and books, are charged with Probate Duty as part of the personal estate of the deceased person who, by his will, directs them to be held as heirlooms; but they are not charged with any Legacy or Succession Duty so long as they are enjoyed in kind only by any person or persons not having any power of selling or disposing thereof, so as to convert the same into money or other property yielding an income; but when the heirlooms are actually sold or disposed of, or come to any person having power to sell or dispose thereof, or having an absolute interest therein, then Legacy or Succession Duty is exacted as upon any other legacy or succession.

Is it true that in regard to the Hamilton heirlooms no duty has been charged upon them, and will Succession Duty be not charged as the result of the sale of the so-called heirlooms?

asked for notice of the question.

I had intended to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Petition from the countermen of the metropolitan postal districts, which was transmitted to him through the Postmaster of the West Central district on the 13th of last month, asking him to favour a Committee of their class with an interview; and whether, seeing that he recently granted a similar application to the telegraphists and sorters, he will accede to the request of the countermen? I will postpone the question until to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the Report of the proceedings at the Rathmore (County Kerry) Petty Sessions on the 14th instant, from which it appears that a number of men were charged with having assaulted the police, and that two of the police assaulted (Constables O'Connor and Lett), who were at the time carrying rifles, admitted that they had been drinking previous to the occurrence; whether the two policemen, Burns and Cullinane, concerned in the disturbance at Timoleague, County Cork, on the 3rd of September last, in which Daniel Donohoe lost his life by a revolver shot fired by Constable Cullinane, also admitted that they had been drinking previous to the occurrence; whether his attention has been called to the increasing frequency of cases of this kind, pointing to the spread of drinking habits among the Irish police; and, whether the rule which formerly existed, prohibiting constables from drinking or visiting public houses while on duty, is still in force; and, if not, when and why it was abrogated?

The case referred to in the first paragraph is sub judice, having been adjourned to the 30th instant. With regard to the general allegation as to increase of drunkenness amongst the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Inspector General informs mo that, having given special attention to this point, he is able testate that offences of this kind have, during recent years, very much declined. It is at present, and always has been, a strict rule of the Service that men should not enter a public house when on duty, unless the duty itself requires their presence.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Timothy Clarke is at present undergoing a sentence of three months' imprisonment in consequence of his signing the Relieving Officer's book, in his capacity as Guardian in the Portumna Union, for outdoor relief given to Lord Clanricarde's evicted tenants, and for which he was surcharged by the Local Government Auditor, summoned before Petty Sessions Court, and ordered to be imprisoned for the above term; whether it is a fact that on a former occasion Mr. John Eyre, J.P., late Chairman of the same Board, signed the Relieving Officer's book for a sum four times the amount given by Mr. Clarke; whether Mr. Eyre, although surcharged by the Auditor in the amount signed for by him, and decreed at Petty' Sessions for same, no attempt was made to levy the amount, and no punishment was inflicted upon him for his default; and if he will explain why such different treatment was accorded to these two Guardians?

I am informed that Mr. Clarke was proceeded against in the circumstances stated in the first paragraph, and that the Magistrate issued a warrant of distress for the amount, £47 10s., with the alternative penalty of three months' imprisonment. Upwards of two and a half years previously Mr. John Eyre was proceeded against for a surcharge of £40 10s., a decree obtained, and a warrant issued to levy the amount, which, however, proved unproductive. The failure in Mr. Byre's case and some other cases about the same time arose from the fact that the proceedings were taken under the 28th section of the 10th Vict., chap. 31, which gives no power to the Magistrates to order imprisonment in the event of failure to distrain. To obviate the possibility of a recurrence of a miscarriage of this nature, the auditor has brought all cases since then under Sections 95 and 103 of the 1st & 2nd Vic, chap. 56, which gives the power of imprisonment in the event of the amount of the surcharge not being recovered.

Has the attention of the Lord Chancellor been called to the case of Mr. Eyre, who is a Magistrate and a man of substance?

That question does not arise out of the question on the Paper. I was simply asked why two different modes of procedure were taken in two separate and distinct cases. I have pointed out that the proceedings in the first case were abortive.

Is it the fact that a Conservative Magistrate escaped scot-free, while a Nationalist got three months?

The procedure in Mr. Eyre's case was at the time the usual procedure.

I beg to defer until to-morrow a question of which I have given notice, to ask the Postmaster General whether seven members of the first class of clerks in the Telegraph Department of the Belfast Post Office hold the additional appointment of provincial clerks in charge; whether five of these had this appointment bestowed upon them in recognition of long service, and in consequence of their having been, at the time at which it was conferred, superseded in promotion to the first class; if so, upon what grounds were they permitted to retain this appointment, subsequently, on receiving promotion to the first class; whether the discharge of the duties incident to that of provincial clerks in charge obliges the holders of the position to be absent for long periods from Belfast; and, if so, have their duties during their absence to be discharged by members of the second class without any extra remuneration, and does their absence also cause present members of the first class, who are not provincial clerks in charge, to be more frequently employed upon night duty; and, if this be so, whether he will constitute the present holders of the position of provincial clerks in charge supernumeraries upon the staff of the Belfast office, and promote an equivalent number of the second class to be members of the first class, so that members of this class shall not be called upon to undertake responsible first class duties without the emoluments appertaining to the position?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what are the amounts still held by the Purchase Commissioners for "the Fifth" Guarantees retained by them in the case of the sales of the London Companies' estates in Deny; and can any hope be held out that the Government will introduce Amendments in the Purchase Bill to prevent these amounts being paid over to the companies until the question of the liability of these bodies to the trusts for religion and education in Ireland, imposed by their charters, has been settled?

The Land Commissioners report that the guarantee deposits held by them to the credit of the London Companies in respect of sales on their estates are as follows:—Drapers' Company, £19,156; Salters' Company, £46,418; Skinners' Company, £26,884; Fishmongers' Company, (including £237 lodged by the purchasers), £24,174. I hardly think an Amendment in the Purchase of Land Bill of the nature suggested by the hon. and learned Member is necessary, inasmuch as under the Ashbourne Act the question of paying over these guarantee deposits will not arise for some 20 years after the date of purchase.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a report in the Freeman's Journal of the 11th instant, in which it is alleged that the Rev. Fathers O'Doherty, Callan, and Shiel, of Carrickmacross and Donaghmoyne, in the County of Monaghan, were shadowed by four police constables on several Sundays and holy days, recently, while attending the chapels of Corcreagh, Corduff, and Donaghmoyne, for the purpose of celebrating Mass and discharging the other functions of their sacred office; that Fathers Callan and O'Dwyer were on several occasions shadowed by police to the houses of persons whom they were called to attend to in serious illness; whether this report is correct; and, if so, has he any objection to state the grounds and the authority upon which this police shadowing is carried on; and will he order it to be discontinued?

The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the rev. gentlemen referred to have been watched by the police in so far as it was necessary to prevent them from holding meetings of the National League, which has been suppressed in that district as an unlawful association, in consequence of the boycotting and intimidation practised by it there. Two of these rev. gentlemen openly in chapel advised their congregations to defy the law in this respect, one of them asking for subscriptions for the purpose, and directing his hearers, if the policemen asked them any questions, to tell them a bundle of lies; that to do so was no sin—not even a venial one. On one occasion when the police were following Mr. O'Doherty he entered a house where a sick person was. The police at once passed on for about a distance of a quarter of a mile, where they remained. The police observation of these rev. gentlemen will, of course, cease immediately upon their ceasing from their attempts to defy the law.

Will the right hon. Gentleman name any day in last month when these gentlemen attended an illegal meeting. Is it not the fact that they were watched in consequence of the boycotting of a railway company, and seeing that they have triumphed, as the people always will, is there any reason for watching them now?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of persons "shadowed" in Ireland, and the number "watched" by the police, and the number of policemen engaged in these operations? I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it would be possible to grant a Return, giving the names and addresses of the persons "shadowed" or "watched" by the police in Ireland, and the causes therefor, for each year since 1884; and, if not, can he give the numbers respectively in each year?

I am informed that it would be impossible to state accurately the number of persons watched by the police from time to time, and the number of the latter who discharge this along with their other duties, as the necessity varies from day to day. It would be impracticable, but even if practicable inexpedient in the public interest, to give a nominal Return of the nature indicated in the second question. But I am informed that, speaking generally, the present number of suspects in Ireland is believed to be very inconsiderable, as compared with the earlier years under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state who or what the suspects were. But the point of my question was, How many persons are now shadowed in Ireland?

I think I have answered the question of the hon. Member.

I suppose I could not have made my point clear. I want a distinct answer as to the number-of persons now shadowed in Ireland.

I have told the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is impossible for mc to give the information asked for.

Does the inability of the right hon. Gentleman to provide the information arise out of his reluctance to give it, or from the number being so large that it is beyond computation?

No, it is not beyond the powers of computation. It arises largely from the fact that the necessities vary from day to day.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House the number shadowed on any particular day?

I will consider that question, but I am afraid that no accurate inference could be drawn from it.

Then to-morrow I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the number for a week.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary whether it is true that Mr. James O'Brien, of Killeagh, was arrested at Youghal Fair, last Monday, by a common policeman in plain clothes, who was occupied in closely "shadowing" Mr. O'Brien; and if he can explain why Mr. Redmond, R.M., was specially telegraphed for to investigate the charge of this gentleman accused of obstructing his "shadow"? I would further ask whether it is a fact that Mr. O'Brien was kept in a black hole, in a filthy unsanitary condition, for several hours, during which the Prison Authorities treated him with the utmost cruelty?

No, Sir; I should think the matter alleged in the further question is not a fact. The Constabulary Authorities report that O'Brien was arrested by a constable in uniform on a charge of wilfully obstructing a constable on detective duty in plain clothes. The charge being brought under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act the attendance of a Resident Magistrate was necessary.

Was the constable who arrested Mr. O'Brien "shadowing" him in an offensive way, and is it the fact that the only charge laid against Mr. O'Brien was that he followed the constable in question?

I know nothing about the second part of the question. With regard to the first part the policeman who followed Mr. O'Brien was in uniform.

Is it the fact that when Mr. O'Brien was brought before a Magistrate he asked to see a solicitor and a friend, and that both requests were denied, as also was an offer which he made to find bail in £1,000 to answer any charge that might be made against him? Further, is it the fact that Mr. O'Brien was insulted by the policeman and beaten, that when taken to prison he was stripped naked, and that his clothes, which were taken from him under the plea that it was necessary to search him, were not returned to him for 24 hours?

Why was Mr. O'Brien arrested at all instead of being summoned in the ordinary way?

I must ask for notice of these questions.

I will put a question on the Paper to-morrow about the scandalous and blackguardly behaviour——

Order, order! The hon. Member must observe Parliamentary propriety in his questions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year, when the two hon. 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 he can state by whose direction the police acted in the manner above described?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the hon. Members in question were watched by a policeman, who had a reason to suppose that they were going to hold an illegal meeting. No police guard was stationed at or near the infirmary.

Was there any "shadowing" by the police at the last fair at Dungarvan, County Watorford, as there had been at every previous fair in the same place for some time past, and have any instructions to restrain or restrict the practice of "shadowing" been lately issued on the part of the Government to any officials in Ireland?

The authorities report that the police had instructions to watch for any boycotting, but no boycotting was attempted. No instructions have lately been issued to restrain or restrict the practice called "shadowing."

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the unanimous judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, of the 17tli instant, upholding a decision of the Justices at Lurgan Quarter Sessions on 28th May, refusing to grant a transfer to Patrick Blayney of a licence for the house, 49, Church Street, Lurgan, held by his brother, the late James Blayney, on the ground of the "unfitness of the applicant" and "the unsuitability of the premises"; has he observed that it was proved in the case as follows: that the house in question was licensed for 70 years, and no objections had been made against the persons who held the licence during that time; that Patrick Blayney died in March, leaving the house to James Blayney, who got a protection order enabling him to carry on the business until the Quarter Sessions; that on the case coming before the Quarter Sessions, six Magistrates voted against the transfer, and five in favour of it; that the County Court Judge (Judge Kisbey) made it a rule not to vote on these eases, but intimated that if he did vote he would have voted in favour of the transfer; that the police made no objection to the transfer, but it was opposed on behalf of the Lurgan United Temperance Association; that there was no other opposition of any kind; that the house was largo and commodious: that the applicant resided a mile and a half from the house, but his son resided on the premises, and was 30 years of age; that Chief Justice O'Brien said the police appeared to have rather supported the application; that the only suggestion as to the "unfitness of the applicant" was that he was a Catholic, while the majority of the Justices were Protestants; and that, nevertheless, the Queen's Bench felt constrained to refuse even a conditional order to quash the Justices' decision on the ground that the matter was purely within their discretion; was Probate Duty charged on the licence-asset in this case during the 70 years the licence lasted; and will orders be given after this decision, and that of "Sharp v. Wakefield," that Probate Duty shall no longer be levied on licensed property; or will a test ease be taken to decide whether a licence is a mere precarious asset or a practically permanent property?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask whether it is not a fact that the "large and commodious" premises in question were only 13 feet in front, and 26 feet in depth, that they were old and dilapidated, had a thatched roof and an unenclosed garden, that was open day and night?

I cannot answer that question. With regard to the question on the Paper I have to say that, if the facts are as described by the hon. Member, it would appear that the Queen's Bench Division refused the application for a conditional order to quash the Justices' decision on the ground that the matter was within their discretion, and that they had found the applicant unfit and the premises unsuitable. So probate was charged on the will of the late Mr. James Blayney (not Mr. Patrick Blayney), who died in March of this year, as the gross assets were sworn under £100, and the licence was not accounted for an asset, being probably considered of no value, as the concern is a very small one. The same circumstances have probably applied to the licence in question during the last 70 years. This decision, and that of "Sharp v. Wakefield" do not convince me that Probate Duty should not be levied on licences. When the goodwill of licences ceases to be bought and sold for valuable considerations, then the time will come to consider whether Probate Duty shall cease to lie levied on licensed property.

Is it a fact that after a licence had been attached to the premises for 70 years it rests with the Magistrates to take it away. Will the Government allow a test case to be taken to see whether it is legal to continue to charge Probate Duty under the circumstances detailed in the question?

Probate Duty is not in the first instance assessed by the Government. It is brought in in the schedule of assets by the executors of a deceased person. If there is no value put on the licence asset, there ought to be.

I beg 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 "Sharp v. Wakefield;" the statement of the case, and the judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal?

I have made inquiries as to the case of "Blunt v. Byrne," which was cited by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton as a precedent for the hon. Member's proposal. I find that there was no authorised record of that case until the Report revised by the Judge was printed as a Parliamentary Paper, it not being the practice to include Jury cases in the Irish Law Reports. There is, therefore, a clear distinction between that case and the case of "Sharp v. Wakefield." But, apart altogether from any question of precedent, I remain of opinion that in the latter case there is no good reason to supplement the authorised Law Reports in the manner proposed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the West Donegal Railway Company, which is promoting the proposed Light Railway to Killybegs, in the County of Donegal, is notoriously insolvent, judgments having been marked against it for the price of rolling stock, and proceedings for a Receiver being pending; whether the company is largely in arrear for both principal and interest to the Treasury on foot of previous advances; whether the granting of State aid to a company so circumstanced is a violation of the principle laid down by Parliament in Section 4, Subsection 3, of "The Light Railways Act, 1889"; and whether the Killybegs line is that promoted by Mr. Barton, and reported on by Mr. Price?

I am not aware that the hon. Member is justified in stating that the West Donegal Railway Company is "notoriously insolvent." The company has not yet begun to repay the principal of its debt to the Board of Works; but it is paying over £1,300 a year on account of the £1,600 due for interest, and the Revenue prospects are encouraging. Section 4, Sub-section 3 of the Light Railway Act, 1889, forbids the advance of a loan to a company in arrear with principal and interest, or to a company having a working agreement with a company in arrear. It is not, however, proposed to make any loan to this company. As regards the last paragraph, it would be equally true to say that Major General Hutchinson of the Board of Trade reported on the Killybegs line.

The right hon. Gentleman says it is not intended to make a loan to the railway. Is it intended to make a grant to it?

I am not in a position to say. That was not the question put to me. The question was, whether the Light Railways Act of 1889 forbids the granting of State aid. It does not forbid State aid, but it does forbid a loan.

What guarantee has the Government for the making of the line, seeing that the company by whom it is promoted have been unable to pay their way. Do the Government propose to make a grant to a Railway Company in regard to whom it is not sure that they will be able to pay the working expenses of the line?

The accounts would have to be audited by a person appointed by the Treasury.

Is a grant to be given in this case because the line is promoted by Mr. Barton?

I am not in a position to say that a grant is going to be made, and certainly not because the line is promoted by Mr. Barton.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any intention or proposal to appoint Mr. Barton, C.E., one of the promoters of the Killybegs Light Railway line, to any position in connection with the construction of light railways in Ireland, in which he would be placed in authority over the projects of rival promoters; and whether, if the Treasury sanction a grant in favour of the Killybegs line, they will put up the further engineering of it in competition?

I am not aware of any such intention.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of cases of appeals from the fair rents fixed by the Sub-Commission for Queen's County that were disposed of by the Chief Commission at its recent sitting; and in how many cases were the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissions reduced, confirmed, and increased respectively?

The Land Commissioners report that 60 Queen's County appeals were listed for hearing' at the recent sitting of the Court. Of these, 15 were cross appeals, leaving 45 cases for hearing at the sitting, which were disposed of as follows:—19 withdrawn, seven settled, seven confirmed, six rents raised by the Courts, one rent raised on enlarged area, one rent raised on consent, one adjourned in consequence of death of the party, two adjourned by request of the parties, and one stands over for judgment.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a warrant has been issued for the arrest of Mr. Barry, P.L.G., at the instance of a policeman named Drought, against whom Mr. Barry had previously instituted legal proceedings?

I am informed that the defendant, having failed to appear to a summons on a charge of assaulting the sergeant, a warrant was issued for his arrest.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the manner in which the police escort behaved to two political prisoners, Messrs. Thomas and William Kent, who were brought from the County Court Gaol to a Court held in Fermoy on Monday the 16th of June, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and why and for what reason were the prisoners handcuffed?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the prisoners mentioned were handcuffed at the request of the prison officer who had them in charge with the object of producing them in Court under a writ of habeas corpus. The handcuffs were only used when passing through crowds with a small police escort. On the return journey handcuffs were not used, the escort having been increased.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the letter of the Most Rev. Dr. O'Doherty, Bishop of Derry, in the Freeman's Journal of the 20th instant, in reference to his statement that

"The Prisons Board were most anxious that the Bishop should nominate a clergyman (to be chaplain of Derry Gaol), and they requested him to do so, but up to the present he had taken no action;"

whereas his Lordship asserts that, al though elected Bishop on 2nd October and consecrated on 2nd March, he never since, directly or indirectly, received any communication from the Prisons Board; can any explanation of the discrepancy be given; what were "the evil effects of the action of the Roman Catholic Bishop" of which he complained; and did Sir Lintorn Simmons, while in Rome, or any other English official, make any representations to the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Catholic Church upon the action of the Lord Bishop of Derry or his clergy?

I have not seen the letter referred to. Apparently, the Bishop trusted to the Freeman's Journal report. I mentioned the vicar capitular. There is, therefore, no discrepancy. It was presumed that the new Bishop would be acquainted with business affecting the diocese brought before the locum tenens who presided over the See. I am glad to think that the failure to appoint a chaplain may be due to this opinion being erroneous. The matter has been now formally brought to the attention of the present Bishop. The last question should be addressed to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

What does the right hon. Gentleman refer to when he speaks of evil effects?

I stated before that the evil effects of the failure of the Roman Catholic Authorities were that a great number of prisoners of that religion are deprived of the religious services of their Church.

Will the right hon. Gentleman apologise to the Bishop for this statement?

It is not necessary to apologise to him; if he will read the account of what passed in the fuller report in the Times, he will see that the only attack, if it can be said that I made any attack, was that either he did not consider himself bound to know what took place while his predecessor was in office, or, having made himself acquainted with what had taken place, he did not take the necessary steps to appoint a chaplain.

The right hon. Gentleman says he does not road the Freeman's Journal; does he expect the Roman Catholic Bishops to read the Times?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of Government to rent or purchase, at Castlecomer, a new rifle range for the use of troops stationed at Kilkenny; whether, about five years ago, on the advice of experienced officers, the lease of the rifle range at Duncannon was renewed at a yearly rental of £130, and that this lease has still many years to run; whether any difficulty has been found in accommodating troops in the excellent barracks at Duncannon Fort, and in tents in the Fort; and whether he can explain on what grounds it has been determined to give up this old station, and to sacrifice many hundreds of pounds which must be paid to the owners of the Duncannon range during the unexpired years of the lease?

In an answer given to the hon. Member for North Kilkenny on the 26th November, 1888, it was shown that a range in the neighbourhood of Kilkenny was much required, but that serious local difficulties had occurred in acquiring the necessary ground at Castlecomer. Those difficulties are now, I hope, about to be overcome, and a range will be formed for the troops in Kilkenny. The rangeat Duncannon Fort is held for 21 years from 1885, at a rental of £125 a year, and it will still be used for the troops at Waterford and Wexford. There is no difficulty in accommodating troops at Duncannon Fort; but a large expense in transport will be saved if a range be established near Kilkenny.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the statement in the Times of the 20th instant, to the effect that a number of children attending the Convent and National Schools, Tipperary, left, because the children of some policemen were received as pupils; that they marched through the streets in a body, and were eventually dispersed by the police; and what was the reason for their dispersal?

The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that on the 18th, 19th, and 20th instant children stayed away from the Convent and National Schools, Tipperary, on account of the children of the police and other boycotted people attending those schools. On the 18th the procession was not disorderly, and was not interfered with. On the 19th it was disorderly, and two flags were taken from it, whereupon it dispersed. On the 20th some grown lads joined the procession, stones were thrown from it at a tenant who was believed to have paid his rent. A little girl was seriously injured by being struck upon the head with one of the stones. Two policemen arriving upon the scene, the procession dispersed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as the Prisons Board have reported that one warder has complained of being subjected to annoyance in public while wearing the prison official uniform, if such warder has attributed such annoyance arose from belief that warders were engaged in odious duties as regards Irish political prisoners?

The warder referred to did not make any such allegation as that suggested in the question. His objection was one on general grounds. He mentioned one instance in which a drunken man had insulted him.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will direct the discontinuance of the rule that after every interview of a solicitor with a client in an Irish gaol, as admitted in the cas3 of the interview of Mr. J. J. O'Meara and Mr. M'Enery in Tullamore Prison last week, "that such prisoner is searched;" whether on the occasion of the visit of Mr. M'Gough, solicitor to Mr. Finucane, M.P., last year in the same prison, the interview took place in a private room, and not in a corridor in sight of warders, as in Mr. M'Enery's case; and if he will explain the reason of the change?

The General Prisons Board report that the question of searching of prisoners for prohibited articles lies in the discretion of the Governor, who is responsible for preventing the introduction of such articles into the prison. On the occasion referred to in the second paragraph the prisoner was in hospital, and the interview was in one of the vacant wards, but, as usual, under the observation of an officer, through an opening in the door.

postponed until Tuesday a question to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings at Falcarragh Petty Sessions, on Tuesday the 17th, in which a man named Peter M'Ginley was charged by a bailiff on the Olphert Estate named Conaghan with assault, and in which, on a cross summons, Conaghan was charged by M'Ginley with assault and with having presented a revolver at him and threatened to shoot him, and to the decision of the Court, consisting of two Resident Magistrates, that, though Conaghan's conduct was reprehensible in this ease and generally in going about the country with a revolver and threatening to shoot people M'Ginley should be imprisoned for a fortnight and then be held to bail to keep the peace for 12 months, while Conaghan should be held to bail merely; whether he will direct the attention of the Lord Lieutenant to to this decision with a view to the remission of at least the latter part of the sentence inflicted on M'Ginley, who would appear to have acted only in self-defence against a murderous attack on his life; whether the bailiff Conaghan was given a licence to carry firearms; and, if so, by whom, and whether his licence will now be withdrawn; and whether, in view of the fact that this is the third instance within a recent period of human life being threatened in the Falcarragh district by persons licensed to carry firearms, a revision of the list of persons so licensed will be ordered with a view to the removal from it of the names of all persons who have abused the privilege conferred upon them, or who have not furnished satisfactory guarantees that they will use the privilege with discretion?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by whose orders were two Magistrates present at the Fermoy Petty Sessions to hear a summons for assault brought by Mr. Barber, a newspaper correspondent of Fermoy, against a policeman named Kelly, on Monday the 16th instant; whether it is usual for two Resident Magistrates to attend ordinary Sessions; and, whether Mr. Hodder, R.M., is a Magistrate for the County Clare?

Two Resident Magistrates attended at Fermoy on the occasion in question to adjudicate in cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act. It is not usual for two Resident Magistrates to attend ordinary Petty Sessions, except where they may happen to be available or their services required; the reply to the inquiry in the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the largo and increasing expenditure of time consumed by the putting and answering of questions, many of them involving matters of no public importance, the Government will consider the possibility of dealing with this serious hindrance to public business by restricting the number of questions to be put by any one Member; by not allowing- a question to be put by proxy or to be put a second time, should the Member putting it on the Paper not be in his place when called upon; by limit- ing the number of questions to be put to a fixed number, Members to ballot for places, except in the case of a question asked by special leave of Mr. Speaker; or by fixing a certain time, say half an hour, as the time permitted for questions?

I am quite sensible of the great waste of time that takes place in consequence of the great increase in the number of questions; but I am afraid the only way of altering the present system would be by new Rules of Procedure, and the time will not admit of such a course.

On this subject may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the suggestion made to him the other day that the Irish Constabulary Vote should be taken on an early day?

I do not know whether that question arises out of this, but I will endeavour to make arrangements for taking the Irish Constabulary "Vote as soon as possible consistently with the other business.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in accordance with his promise made on 12th November, 1888, he has examined carefully into the status of the Law Officers of the Crown, in order to see whether it would be advisable that they should continue to be allowed to take private practice; what conclusion the Government have come to on the subject; and what steps they propose to take in order to prevent the public duties of the Law Officers from being interfered with by their private practice?

The question has been receiving the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but, as I have stated before, it is one more for the decision of a future Government, as no change is practicable while the present Law Officers are in office. I may say, however, that no inconvenience or injury to the public interests will be caused by the present practice.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have abandoned the idea of legislating this Session in accordance with the suggestions contained in the Report of the Lords Committee on the Sweating System.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary informs me that he is preparing a Bill on this most important subject, and that there are some amendments to the existing law which, if the general consent of Members interested was forthcoming, might even, in what remains of the Session, be passed into law. The Government could not attempt to deal this Session with any controversial parts of the subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the extinction of licences clauses of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill?

The Government have had under their consideration the Amendments on the Paper to this Bill, and the nature of the opposition directed against it, and they have arrived at the conclusion that it is practically impossible in the present state of public business to pass the Bill in its entirety without calling on the House to submit to sacrifices the Government do not feel themselves justified in imposing. The licensing proposals in the Bill consists of three parts—(1) The allocation of a certain portion of the new taxation on intoxicating liquor for the purpose of extinguishing licences; (2) the power proposed to be conferred on County Councils to purchase and extinguish licences; (3) the suspension of the issue of new licences. The first of these proposals has received the assent of the House, both on the Second Reading of the Bill and after much discussion in Committee, so far as England is concerned. The Government, therefore, propose to proceed with the clauses dealing with the same point so far as Scotland and Ireland are concerned, thus setting aside the sum originally allocated for this special purpose. So far as the second part is concerned—the conferring of power on the County Councils to purchase licences—the Government do not propose to proceed with these clauses, at which the great bulk of the Amendments are directed, but they will ask the House to insert words the effect of which will be to allow the fund for the extinction of licences to accumulate until Parliament deals with the whole licensing question. This is very similar to the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford. The third part of the licensing portion of the Bill is one which it is believed commends itself to all Parties in the House, I mean the suspension of the issue of new licences, and the Government propose to proceed with it. It will thus be seen that the practical result of the change proposed by the Government will be that the money will remain earmarked for the purpose of the extinction of licences under any general reform of the Licensing Laws to which Parliament may assent; but that until this takes place the money, instead of being available for the purpose of extinction of licences by the County Councils, will be allowed to accumulate. Accordingly, Sub-section 2 of the clause now under consideration, as amended, will read that—

"The sum of £50,000 shall be applied to the purpose of such extinction of licences in Scotland as may be hereafter provided by any Act amending the Licensing Acts, and until such Act is passed shall be invested and accumulated as provided by this Act."

According to this, Clauses 5, G, and 7 will disappear from the Bill.

Arising out of the question, I wish to ask whether it is the intention of the Government during the present Parliament to introduce any measure amending the Licensing Laws so that this Amendment may be applied?

I think the hon. Gentleman must be satisfied to postpone any question of that kind until we have arrived at a further stage in the history of the present Parliament.

May I be allowed to give notice that there are a number of us who will oppose as steadfastly as we possibly can any proposal to vote any money to the purchase or extinction of licences.

I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman of which I have given him private notice—whether, in view of the anxiety at present prevailing with regard to the Metropolitan Police Force, he will make arrangements for the speedy settlement of the question by proceeding with the Police Superannuation Bill, and fixing the Second Reading for— I would suggest — tomorrow?

I trust the announcement I have made will shorten discussion on the Licensing Bill. I think it ought to do so, and therefore I hope that it will be in the power of the Government to propose the Second Reading of the Police Bill next week at the latest. Certainly it will follow on this Bill as soon as it is possible to make arrangements.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how many Civil servants over the age of 70 years are drawing salaries of £500 and upwards, and what total number of years' service under the Crown each of these has given, including broken and continuous service; whether in the interests of economy and the efficiency of the service, and considering the probable paucity of such veterans, he will consider the advisability of retiring them, upon pensions as liberal as can be granted under Section 9 of "The Superannuation Act, 1859," such pensions to be based upon the total number of years they have served under the Crown, irrespectively of the total period of service having been broken?

There are no central records immediately available which would enable me to answer the first part of the hon. Member's question. There is power to require the retirement on the ordinary pension rates of any officer who is unequal to the performance of the duties of his position, and the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments has reported in favour of the retirement of Civil servants at 65 on ordinary pension. Section 9 of the Superannuation Act only permits special pensions to be given in recompense for special service, and it is not, therefore, applicable to the cases mentioned by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report made on the sanitary condition of Derry Gaol by the expert who was commissioned to investigate it; also, to ask whether an official from the English Prison Department visited Derry Gaol in the autumn of 1889 with a view to professionally examining into its sanitary condition; if so, whether he is prepared to lay this official's Report upon the Table of the House?

I will lay the Report.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that the Sub-post Office at Limerigg, Slamannan, Stirlingshire, has been closed for about a month, to the great inconvenience of the residents in that district; and if he can state that the office will be re-opened, and when?

I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. The Post Office at Limerigg will be re-opened as soon as a suitable person for the situation of Sub-Postmaster can be S3lected and instructed in the duties of the office. The inconvenience which has been caused by the temporary closing of the office is regretted, but was unavoidable, and every effort will be made to re-open it at an early date.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the obstruction caused by the position of the present guard ship Triumph stationed in Cork Harbour; whether he is aware that, in swinging at change of tides, the ship obstructs the entire channel; and why she is not moored in that part of the harbour known as the Man-of-War Roads, instead of the narrowest portion of the river near the town of Cove?

The Triumph is so moored as to leave a sufficient passage for navigation on either side, whichever way she swings, and no com- plaints have been made either to the Admiralty or the Naval Authorities at Queenstown on the subject. There are serious objections to mooring the ship in the Man-of-War Roads, and as the present arrangement has been agreed to by the Cork Harbour Commissioners, I see no reason at present for any change.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any inquiry will be made into the condition of the people resident in the Great Turk and Caicos Islands; and whether, considering the recent Colonial Report upon the chronic destitution there prevailing, some practical steps will be taken to relieve and remedy the poor people's pressing wants?

No such inquiry is proposed, as the Secretary of State learns from periodical Reports that the inhabitants, though not well off, are as prosperous as those of many other parts of the West Indies, and that they are cheerful and orderly. The destitution mentioned in the Report for 1888, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, was exceptional, and was caused by the hurricane; but a sum of between £800 and £1,000 appears to have been spent by the local Relief Committee upon the sufferers by that calamity. The prosperty of the poorer class-depends chiefly on the salt industry, which fluctuates from year to year, but it is hoped that the fibre industry will shortly be introduced. The Commissioners of Turks Islands have spared no pains to ameliorate the condition of the people; a savings bank has been established, and has been eagerly taken advantage of; and mail communication with the islands has been improved.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before Heligoland is handed over to a Foreign Power, the wishes of the inhabitants will be consulted as to their remaining under the Union Jack?

I am afraid I must ask my noble Friend to be satisfied with the numerous answers which have been already given on the subject. We believe the Agreement to be one which will certainly not be to the disadvantage of the Heligolanders.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state to the House whether the question of the cession of Heligoland did not come from Germany?

I am sure that the hon. Member will see that that is a question which ought not to be put in this House.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to ascertain the views of the inhabitants of Heligoland on the subject of the proposed cession of the island to Germany; and whether it is intended that, in the event of the cession taking place, the inhabitants shall be liable to military service?

No steps have been taken to ascertain the views of the inhabitants of Heligoland. It is intended that all existing inhabitants shall be exempted from compulsory military service.

I beg to ask wether a recent demonstration in Heligoland has not proved conclusively that the inhabitants wish to remain connected with this country; and whether the attention of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has been drawn to the statement in the Pall Mall Gazette that the people are extremely hostile to the proposed cession of the island?

I have no official information of these statements.

I will ask whether any information has reached the Foreign Office with regard to the alleged conflict between French and Newfoundland fishermen, and what steps the Government propose to take to bring the dispute to a settlement?

I am not in a position to answer that question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down for to-morrow.

I will.

I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by what authority and upon what evidence or suspicion of crime or criminal intent were three English ladies shadowed by the police in Tipperary on or about the 8th or 9th of July of last year?

The Constabulary Authorities report that no English ladies were shadowed at Tipperary last July, as alleged in the question.

I stated last week the names of the three ladies who were shadowed. Does the right hon. Gentleman presume to set the statement of the Royal Irish Constabulary against the word of these ladies?

No, Sir; but I think it is very likely the ladies were mistaken.

I wish to ask the Home Secretary whether it is true that the new Chief Commissioner of Police has forbidden the Metropolitan Police to hold meetings of any kind for the discussion of their grievances?

The only prohibition of which I have heard is the prohibition of a meeting at Bow Street in special circumstances. The Commissioner of Police has prohibited that meeting, but he has-informed the men that their wishes and desires can be communicated in the regular way to the Government.

Having listened with satisfaction to the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the efforts which he has made to shorten the Debates upon the Licensing Bill; and bearing in mind that we are placed in some difficulty by the fact that we are to consider at once some of the Amendments which he has announced, I would ask him, as this particular proposal does not touch the substance of the proposals of the Government, whether he will consider the propriety of giving up the ear- marking of this money I That proposal has no practical effect, and I believe that the withdrawal of it would not weaken the position of the Government, and would greatly simplify the passage of a large portion of the Ministerial scheme.

I appreciate the spirit which has prompted the question of the right hon. Gentleman, but the Government cannot disregard the fact that this principle has received the approval of the House by a considerable majority. The Government do attach importance to this question. The money is to accumulate, to be at the disposal and under the direction of Parliament on future occasions. I will read the words again for the information of the right hon. Gentleman—

"The sum of £50,000 shall be applied for the purpose of such extinction of licences in Scotland as may he hereafter provided by any Act amending the Licensing Acts, and until such Act is passed shall be invested and accumulated as provided by this Act."

The money, therefore, will remain at the disposal of Parliament.

That leaves the Irish Question exactly where it was. Are we to understand that the section applying to Ireland is to remain as it stands?

I certainly propose that the words shall stand.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the object of the great majority of the Scotch Members is to obtain this sum of £50,000 for the advancement of free education, and does the right hon Gentleman propose, by pressing this ear-marking clause, to announce the determination of the Government to disappoint the nearly unanimous wish of Scotchmen?

I need hardly point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is almost impossible to meet the wishes of everybody in this House. We are obliged to adhere to the plan we have indicated.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to announce nakedly——

Order, order!

I withdraw that expression. I recognise that I went too far; but I wish to ask, how is it that the Government are not afraid to assert nakedly that in the case of Ireland this money is to be used for the extinction of licences? Why are not the words in the Scotch and Irish clauses to be the same?

There is no difference between the proposed application of the money in the case of Scotland and the application of it in the case of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member must have misunderstood my statement.

Is there any precedent for passing an Act of Parliament for the purpose of creating a fund to be hereafter used in this or a future Parliament?

It has been done.

I would ask whether, if this ear-marking clause is passed, it will in any way prevent Parliament from dealing with the money in another Session, or even in this, precisely as it pleases?

I know of nothing that can prevent Parliament from dealing with the money as it may think fit.

Does the Chief Secretary intend to persevere with the provisions relating to new licences, seeing that, as drawn, they are wholly inapplicable to the condition of Ireland?

It is my intention to persevere with the proposals. If it should be shown to be necessary, the words will be altered to meet the case of Ireland.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to tell the House that if the clause applying the money to the purpose of extinguishing licences is passed, it will be possible for Parliament to deal with the money anew without first repealing the clause?

Certainly not.

I would suggest that, after the announcement of the First Lord of the Treasury, it would be advisable to postpone the further consideration of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Bill and to proceed this evening with other Orders.

I may remind the hon. Member that the Committee have now under consideration the 1st sub-section of the clause, and that it does not involve any reference to the question of the extinction of licences. Therefore, it would be quite out of the question to adjourn it further.

But we shall come almost immediately to the 2nd sub-section, upon which the whole question will arise. I endorse the appeal of my hon. Friend that we should be given time in which to consider the character of the Government's proposals. The matter is very important, for if what the right hon. Gentleman opposite calls the ear-marking provision is inscribed in the Statute Book, supposing that in a future Session or future Parliament the House of Commons does not approve of applying the money to the purpose of the extinction of licences, it could not be applied to any other purpose without the consent of the House of Lords. We are to be committed in this Session to appropriating this money and accumulating it in future years to the purchase of licences, and that policy cannot be altered in the future without the consent of the House of Lords. If that is so, the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to shorten the proceedings on this Bill.

I think it is perhaps undesirable that I should enter into an argument on this question.

It is very desirable.

I am not sure whether it is perfectly in order to do so. I will only point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the proposal the Government has made was embodied in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford, and for which he voted last week.

Not to be devoted to licensing.

The effect of the proposal of the Government is substantially the same, only it is of a much more extended character, as the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Central Bradford last week. The proper course, undoubtedly, is to discuss the question when we arrive at the subsection in Committee, and I think I shall then be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. But I must remind him that any Licensing Bill that may pass this House must also be considered by the House of Lords. Therefore, any change in the present system, which we all desire to see changed, must have the approval and concurrence, as I believe it will have, of the other House.

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the sub-section under discussion may be disposed of; but I earnestly appeal to the leader of the House to postpone for one day the 2nd subsection, so as to allow Scotch Members opportunity to consider the hearing of the Government proposals.

I cannot give any promise to postpone Sub-section 2. When it is reached, the Government will hear the arguments and consider what course they will take.

What objection have the Government to withdrawing the clause? Is the First Lord of the Treasury aware that the Irish law on this subject is quite distinct from that of England?

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Attorney General for Ireland has placed on the Paper an Amendment which simply applies the English clause to Ireland, to which it is totally inapplicable.

I cannot venture to offer any opinion as to the value of the objection raised by my hon. Friend opposite to the Amendments of the Government as affecting Ireland; but I believe that, whatever value the objections have, they will apply equally to the Bill of the hon. Member for North Longford. I think the hon. Member will probably see that it will be convenient to deal with Ireland, England, and Scotland in one Bill if it be possible, and I will consider the best method of attaining that object.

I beg to give notice that, as the Irish Members feel that Ireland is vitally interested in the English clause, it will be their duty to put down all their Amendments on the English clause.

I have to ask whether the attention of the leader of the House has been drawn to the condition of the Notice Paper for this day, there appearing upon it 75 Orders, 30 of which are Government Orders; and whether, in view of the late period of the Session, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the desirability of making a final and definite statement on the subject of the measures to be proceeded with by the Government this Session?

I cannot answer a question of that kind without notice. The course taken by the Government to-night is evidence of their desire to afford every opportunity to the House of making progress with business.

I shall repeat the question to-morrow, because, whatever course may be adopted with reference to the Local Taxation Bill, I think there is no hope of our transacting all this business appearing on the Order Paper.

I wish to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a long time has elapsed since the Government undertook to nominate immediately a Select Committee to inquire into the financial relations of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and I will now ask him to say definitely on what, day the terms of the Reference will appear on the Paper?

I think I can undertake to bring the matter forward tomorrow. So that there may be agreement on the terms of Reference, I will consult hon. Members who are interested in the subject.

I beg to ask the Homo Secretary whether he is aware that a meeting intended to be held in opposition to the Local Taxation Bill in the Market Place, Northampton, on Sunday, was prohibited by the Borough Magistrates on Saturday; whether the Magistrates have any right to prohibit a meeting of law-abiding citizens; and whether there is any special penalty attaching to any one attending such a meeting after this prohibition?

I am afraid the question involves some difficult points of law, and I must have notice before giving a full answer. I assume that the Magistrates had reasonable ground for anticipating that there would be a breach of the peace or some disorder.

With reference to the answer just given, I will ask whether the Queen's Bench Division has not positively decided that Magistrates have no authority whatever to prohibit a meeting which seems likely to endanger the public peace; and whether this is not laid down in every recent text-book?

I have to ask whether the disorder anticipated at Northampton was anticipated to come from the promoters of the meeting or from the supporters of the Government?

To what day will the Indian Councils Bill be postponed?

Next Monday.