In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, it will be necessary that I should occupy the time of the House for a few moments in order to explain how the necessity for the Bill has arisen. By an Order in Council, dated the 28th of March, 1890, Burnley has been created into a Suffragan Bishopric. This Bill proposes to make provision for the maintenance of the Suffragan Bishopric, and it has received the approval of the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Manchester, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The present Rector of Burnley, Canon Townley Parker, is the owner of the advowson of the living, which is now worth £4,000 a year, with a population of 13,000, the rest of the spiritual wants of the town being provided for by other churches, which are not so well endowed. The proposal which Canon Parker makes is that, on the voidance of the living by him, he should surrender to his successor—the Bishop Suffragan of Burnley—the sum of about £2,000 a year, leaving the remaining £2,000 to be divided among the smaller churches of the town, and extended beyond the present parish of Burnley. A somewhat similar arrangement was made in the case of the Suffragan Bishopric of Stoke, which received the sanction of this House. In this case it is an absolute free gift on the part of Canon Parker, who surrenders this valuable property simply for the benefit of the town in which he has worked for something like 38 years. As the arrangement has received the approval of all the authorities I fail to see what possible objection can be made to such a noble gift. The Bill has already passed the House of Lords without opposition, and I now beg to move that it be read a second time.

In moving the Amendment of which I have given notice, I wish to say that I entirely concur as to the merits of the gift which the Rector of Burnley proposes to make. I have no doubt that he is actuated by the highest motives of benevolence and generosity, and that he is desirous of taking the best course of dealing with the very large funds of this somewhat remarkable rectory. But the objections to the Bill are of a numerous and weighty character. In the first place, is it desirable that a question affecting the status, position, and organisation of the Church of England in East Lancashire should be decided by a private Bill in the same way as other questions are decided by a Railway or Canal Bill? My hon. Friend says that there was no opposition to the measure in the House of Lords, but the reason was that under the locus standi arrangements which govern the procedure of a Private Bill Committee it was not possible to formulate an opposition. My hon. Friend further states that the Bill has received the approval of the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Manchester, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. So far as the Archbishop and Bishop are concerned I can quite understand that they approve of the Bill which provides the parochial funds shall be applied to the maintenance of the episcopacy. But the people themselves, who ought to be consulted, have never been consulted. The measure has never even been submitted to the Vestry, and there is this remarkable fact, that it is a Bill to dispose of funds originally called into existence for parochial purposes without the consent of the parishioners being asked in any form or shape. I think before a measure of this sort is treated as a Private Bill there ought to have been some kind of Wharncliffe meeting of the parishioners, and it is unfair to say that the Bill has not been opposed, when the parishioners had no means of opposing it in the House of Lords. It is also objected that of this £4,000 per annum, which is the present revenue of the rectory, but which, it is calculated, will be considerably increased hereafter, no less than £2,000 is assigned for the purpose of creating a Suffragan Bishopric of Burnley. I submit that the churchmen of Lancashire are wealthy and influential enough to maintain a Suffragan Bishop without appropriating these funds, and if the revenue is to be diverted it ought to be diverted for local purposes. Upon these grounds, and these grounds only, I have been asked by my constituents at Burnley, who have not had an opportunity of being consulted in the matter, to oppose the Bill. Everybody appears to have been consulted except those who are most particularly interested. In the case of Stoke, which is the only analogous case, the Hybrid Committee to which the Bill was referred expressly introduced a provision that a future Suffragan Bishopric should not be erected in Stoke-upon-Trent. This Bill is directly opposed to the decision then arrived at, because it proposes that every Suffragan Bishop of Burnley shall be Rector of the parish. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.

I cordially acknowledge the manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. S. Balfour) has spoken of my friend and neighbour, the rector of Burnley, and the handsome recognition he has made of the extremely liberal spirit in which this gift is proposed to be conferred by Canon Parker. I live in the immediate neighbourhood, and know something of the circumstances of the town. I, therefore, wish to explain why I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, although I know that he represents the feeling of some of his own constituents, and of mine also, in opposing the Bill. In the first place, there has been an entire absence of opposition to the Bill in Parliament. No objection was raised to it in the House of Lords, and no Petition has been presented against it in the House of Commons. To-day is the last day for the presentation of Petitions, and up to this time no Petition has been deposited. I venture to say, therefore, that it would be a strong and extreme measure for the House to adopt the course now suggested of throwing out the Bill. My hon. Friend says that the parishioners have not been consulted, but, as far as I know, the Churchmen of Burnley unanimously approve of the measure. When it was first announced that the rector proposed to make this generous gift, there was a chorus of approval, not only from churchmen, but from the inhabitants generally, and although there has been some little opposition since, I believe that it has been based upon a misapprehension. In my opinion, this is a most liberal measure, and the kind of measure of reform which Liberals should desire to see carried out. There has long been a desire on the part of Burnley and the neighbourhood that this rich living should be re-distributed, so that other districts in the town should receive some benefit from it. Upon two occasions the rector has met that feeling. He has devoted out of the revenue of the living £150 a year, or £450 in all, to three of the poorer parishes in Burnley, and for another parish he has set aside an annual sum of £150, irrevocably as an endowment. By this Bill he proposes to devote about £2,000 a year to various districts within the ancient parish of Burnley. This Bill, therefore, simply re-distributes the resources of a large living, which is an object in itself most desirable, and one which, I think, will commend itself to the House. It abolishes the private patronage now connected with the living. At present the living is entirely in the hands of a private person—the Rector of Burnley, who can do what he likes with it. He can sell the advowson, with the consequent scandal of putting it up for sale in a newspaper advertisement. Such a scandal will be prevented for ever if this Bill is passed. Sooner or later the Rector proposes to retire, and his successor will not only be Rector of Burnley, bat will be' able to give a helping hand to the Bishop of Manchester as the Suffragan Bishop of Burnley, the Bishopric having already been constituted by an Order in Council, dated March 21, this year. My hon. Friend says that it is a serious thing to decide a matter of this kind by a private Bill. I quite agree with him. I very much dislike the system of private ownership in connection with these matters, but the present Bill destroys the very thing to which he objects, and if the measure passes, it will be impossible hereafter to deal with the living by a private Bill. At present, however, it is the only course open. My hon. Friend says that the revenue is likely to increase. I am not sure that it will be so, seeing that a large portion of it is derived from leases for 999 years, and, although there may be an increment when the leases fall in, I hardly think that my hon. Friend looks forward 999 years. There are two alternatives open to the House—either to pass the Bill, which will be a great reform and a benefit to the town of Burnley, or to reject it, and to continue the present order of things, which appropriates this revenue of" £4,000 for the benefit of a population of 13,000, instead of making it available for a population of something like 80,000. Moreover, the living will remain as a piece of private patronage, instead of being in the gift of the Bishop of Manchester, and available for wider and more general purposes.

My right hon. Friend says that there are only two alternatives m dealing with this measure. I would venture to suggest a third, namely, the precedent which was set in the case of the rectory of Stoke-upon-Trent. There are many points of similarity between the two eases. Both are rich livings; in both cases the proposal was to make a wise and generous application of the funds for the better service of the Church, and in both it was proposed to place the patronage in the Bishop of the diocese. But such a proposal, which necessarily comes before the House in the form of a Private Bill, establishes a precedent of a novel and dangerous kind, and consequently requires very careful attention. I venture to submit that the House would do well to follow the precedent established in the ease of Stoke, and to refer the Bill, after having read it a second time, to a Hybrid Committee, which would inform the House of circumstances which would aid us in coming to a decision on the matter.

I listened with attention to the speech of my right hon. Friend near me (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth), but I must say that I strongly object to deal with fragments of a huge national question in the form of a Private Bill. What would be thought if it were proposed to make similar arrangements in connection with the Army or Navy, or any other branch of the Public Service? I, for one, feel bound to protest against such a mode of procedure: and I do not think any hon. Member will be prepared to get up and say that the National Church is not, for all practical purposes, a branch of the National Service of the country. There is, therefore, to my mind, the gravest possible objection to my proposal for dealing with questions of this kind by a Private Bill. Without desiring to enter into the merits of the case, I think that we who look forward to a general measure for effecting a final settlement of all these questions will not be prepared to vote for the Bill. I, therefore, give my hearty support to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for the rejection of the Bill. There are some features of the case which are open to serious objection. The present Rector of Burnley is the owner of the advowson. I presume that the Bill is not to take effect until he vacates the living; and, therefore, I think it is for the House to determine whether £2,000 a year is not too large a sum to leave for the incoming Rector. If we are to cut down the income of the living, I do not see why we should not lop off another £1,000, and make it available for the extension of the Established Church in other parts of Burnley. If a re-adjustment is required, I think it ought to cover a much wider ground. The time is not far distant, I believe, when we shall have the whole question of the endowment of the Church in Scotland and Wales before Parliament, and those who are looking forward to the increased usefulness of of the Established Church will then have an opportunity of discussing the whole question.

I do not see why the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) should endeavour to convey an imputation against Canon Townley Parker for what is really a very generous act on his part. He is the owner of an advowson worth £4,000 a year, but he proposes, if Parliament will allow him, to give up this important piece of patronage, and to devote the living for ever afterwards, not only to the benefit of Burnley, but to that of the diocese at large. I do not think that we on this side of the House can support the Bill from quite the same point of view as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth). It is not because we dislike private patronage that we support the Bill, but because we have really at heart the interests of the Church at large. The diocese of Manchester is a growing diocese, with a large population urgently in need of increased facilities for following the worship they believe to be right, and it is proposed to place at the disposal of the Bishop this large and rich living. It is a very generous act on the part of the Rector of Burnley, and one which I think Parliament ought gratefully to accept. Precisely the same thing has been done in the borough of Blackburn, although in that case it was not necessary to apply for an Act of Parliament. A living has been given there to a clergyman who acts as a Suffragan Bishop to the Bishop of Manchester, and I have never heard any objection raised to the fact that that gentleman performs functions which are for the benefit of the country at large. I do not propose to enter into the question which has been raised he the hon. Member for Bradford, but I do not think, even from his own point of view, that the question of Disestablishment will be advanced or retarded in the slightest respect by the fact that either the rector or the Bishop has the use of these funds.

I presume that the noble Lord has no intention of misrepresenting or doing an injustice to me. My views are well known, and have been often explained both here and elsewhere. I have not the slightest wish to touch any national property at all, and I would remind him that there was no confiscation of the Irish Church Fund.

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to confer the Church property of Burnley upon Lunatic Asylums, which is what was mainly done in the case of the Irish Church Fund? Certainly I do not hold that view, but I do not think the question of Disestablishment will be in the slightest respect advanced or retarded by anything this Bill may do. In this case the patron himself, the Bishop, and the people of Burnley, are strongly in favour of the Bill, and, seeing that it will be of great advantage to the diocese at large, I would urge the House to read it a second time, although I do so upon very different grounds from those which have been adduced by the right hon. Member for Clitheroe.

I hope that the House will endeavour to approach the question without losing itself in that cloud of prejudice which the hon. Member for Bradford was the first to throw out, and which the noble Lord who has just addressed the House has certainly not clarified. I think we ought to look upon the matter as men of common sense. Here is a living of £4,000. The advowson is the property of the person who is now the Rector, and he has the uncontrolled disposition of that advowson. He proposes to vest it in the Bishop of Manchester, and it is further proposed so to re-distribute the value as that £2,000 shall be attached to the existing church, and the remaining £2,000 shall be apportioned in augmentation of the minor livings of Burnley. I cannot see that any possible case whatever has been made out for the rejection of the Bill. I, therefore, hope that the hon. Member for Burnley will not press his objection; and in regard to his second proposal that it should be referred to a Hybrid Committee, I confess that I do not see that it would do any great amount of harm, even if no gain is likely to result from the adoption of such a course.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees says that all the Bill does is to transfer this property from a private owner to a public servant. Perhaps the Bishop of Manchester is willing to accept that designation in a general sense, but I think in no other?

I meant nothing more than a general sense.

I think I am entitled to place my own interpretation, upon the right hon. Gentleman's words. Of course, I am unable to say what was in his mind, but I wish to point out that the loose use of terms by a right hon. Gentleman of such weight and position is calculated to render our discussion somewhat difficult. All I have to say is that the Bishop of Manchester is in no ordinary sense a public servant. He is neither appointed by the State nor paid by the State, and he cannot be dismissed by the State. He is, therefore, in no Parliamentary sense a public servant. I should like to point out to the hon. Member for West Bradford that this is a Private Bill. If the advowson of Burnley were a public endowment created by this House, it would be unnecessary to proceed by Private Bill. The very fact that the question is being dealt with by a Private Bill proves the reverse of the case the hon. Member for West Bradford would have the House believe, namely, that the endowment is national property. The Rector proposes to make an extremely liberal re-distribution of this property, and I cannot understand how such a provision can be objected to by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

If anything is calculated to defeat this Bill it would be the speeches of the noble Lord opposite and the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Both of them have endeavoured in a very special manner to raise the question of Disestablishment.

I was very far from raising that question. It was raised, and, in my opinion, most unnecessarily, by the hon. Member for West Bradford.

I equally deprecate the raising of such a question. My remarks were only made in reply to the hon. Member for West Bradford and the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees.

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. I did not raise the question of Disestablishment. What I urged was that this property ought not to form the subject of a Private Bill, but might fairly a wait the time when the whole question of the present condition of the Established Church will have to undergo review.

All I wished to say was that I desire to support the Bill, and that if anything would induce me to vote against it, it would be the speeches of the noble Lord opposite and the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Byron Reed). I am under the impression that the Bishop of Manchester was appointed by the State. I always thought that he was appointed by the Crown, acting upon the advice of the Minister of the Crown; and I regard the Minister of the Crown as the representative of the State. But I do not think it is necessary to discuss the position of the Bishop of Manchester at this moment. The question is whether the proposed Bill is one which, under the circumstances, would be advantageous to the town and people of Burnley. I hope the House will bear that fact in mind, and will vote upon the Bill quite irrespective of the question of Establishment or Disestablishment, which really does not arise upon it.

I will not put the House to the trouble of a Division if it is understood that the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means is carried out, and that the Bill is referred to a Hybrid Committeee.

I must decline to accept the Motion.

Then I trust that the hon. Member for Burnley will divide the House upon it.

I think the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. Maclure) ought to agree to this proposal, especially after the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means. I understand that a precisely similar course was taken in the case of the Stoke Rectory Bill. It involves a question of divided interests, which ought to be considered by a Committee constituted as Committees generally are, to whom questions partaking more or less of a public character are referred.

I also voted for the Second Reading, although the speech of the hon. Member for East Bradford; made it somewhat difficult for Liberal Churchmen to do so. I must, however, join in the appeal that, having been read a second time, the Bill should be referred to a Hybrid Committee. The measure itself, carrying out, as it does, a useful Church reform, is a step in the right direction, and ought to be considered without in any respect prejudicing any larger question. The House ought to allow the people of Burnley to be heard, and every interest to be represented, as can only be done before a Select Committee.

I beg to withdraw my opposition to the Motion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Address to the Crown on the French Fisheries dispute voted by the Legislature of Newfoundland has yet been received; and, if so, whether it will be presented to Parliament?

The Address referred to has not yet been received. It may be expected by the mail arriving about the 2nd or 3rd of next month. There will be no objection to giving it to Parliament whenever Papers are presented.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give the House any information regarding the alleged conflict between French and Newfoundland fishermen?

No such information has yet been received.

Are we really to understand that the Government have taken no steps to ascertain whether these conflicts have occurred or not?

If such an occurrence has happened, the Local Authorities must make inquiries before reporting, and it is only right to wait a reasonable time for their Report.

I beg to give notice that I will repeat this question to-morrow, and until the Foreign Office take proper steps to find out whether this conflict has occurred or not.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday, 8th of June, a number of police constables and detectives (some of the police wearing side arms and carrying revolvers) entered the grounds of the Catholic Chapel at Abbeyside, County Waterford, as the usual open air Corpus Christi procession was being carried out, and remained on duty until the ceremonies had concluded; that on the same occasion two disguised policemen (one of them a Protestant named Rawson) entered the church with the procession and remained there until the congregation had left; and can he explain what was the object of this action towards people of the district while engaged in celebrating one of the most sacred and impressive ceremonies of their religion?

The Constabulary Authorities report that four constables only entered the chapel grounds on the occasion in question. None of them wore side arms or carried revolvers. All were Roman Catholics, and desired to be witnesses of the procession.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Very Rev. Canon Keller, parish priest at Youghal, was on Thursday last pursued whilst driving through his parish by three policemen on a car; and for what reason the rev. gentleman was so beset?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the rev. Gentleman mentioned is actively engaged in endeavouring to promote an illegal conspiracy in connection with which he is associated with a man named Maurice Doyle, who accompanied him on the occasion in question. They were accordingly followed by the police, who appear to have acted rightly.

Is the Chief Secretary entitled to charge respectable gentlemen in Ireland with being engaged in a criminal conspiracy when no charge has been made, and no prosecution under- taken; will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw and apologise for his statement, or will he institute a prosecution against the rev. Canon?

No, Sir; I see no grounds for withdrawing my state merit. I do not know whether the hon. Member for East Mayo is authorised to repudiate on the part of Canon Keller any intention whatever to promote the Plan of Campaign.

Is a Minister of the Crown entitled to charge a man with crime, and then persist in the charge unless the person repudiates it? Has any criminal charge been made against Canon Keller, or is it intended to proceed against him?

If any evidence in support of a charge is forthcoming no doubt a charge will be brought. The hon. Gentleman is as perfectly aware as I am that there may be complete moral evidence—[Home Rule cries of "Oh!" and an hon. MEMBER: "Immoral"]—that a person is engaged in a particular conspiracy of this kind, which is yet not of a character to support a criminal prosecution.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really take up the position that the existence of what he chooses to regard as moral evidence justifies him in making these very serious charges which he is not prepared to substantiate?

The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question. I will answer it by asking him another. Does he mean to say that I am precluded from asserting of any man in Ireland that he is engaged in supporting the Plan of Campaign, unless there is evidence for a prosecution forthcoming?

Yes; and then you would choose the Magistrate.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what compensation the men are to get who were recently batoned, imprisoned, and prosecuted at Portumna, as is now admitted, at the instance of police whose evidence on oath the Magistrates refused to believe, and who have since been exposed and dismissed from the Force?

I have asked for a special Report, but have not yet received it. The facts stated by the hon. Gentleman do not agree with the Report I received on a previous occasion. As to the question of compensation, I think that the ordinary remedy should be resorted to.

What is the ordinary remedy, the police having been exposed and dismissed from the Force?

Only one man has been discharged.

Why do not the Government prosecute these men?

The hon. and learned Gentleman does not rightly apprehend the facts of the case; but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question for the present.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works have reported favourably on an extension of the railway to deep water at Bantry to accommodate the rapidly increasing fishing traffic on that coast, and recommended a grant to be made under the provisions of the Light Railway Act of last Session; whether this railway extension was also recommended by the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works and sanctioned by the Grand Jury at the last Spring Assizes held in Cork; whether the Cork and Bandon Railway Company are prepared to work the extension line, and to contribute a substantial sum towards the cost of its construction; and whether, the necessary preliminary steps having been taken, the Treasury will now sanction the grant and enable the undertaking to be carried out without further delay?

The statements contained in the first three paragraphs are substantially correct. The distance is about a mile. The cost would be very heavy, and it is thought there are other works more urgent than this.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Memorial presented to Colonel Lowry, the Vice Lieutenant of County Tyrone, asking for the appointment of MR. P. M'Laughlin to the Commission of the Peace, was signed by MR. Hamilton, J. P., senior Magistrate for the Dromore district, the local Catholic clergy, the Presbyterian minister, and the respectable farmers and merchants of the district of all religious denominations; and if the refusal to appoint MR. M'Laughlin was not due to the fact that he is a Catholic, whether he will state what the cause is?

I have not seen the Memorial referred to. But the Vice Lieutenant assures me that the fact of the gentleman referred to being a Roman Catholic was regarded by him as a strong reason to appoint him to the Commission of the Peace if possible. No public advantage would be gained by stating the reasons which I understand led to the decision in the case, which rested, of course, wholly in the discretion of the Vice Lieutenant.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that with a Roman Catholic population in the county of 10,000 there are only four Roman Catholic Magistrates?

I do not know whether these statistics are correct. If they are they would justify the view taken by the Vice Lieutenant, that the fact of the gentleman being a Roman Catholic would be a strong reason to appoint him.

MR. M'Laughlin is the most respectable Catholic in the district.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland upon what grounds the Lord Chancellor appointed MR. Frederick A. Guy to the Commission of the Peace for the County Tyrone; what is the nature of MR. Guy's connection with the county; whether he has been long resident there; and whether he possesses any real property in the district?

In regard to the first paragraph of the question, I must refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply which I gave on Friday last. I do not know how long MR. Guy has been a resident of the county, but he has a residence and property in the district.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would place in the Tea Room an Admiralty chart of the sea round Heligoland?

I have given directions for two of these charts to be sent to the Librarian of the House for this purpose.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether we allow the free entry of Foreign men-of-war into our fortified ports, a practice different from that of other Powers; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to issue instructions to Naval Commanders or Colonial Governors with regard to the entry into such ports of foreign ships of war and transports carrying troops?

Limitations have, in certain instances, been placed upon the entry of foreign men-of-war and transports into certain specified ports. The Admiralty are not in favour of a general or wholesale restriction, as they believe such Regulations to be unnecessary, and likely, if made reciprocal, to greatly limit the present cruising grounds of Her Majesty's Navy.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on what date Messrs. Ross were struck off the list of contractors for the Government; on what date the War Office issued a Circular to the Volunteers strongly recommending the purchase of the Slade-Wallace equipment; at what date the War Office became aware that Messrs. Ross were under special arrangements with the Slade-Wallace or Wallace firm involving a practical monopoly of the supply of this equipment to the whole Volunteer Force, or whether they are now aware of it; whether, in fact, a very large proportion, practically the whole, of the sets of this equipment so recommended by the War Office have been made, and are still being made, by Messrs. Ross; whether the War Office have taken any, and what, steps to inform Commanding Officers of Volunteers that this firm was not allowed to manufacture for the Army; and on what ground the War Office thus permits and encourages the supply to the Volunteers of work and materials which it will not permit to be supplied to the Regular Forces?

Messrs. Ross were struck off the list of contractors in March, 1888, and the fact has been publicly announced so frequently that it is impossible to suppose that Commanding Officers of Volunteers are ignorant of it. For the rest, I will refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him on the 8th of May, and will only add that so long as the equipments purchased by Volunteer corps out of their own funds are found on inspection to pass the standard required, the War Department cannot concern itself as to the source from which they come.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered the second paragraph of the question.

The second paragraph did not seem to me to be germane to the subject. The War Office have no official information as to the arrangements between Colonel Wallace and the firm of Messrs. Ross. The War Office have given and will give no orders to Messrs. Ross; but they have no control over the places to which the Volunteers may go to purchase articles out of their own funds.

Is it not a fact that the War Office recommended the use of this new equipment, and knew that Messrs. Ross were the only people who could make it, and that the War Office issued this recommendation within a few months after Messrs. Ross had been struck off the list?

No; it is not the fact. The War Office have no knowledge that Messrs. Ross are the only contractors that can make the equipment.

For the Volunteers.

The Volunteers, like the Government, can obtain the equipment from Colonel Wallace's factory if they desire to do it. There was an interval of 15 months between the striking off of Messrs. Ross and the issue of the Circular.

I beg to give notice that I will raise the whole question on the Vote for the Volunteers.

Where is the factory of Colonel Wallace?

I believe it is situated in Bermondsey.

Will the hen. Gentleman give the address?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the effect of the provisions which the Board have inserted in Electric Lighting Orders now before Parliament, authorising Local Authorities to transfer their undertakings, will be practically to confer upon the Board of Trade powers to perform functions heretofore exercised by Parliament, and also deprive the public of the means that they now have of resisting any such transfer by appearing before a Parliamentary Committee where evidence is taken upon oath; and whether the Board would have the power to administer an oath if the functions of Parliament were so vested in that Department?

Section 11 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, provides that—

"No Local Authority, Company, or person shall by any contract or assignment transfer to any other Company or person, or divest themselves of any legal powers given to them, or any legal liabilities imposed on them by this Act, or by any licence, order, or special Act, without the consent of the Board of Trade."

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he could state to the House how many vacancies for engineer students were there last year, and how many candidates competed for them; what were the respective numbers this year; how many candidates qualified in each case; is it on account of a difficulty in getting suitable candidates for studentships that an attempt is now being made to admit assistant engineers direct from the private engineering establishments; how many vacancies have been offered with this object; and how many candidates have been got to compete for them, and with what result?

The number of competitors for vacancies for engineer students in this and last year were given in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Northampton on the 3rd of June. The admission of assistant engineers from private engineering establishments was not instituted on account of any difficulty in obtaining suitable candidates for studentships, but to extend the area of competition, and raise the status of the competitors. The proposal is to give about 10 nominations annually. Five candidates competed and three qualified at the recent examination. This is the first year of outside competition for direct appointments, and I have little doubt that in subsequent years the number of outside competitors will steadily increase.

I beg to ask the Vice President, of the Committee of Council on Education what steps have been taken to remove the impression created by the recent Circulars from the Science and Art Department, "that all grants from that Department will be withheld in future from Higher Grade Advanced Elementary Schools"?

I have already stated that this matter is under consideration, with a view to a serious modification of the Circular in question; and, I may add, in order to remove the fears of which the hon. Member speaks, that in the result no impediment whatever will be placed upon Science Instruction in the schools he mentions.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to a representation made to him in April last by the inhabitants of Greystones, to the effect that the harbour recently constructed there had silted up, and is practically useless, and to his statement that Government are considering the matter, whether any decision has been come to; and whether the Treasury, in view of the fact that the plans were carried out in the face of the representations of the fishermen and boatowners, will grant the sum necessary to erect a north groyne, and dredge the accumulated shingle out of the harbour?

If the locality or the Grand Jury will contribute a fair proportion of the cost of the additional works required, I shall have no objection to directing the Board of Works to undertake them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can lay upon the Table a Memorandum showing the details of the Police Bill, and in tabular form the rates of pay in the Metropolitan and City Police, and the rates of superannuation now obtaining therein, and also in Constabulary Forces in Great Britain, and those given by the present Bill and the previous Bills upon the question?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I will ask him if he will include in the Return similar particulars with regard to the Irish Constabulary?

I will take an early opportunity of laying upon the Table a Memorandum, which I have had in preparation, and which will exhibit the benefits conferred upon the police by the Superannuation Bill as compared with the existing system, and will state as many of the details mentioned by my hon. Friend as can be promptly given. It would take some time to collect the required information from all the provincial forces. I must have notice of the question of the hon. Member for East Mayo.

Will a similar Memorandum be drawn up with regard to the Scotch police?

I think it would be impossible.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will supply the House with the Actuarial Reports upon which the scheme of the Government was based?

I will consider whether the documents can be laid upon the Table with propriety.

When will the Police Bill be proceeded with?

The Government will proceed with the Police Bill on the earliest opportunity. They recognise the grave importance of this question, and there will be no delay on their side.

Will the right hon. Gentleman name a day? Does the earliest opportunity mean after the Local Taxation Bill has been disposed of, or does it mean immediately? It is very important that a day should be named. Why not next Thursday?

I am not able to name a day, but I hope to do so on Thursday.

If the Bill passes the Second Reading, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to refer it to a Committee?

Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that a meeting, intended to be held in the market place of Northampton, on 22nd June, by the opponents of the Local Taxation Bill, was forbidden by the Borough Magistrates to be held at that place; whether Magistrates of a Borough have a right to forbid public meetings in the market place of the Borough to protest against Bills before this House; and whether persons attending a meeting forbidden by them incur any legal penalties; if so, of what kind? I may perhaps be allowed to read a copy of the proclamation which I have here. It runs thus—