I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the following passage on page 11 of the Report on the Blue Book for Zululand, 1889: "number of prisoners committed to Etchowe Gaol 113, average daily number in gaol 43," how many cells in Etchowe Prison are exclusively reserved for prisoners, and what is the size of those cells?

The gaol at Etchowe comprises seven wards for the confinement of prisoners, the gross area of which is believed to be about 9,000 cubic feet.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House any applications which, during the course of the past 18 months, have been forwarded to the Lords of the Treasury by Mr. J. S. Purcell, C.B., the Controller of Stamps, on the subject of the remuneration paid him for controlling the manufacture of Indian stamps and stamped papers, together with any Reports addressed to their Lordships by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue relative thereto, and any replies to the same which have been sent from the Treasury to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or to Mr. Purcell; and whether a further appeal from Mr. Purcell, dated the 21st April last, has been received at the Treasury; and, if so, whether any reply has been made thereto?

It would be very unusual to lay on the Table the correspondence which may have passed between different Departments of the Government. There are very strong objection to such a course. The matter is now under consideration, and, of course, a reply will be made to the further appeal of Mr. Purcell.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in view of his statement that the native Indian signallers have never been entitled to house allowance in lieu of accommodation in a telegraph building, he will make inquiries from India as to whether it is a fact that such allowance has been made to the signallers, both European and Indian, and for what period; and whether the Secretary of State will give instructions that where identical duties are performed by officers of the Department, and where no social or religious customs forbid occupancy of quarters in the telegraph building, equality of treatment shall be accorded European and Indian Officials alike?

The Secretary of State has satisfied himself by reference to the best authority that no such allowance has ever been made and no further inquiry seems to be necessary. Equality of treatment has always been, and always will be, accorded to European and Indian officials alike.

Upon that statement I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with a list showing the cases in which there has been a difference.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by Doaraka Nath Ganguli, Assistant Secretary to the Indian Association at Calcutta, in reference to the excessive mortality on the tea plantations in Assam, wherein he states that the rate per million of deaths among Act labourers was in 1883, 61·5; 1884, 58·9; 1885, 51·5; 1886, 58·9; 1887, 57·2; 1888, 62·9.

"The Report of the year 1888 is the latent one yet received, and it does not show (hat, so far as the percentage of death is concerned, there hag been any progress except in the downward direction.

"In 1888 there were two gardens, in one of which the rate of mortality was 30L6 and in the other 309·5";

I also wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether of late years any tea gardens in Assam have been closed by Government, as respects indentured labourers, under the powers provided by the law when the mortality has been excessive; and if not, why, having regard to the very excessive mortality in some gardens, the law has not been enforced as it was in former years?

Yes, Sir; the rates of mortality given in the question of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) are correct per thousand. The mortality in the tea gardens has been engaging the attention of the Secretary of State and the Government of India ceaselessly for years past, and, as I have on several occasions stated to the House, a special investigation is going on now. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell), I have to say that no tea gardens have been closed since the year 1884, because, in the opinion of the Sanitary officers, the remedial measures which have been enforced were more efficacious than closure.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that either by law or regulation it has been the invariable practice to close these gardens when the mortality has exceeded 100 in the 1,000, and the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that in 1888 there were two cases in which the mortality was upwards of 300 per 1,000?

I believe it used to be the case to shut up the gardens when the mortality rose to a certain amount; but now, under new sanitary arrangements, instead of shutting them up, preventive sanitary measures are prescribed and enforced.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the protest of the civilians of the Bombay Presidency against the treatment of the Mamlatdar witnesses in the Crawford case, and especially to the strong language of Mr. Propert, a British official of 35 years' standing in India, wherein he condemns the breach of faith as fatal to the prestige of the British name; and whether the Government will give an opportunity for a full discussion of this question, so vitally connected with the reputation for good faith of the British Government in India?

Yes, Sir; and the strong language used by Mr. Propert will be found in Parliamentary Paper No. 131 presented this Session. The Secretary of State has no objection to the fullest discussion of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in requiring the removal of officers who have been guilty of corruption from the position of Judges.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State is aware of the grievances under which certain chiefs of Bundelkund, Central India, are suffering in connection with the construction of the Indian Midland Railway; whether the Secretary to the Government of India, Public Courts Department, in Order No. 272, R. C, dated 7th of April, 1886, referring to this railway, said—

"The Government of India is willing to award compensation for such lands as were taken up from the several Durbars for a temporary purpose, and now occupied permanently;"

"I am pleased to rule, without the least hesitation, that no claims from any of the chiefs for compensation of any kind should be admitted;"

No representations have been made to the Secretary of State by the chiefs of Bundelkund of any grievances in connection with the construction of the Indian Midland Railway. If such representations were made, they would, of course, be carefully inquired into and considered. The words of the Government of India referred to in paragraph 2 of the question are incorrectly quoted. They should be—

"The Government of India accept the principle of paying compensation for land which has up to dale been taken up temporarily under Class B."

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that at Dungarvan, on Friday, 20th June, the Mayor and ex-Mayor of Waterford, engaged on business of a private character, were followed by a policeman a considerable distance out of the town; and whether he will give directions that shadowing of this character be discontinued?

The Constabulary Authorities report that it is not the fact that the Mayor and ex-Mayor of Waterford were shadowed. They appear, however, to have been in the company of a man whose movements are watched by the police, as they have reason to believe that he is endeavouring to promote boycotting and intimidation.

I bog to ask the Attorney I 'General for Ireland whether Thomas Fox is being systematically shadowed by the police in County Clare; and, if so, for what purpose?

The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the movements of the man mentioned are watched by the police in consequence of information in their possession.

Is it not the fact that this man was arrested for firing at Mr. Blood; that when he was brought before the Magistrates he was discharged, and that it is only since his discharge that he has been systematically shadowed?

My information does not enable me to say whether that is a fact or not.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of the trial of Mr. James O'Brien, of Killeagh, at Youghal, County Cork, on Friday last, on a charge under the Criminal Law and Procedure Act of "having obstructed Constable Quinn in the discharge of his duty"; whether he is aware that the Magistrates, Messrs. Hodder and Irwin, inflicted no punishment on the accused, and that the constable swore that the alleged act of obstruction was that the defendant "followed me about, and, in consequence I was unable to discharge my duty;" and, if, in view of the fact that the prisoner was handed over by Constable Quinn to another constable, and taken to Cork Goal for seven days, the Government will award some compensation to Mr. O'Brien for the imprisonment inflicted upon him without trial?

I am informed that the facts are not accurately represented in the question. The constable's evidence on oath was to the effect that O'Brien had followed him about, pointed him out, and called public attention to him, thereby preventing him from discharging the detective duty on which he was engaged. He was convicted on the charge, but the Magistrates, taking into account the fact that he had been in custody from the 16th to the 20th of June, ordered that he should be further detained in custody only until the rising of the Court.

Are we now informed that it is not permissible for a man who is being shadowed to shadow his own shadow?

I have stated the facts of the case. The constable was on detective duty and was followed about, pointed out to the public, and prevented from discharging his duty.

Does the Attorney General for a moment mean to assert that it is a crime to point out a detective?

No, Sir; that is not a en me; but following a plain clothes officer about while he is engaged in detective duty, and pointing that officer out as being engaged in such duty, may, in my opinion, amount to an obstruction of the officer in the execution of his duty.

Does the right hon. Gentleman lay down that it is a crime to point out a policeman in plain clothes? How is it to be known that a man is a policeman if he is not in uniform?

I have already said that it is not a crime to point out a policeman dressed in plain clothes; but it is an interference with him in the discharge of his duty to follow him about and point him out to the public.

Is the pointing out of a policeman in plain clothes and the following him about sufficient to justify a man being arrested, carried off to gaol, and kept there for several days?

I certainly do mean to assert and to lay down that obstruction of a policeman in the discharge of his duty may be of a character to constitute an offence.

May I ask the Home Secretary whether I should be guilty of a crime if I were to go out into Parliament Street and point out and follow one of his plain clothes policemen?

The hon. Member has asked me a highly hypothetical question, which it is impossible to answer.

Under what provision of the law was this man arrested by a second constable and bail refused?

That does not arise out of the question on the Paper, and I must ask for notice.

Is it not the fact that the man who was arrested was himself being followed by the detective whom he pointed out?

I have given the House all the information in my possession.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that there is a printed notice in the Post Office at Harrogate that letters from "London and all parts (except Ireland)" are delivered on Sundays; whether this rule applies to many other places in England; why should such an exception be made; and why is the promised arrangements for Sunday delivery of Irish letters at Newcastle and Staffordshire not being carried out?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that there are no trains by which letters despatched from Ireland on Saturday night can reach Harrogate in time for delivery on Sunday morning. There are other trains in the North of England to which the same remarks apply. As regards Newcastle, Staffordshire, arrangements were made in March last for securing the arrival of Irish letters by first post in the morning, and it was believed at the time that these arrangements would be in force every day, but it proved impracticable to give effect to them on Sunday and Monday mornings. I regret that there are at present no means of, providing for a Sunday delivery of Irish letters at Newcastle, Staffordshire.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland how many agrarian outrages were committed in County Clare since 1st July last year; the number of cases of firing at the person or into houses; how many of these had police protection; the number of persons made amenable; and the extra Police Force stationed in the county, and their cost?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the number of agrarian outrages committed in the County Clare since July 1st, 1889, is 61, of which six were cases of firing at the person and 21 firing into dwellings. In none of these 27 cases had there been police protection, and no person have, so far, been made amenable in regard to to them. According to the last completed accounts, which are for the year to March 31st last, the extra force in this county numbered 168 men, and the-charge against the county in respect to them was £5,603.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if Mr. John Cusack, of Island Avanna, Clare Abbey, County Clare, has had his licence to carry arms-revoked by order of the Lord Lieutenant; and, if so, what reason has been assigned for this proceeding?

It is the case that the man mentioned has had his arms licence revoked. It would be inexpedient in the public interest to state the grounds upon which the Lord Lieutenant acted.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware-that, on last Thursday, the 26th of June, in the salerooms of P. M'Cormick, auctioneer, of Mullingar, a number of farms, consisting of parts of the lands of Cloncullion, Rahinashiane, Spittaltown and Killevally, situate in the barony of Moycashel, and County Westmeath, held in fee, containing 334 acres? rood and 37 perches, statute measure, or thereabouts, were put up for sale by instructions of the Irish Land Commission; that there was no bidding for the farms; whether by conveyance dated the 17th day of July, 1886, the above lands were conveyed in fee simple, in consideration of £3,840, £2,800 of which was advanced by the Irish Land Commission, and by said deed the said lands were conveyed to the said Irish Land Commission, subject to redemption, and a covenant was entered into to pay the Commission an annuity of £112 for 49 years, from the 1st day of November, 1886, payable half-yearly on every 1st day of May and every 1st day of November; what inquiry did the Land Commission make as-to the value of those farms before they advanced such a large sum; and whether they have any expectation of realising any part of the sum so advanced?

The Land Commissioners report that the holding referred to was sold in July, 1886, for £3,840, of which the purchaser paid in cash £1,040, and the Commission advanced £2,800. The holding was advertised for sale to realise one year's annuity, £112 due to the Commission, but the sale was not proceeded with, as the Commissioners ascertained that the purchaser had been recently adjudicated a bankrupt, and the assignee was taking the necessary steps to pay out of the assets the arrears of annuity due, and to realise for the benefit of the creditors the bankrupt's interest in the holding. Before making the advance in 1886, the Commissioners caused the holding to be inspected, and they have no doubt whatever as to the sufficiency of their security.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that at the last sitting of the Irish Land Sub-Commission in Mullingar the Commissioners announced that the next sitting of the Court would be held on the 24th June, and that in consequence of that statement a large number of tenants came to the town on that day under the impression that their cases would be heard, but were obliged to return as the Commissioners did not attend; and whether he will take steps to prevent the tenants in future being put to such unnecessary loss and inconvenience, and that proper notice shall be given by the Commissioners when they decide on postponing the sitting of the Court?

The Land Commissioners report that there must have been some misapprehension on the part of the tenants referred to, as no fixtures had been made for the 24th June.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has made inquiry respecting John Cowhey, sub-postmaster at Bruree, and ascertained that this man has been convicted twice of drunkenness and once of serious assault, and was also dismissed from the employment of the Prudential Assurance Company for irregularity in his accounts; and if John Cowhey will still be retained in charge of the Post and Money Order Office at Bruree?

I have now made inquiry into the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. I find that the convictions alluded to took place some 12 years ago, and, although I was not aware of them when making the appointment, they had been brought to my knowledge before I answered the hon. Member's question on the 5th June. With regard to the alleged dismissal from the employment of the Prudential Assurance Company, I find that there are conflicting statements as to the exact cause which led Mr. Cowhey to relinquish the agency in 1878, and nothing definite can now be ascertained respecting an event which happened so long ago. Since Mr. Cowhey became sub-postmaster the duties of the office have been performed entirely to the satisfaction of the Department, and I should not, therefore, be warranted in depriving him of the appointment which I conferred upon him in December last.

These convictions occurred in 1885, and not 12 years ago; and if the right hon. Gentleman will put himself in communication with the Secretary of the Assurance Company he will find that Cowhey did not resign, but was dismissed. I wish to know whether a man whose character is so notorious is to be retained in the Public Service?

The statement made by the hon. Member is not contained in the information furnished to me.

I will furnish the right hon. Gentleman with a copy of the convictions at the Magistrates' Court.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether complaints have reached him that officers of the Inland Revenue Department are often, on slight complaints, removed at their own expense to distant parts of the United Kingdom; whether quite recently, an officer was censured and ordered to be removed from Dublin to Aberdeen, although he denied the truth of the complaint upon which the order of removal was made, and demanded an investigation, stating that he could produce several witnesses on oath to prove his innocence; whether, notwithstanding all this, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue refused any inquiry, and, as a consequence, he has to remove his family at very great expense from Dublin to Aberdeen; and whether, on inquiry, he will interfere to prevent similar cases, which are at present the cause of much discontent in the Inland Revenue Department?

It is not true that Inland Revenue officers are often removed on slight complaints to distant parts of the United Kingdom; but such a measure has to be taken from time to time in the interests of discipline where serious misconduct has occurred, and I do not propose to interfere with the discretion of the Board in this matter. In the case to which the hon. Member refers previous complaints had been made of the officer's conduct, and he had an opportunity of producing witnesses when the charge was made.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, with respect to the I & 2 Vict., c. 109, intituled "An Act to abolish to Compositions for Tithes in Ireland and to substitute Rent-Charge in lieu thereof," whether the 32nd section, which makes tithe rent-charge variable every seven years when the average price of corn for the seven years preceding the application, as advertised in the Dublin Gazette, varied by 1·10th from the original standard, is still operative in the case of lay tithes; and whether applications to vary the amount of lay tithes at the end of the septennial period, in accordance with the fall in the price of corn aforesaid, have been made this year in Ireland and have been allowed?

The section referred to is still in force, and the tithe rent-charge is still liable to revision. I am informed that several applications to vary the amount of lay tithes have been made under the section.

Is it true that no remission has been made this year to the tithe-payers on account of agricultural depression?

The question on the Paper relates to lay tithes. The Ecclesiastical tithes are vested in the Land Commissioners, and no periodical revision is possible.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he will consent to the issue of a Return showing the attendance of Local Magistrates at weekly Petty Sessions in Tipperary from June 1888 to June 1890, and the attendance of Stipendiary Magistrates during same period?

I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question until I can obtain the information.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government, having regard to the evidence of Irish opinion afforded by the introduction of the Agricultural Labourers (Ireland) Bill now before the House, and the proceedings upon that measure, will appropriate the unallotted balance of Ireland's share of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties, in aid of the provision of dwellings for Irish agricultural labourers, upon the principles indicated in the Bill?

In view of the admission of the Chief Secretary, that the national school teachers of Ireland are insufficiently remunerated, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of devoting a considerable portion of the money to bettering their condition?

The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) will not be surprised to bear me repeat the answer already given in this House. The Government are giving full consideration to the various suggestions made in different parts of the House, and will state their views to the House as soon as they have arrived at a conclusion.

How soon?

:.I must ask for a little time.

What notice will the right hon. Gentleman give? The Bill, I see, is down on to-day's Paper. It is desirable that notice should be given in order that Members may put down Amendments.

Every notice will be given.

I beg to defer until Tuesday the question in my name, to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty who is the officer responsible for the selection of the compositions that are ordered from time to time to be used on the bottoms of Her Majesty's ships; is this officer an expert, and what previous technical experience and education has ho had to qualify him for this important duty; and by whom was he appointed, for how long, and has the appointment been sanctioned by the Treasury?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie has received complaints from certain inhabitants in Monk Bretton, Barnsley, against the police in that district; whether he is aware that, since the complaints were made, one constable has been removed from the district; whether ho is aware that it is alleged that perjury was committed by the police, and that innocent persons have in several cases been fined; whether he is aware that application has been made to the Standing Joint Committee at Wakefield, who have replied that they are not a Court of Appeal, and have no power to review the decision of the Justices in the above-referred to cases; and whether he will take some steps in justice to those who were, it is stated, unjustly fined, as well as in justice to the accused police, to institute an inquiry into the whole matter?

Yes, Sir; I have received such a complaint. I am informed by the Chief Constable that a constable has been lately removed from the district for the benefit of the Service, and not in consequence of any complaints or of impropriety on his part. General allegations have been made to me of perjury on the part of the police, but no particular case, in which justice is alleged to have miscarried, has been brought to my notice. I am informed by the Standing Joint Committee that a statement to the same effect has been laid before them, but, with one or two exceptions, the cases referred to had been tried before Justices, and the Committee could not re·try them. In many of the cases, moreover, I am informed that the prisoners summoned had pleaded guilty. The Chief Constable has, on two occasions, personally investigated, on the spot, these complaints, and the complainants have expressed themselves to him as being perfectly satisfied. Under these circumstances, I see no ground for interference on my part, but I am prepared to make careful inquiry into any particular case of alleged injustice if I am duly furnished with dates and particulars.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General when he will be able to state to the House the result of the Departmental Committee inquiry into the telegraphists grievances; whether a statement will be made before the Post Office Estimates are taken in Supply; and, whether, if any beneficial changes are adopted in the matter of overtime, increased holidays, sick pay, &c, they will date from the 1st April, in accordance with the precedent of Mr. Fawcett's Sehcme of 1881?

In reply to the noble Lord, I have to inform the House that I have carefully examined the Report of the Committee referred to, and have formed my conclusions thereon. I forwarded a copy of the Report to the Lords of the Treasury a few days ago. I shall be in a position to make a statement relating to this matter as soon as the Government has arrived at its decision, and I hope before the Post Office Estimates are taken in Supply. I fear that it will not be practicable to adopt the suggestion conveyed in the last part of the noble Lord's question.

Is the right W Gentleman aware that there is some danger of the question of overtime being raised by the telegraphists in a very inconvenient manner about the 12th of this month?

Some rumours have reached me of a probable course of conduct on the part of some of the telegraphists employed in the Central Office, which conduct, I am sure, the noble Lord would be the first to condemn. Her Majesty's Government must be guided not so much by the attitude of the telegraphists, as by what we consider to be the real exigencies of the case.

I asked whether, in consequence of there being great disaffection on the subject of overtime, it would not be possible to state before the 12th of July what course the Government intend to take in regard to this question?

I should be extremely glad if I am in a position to make a statement on all the subjects before the 12th of July.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Customs Officers at Ryde have any right to detain the luggage (handbags) of professional and other gentlemen landing from yachts which have had no communication with a Foreign shore; whether, in case of their having such power, he will take care that in future an examining officer shall be available at Ryde, thus rendering such detention unnecessary; and what compensation lie is prepared to grant to such gentlemen for the trouble and serious inconvenience caused by their having to leave their bags open, when obliged by important business to proceed on their journey, although they offered to have them searched on the spot?

I understand that there is no fixed Customs establishment at Ryde, and that when baggage or other goods are landed there an officer is sent by the collector at Cowes specially to make the necessary examination. I am informed that in the case referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend information as to the landing of the baggage was received at 9.40 a.m., and the baggage was delivered at 10.30. I am sorry if there has been any inconvenience, but the Customs business at Ryde is not sufficient to justify a fixed establishment, and Ryde is, in fact, not a place approved for the landing and examination of goods or baggage. I have drawn the attention of the Customs Department to the facts of the case.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is the case that the United Kingdom is the only country in the Postal Union in which liquids are not permitted to be sent in glass bottles by sample post; whether the object of the regulation is to secure the safety of the contents of the mail bags; and whether that safety would be secured by forbidding liquids to be sent by sample post unless the bottles are enclosed in cases sanctioned by the Post Office?

It is not the case that the United Kingdom is the only country in the Postal Union in which liquids are not permitted to be sent in glass bottles by sample post. The object of the regulation is, as my hon. Friend supposes, to secure the safety of the contents of the mail bags. That safety cannot be secured in the way suggested, because it is not possible to make up bottles of liquid in such a manner as to meet the two opposing essentials of absolute safety and perfect facility of examination. I think I had the pleasure of explaining this matter to my hon. Friend very fully by letter on the 13th of May.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any Report or complaint has been received at the Home Office or by the Police Authorities respecting an area in Whitechapel intersected by Flower and Dean Street; whether the police have reported as to the existence of crime and vice in that locality; and if he will allow that Report to be made public; and whether any effort has been made by the owner or by the police to remedy the evils complained of?

Yes, Sir; in December last the vicar of St. Jude's brought under my notice the evil state of the district referred to. The Commissioner of Police, whom I consulted on the subject, reported in substance that vice of the lowest type finds a refuge in parts of Whitechapel. The police do all in their power to keep violence and vice within bounds, but their duties are confined to the streets; in fact, extra constables are continuously on duty there on special beats. It is only by bringing influence to bear on the landlords that a better class of dwellings can be provided, and so, gradually, a better class of tenants secured. I regret to say that I am informed by the Commissioner that no substantial efforts have been made by the owners of the property in this neighbourhood to effect improvements, the neighbourhood being in much the same condition as it has been for some years. The lease of some of the property is running out, and it is to be hoped that at the expiration changes will be effected and improvements made.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount received during the year ending 31st December, 1889, on account of the 1s. per cent, stamps on bonds and shares to bearer?

The amount received during the year ending 31st December, 1889, was nearly £98,000.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that several Turkish Stocks are being converted or paid off, he will take similar measures with regard to the Turkish Four per Cent. Guaranteed Stock and Drawn Bonds, on which an excessive interest continues to be paid by this country jointly with Prance?

The Turkish Guaranteed Loan of 1855, of course, stands on a footing wholly different to that on which other Turkish Stocks stand, and so is in no way connected with any conversion which may be in contemplation for them. But, as has been previously stated to the House, Her Majesty's Government would gladly avail themselves of any suitable opportunity which may occur of placing the Guaranteed Stock on an improved basis, and though such an opportunity has not yet occurred, the question is one which is present to the minds of Her Majesty's Government with a view of coming to some arrangement with the French and Turkish Governments, which are both concerned in the matter.

Is it not possible to pay off these Bonds upon which this high rate of interest is being paid and hold them over in some Government Department pending a future settlement with France?

I think that such a course would be scarcely possible, but it may be possible to come to some arrangement about them.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is true, as intimated by Lord Elphinstone, on Friday last, that £2,000 was all the Treasury intended to give Admiral Colomb for inventions which, on the high authority of Admiral Sir Geoffrey Hornby, have enabled the British Navy to navigate in safety for the last 20 years; and, if so, whether he will grant a Return showing the sums granted to other inventors on account of real or supposed benefit to the Navy and Army respectively from their inventions during that period?

I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to postpone the question until to-morrow. I have not yet had an opportunity of obtaining the information that would enable me to answer it.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the recent announcement, whether he is now able to state the grounds on which the Government have decided not to avail themselves of their right to give notice before the end of the present month to purchase the undertakings of the Telephone Companies?

I submit to my right hon. Friend that it would be better to state the full grounds upon which this important decision had been arrived at when the matter could be treated as one of argument rather than one to be answered across the Table of the House. The reasons for the decision are numerous, and I think they will commend themselves to the right hon. Gentleman. It would be a large undertaking to buy up and conduct the whole of the telephone establishments in the United Kingdom, and the Government do not see their way to multiply these undertakings, which must be conducted at very considerable cost. We hold strong views on the subject, and I repeat that it would be better to treat it as one of argument than one of question and answer.

I am inclined to agree to some extent with my right hon. Friend. May I ask him whether he will have any objection to lay Papers on the Table of the House, as we are absolutely without information on the subject?

I will consider the point, which is one of great interest, I know.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the evidence recently given in the Court of Session in the case of "Kennedy v. Stewart" as to the part played by Mr. Duncan, Chief Clerk in the Crown Office, from which it appears that Mr. Duncan absented himself from his duties and went to Murthly for the purpose of assisting in the purchase of that estate; and, if so, whether the Crown Agent, as head of the office, was informed of the reason of his absence and sanctioned it; whether he has observed that it was proved that, with a view to misleading the intending vendor, Mr. Duncan allowed it to be falsely stated, without contradiction, that neither the Crown Agent or the firm of solicitors of which he is a member had anything to do with the intended purchase; that Mr. Duncan, in order further to mislead the intending vendor, allowed, without contradiction, a false address to be ascribed to himself; and that the Jury in the case unanimously decided that the misrepresentations to which Mr. Duncan was a party formed sufficient ground for quashing the sale of the Murthly estate; whether the Crown Office was used for the transaction of any business relating to the purchase of the Murthly estate; and whether Government has taken, or purpose taking, any steps in connection with Mr. Duncan's conduct as disclosed at the trial?

My attention has been called to the evidence given in the Court of Session in the case referred to, for I was one of the counsel engaged in it. In reply to the first part of the question, I have to say that Mr. Duncan obtained leave of absence on the day mentioned. My answer to all the rest of the question is in the negative. The Jury gave a verdict on issues which expressly ascribed the misrepresentations to a third party, and Mr. Duncan was cognisant of none of those misrepresentations until after they are alleged to have been made. It is only fair to Mr. Duncan to add that I share the strong opinion which all my predecessors have held of his high character and long and valuable public service.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade why the Customs and Inland Revenue Officers have not in any single instance put into operation the duties imposed on them by Section 8 of the Margarine Act of 1887, which empowered them to take steps to detect the importation of adulterated butter at British ports; and why this duty should be cast on private individuals?

As regards the officers of Customs, I have stated, in answer to previous questions, the grounds on which their action is based. With respect to the remainder of the question, I may point out that powers are given by Section 7 of the Margarine Act of 1887 to any Medical Officer of Health, Inspector of Nuisances, or police constable to take samples as well as to officers of the Inland Revenue. The Act, therefore, apparently contemplates action by Local Authorities, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are quite ready to give to such authorities any aid that they can afford.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it has hitherto been the practice, when the primary duty on the importation or manufacture of an article has been repealed, to discontinue also the Licence Duty charged for dealing in such article; and whether, the Duty on gold or silver plate having been repealed by an Act of this Session, the duty for dealing in these articles will be still continued?

No, Sir; it has not always been the practice to discontinue the Licence Duty for dealing in an article simultaneously with the repeal of the primary duty, and there are cases in which the Licence Duty still exists, though the primary duty has ceased. I may remind the hon. Member that the licences for dealing in plate have passed to the County Councils, and that their repeal is a question which affects local finance.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will re-consider the possibility of devising means to encourage collegiate training for teachers without permanently maintaining throughout an experienced teacher's life the distinction laid down in Article 73 of the New Code; whether he will substitute the terms "collegiate," and "non-collegiate," for "trained," and "untrained," where the purpose is to distinguish teachers with the double training of pupil-teachership and college from those who have only the training of pupil teachers; and whether, in Article 61, he will omit the words "will not be permitted to superintend pupil teachers," and substitute "will not be recognised as certificated," thus offering an incentive to secure the advantages of a training college?

The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the distinction laid down in Article 73 will be permanently maintained throughout an experienced teacher's life, as it ceases to apply to any teacher who obtains charge of a school. I have already intimated my intention to substitute other words for the terms "trained" and "untrained;" but an alteration of Article 61 in the way suggested would not, in my opinion, offer the desired incentive, and lies altogether outside the scope and object of the Article in question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to further information about Armenia in the Daily News of 1st July, namely, that Hussein Bey, of Hosh, in the neighbourhood of Kharpout, who is said to have slaughtered 15 Armenians during his career, has been released from Erzeroum Gaol and appointed to a high public office in Kharpout, and that the Armenian inhabitants are panic-striken in consequence; whether there are still political prisoners from Armenia in the gaols of Erzeroum and Erzingan, who have been lying for two years and a half in gaol without trial; and whether he will inquire into these allegations, and, if he finds them correct, take means to remedy the evils? I wish further to ask whether it is true, as stated in a daily paper, that Russian troops are moving towards the Armenian frontier to compel payment of the indemnity, and to protect the Armenians from further outrage on the part of the Khurds?

No information in corroboration of these statements has been received by Her Majesty's Government; but the attention of Her Majesty's Consular Representatives on the spot will be called to them.

What is the date of the last Report from Constantinople or Erzeroum? The statements referred to in the question appeared some time ago.

The question put to me referred to a telegram in the Daily News of the 1st of July, and it is obvious that no Despatches could possibly have reached this country from Erzeroum at the present date. It is no part of the duty of our Representatives to give currency to every rumour that may reach them until it is confirmed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has received any application from the suppliant in "Mitchell v. Regina" for aid to pay the taxed costs of an action for false imprisonment he was virtually compelled to bring against the Sheriff (or Bailiff) of the Salford Court, Manchester, in consequence of not having received money due from the War Office; and what steps he intends to take in the matter?

Yes, Sir; such an application has been received. I am unable to say what steps will be taken in the matter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps, if any, will be taken against Messrs. Hare and Co., the agents to the Treasury, as regards the difference between the original and taxed bill of costs in "Mitchell v. Regina," and whether such difference will have to be borne by the taxpayers; and have Messrs. Hare and Co been called upon for an explanation of the excessive charges in question?

My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer this question. No steps will be taken against Messrs. Hare, as they have not made any excessive charges. The difference between the amount of the Bill, as delivered and as taxed, arose almost entirely in consequence of a decision of the Master upon a new point. I myself directed, solely out of consideration for Colonel Mitchell, that no further steps should be taken to question the decision in this case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen a paragraph in the Times newspaper of Tuesday to the effect that certain persons, styling themselves "the Open Air Meeting Committee," intend to march in procession from Clerkenwell Green to Hyde Park on Saturday next; and whether he will take steps to prevent proceedings and obstructions in the public thoroughfares, which are contrary to the wishes of the ratepayers and inhabitants of the Metropolis, and which materially interfere with their ordinary occupations and business?

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the decision of the Lord Chief Justice in the case of the "Queen against Booth and others," in which Lord Coleridge laid down that processions in Whitechurch, although creating a temporary incon- venience, were not unlawful, and did not I constitute an indictable offence?

I have not yet had the advantage of perusing the Lord Chief Justice's judgment. In regard to the question on the Paper, I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he has no knowledge of any such procession beyond what is stated in the paper referred to. As usual on such occasions, steps will be taken by him to prevent, as far as possible, obstruction in the streets, and inconvenience to the inhabitants of the Metropolis.

On a point of order, Sir, I would direct your attention to the form of the question. In the latter part of it it states that certain proceedings are "contrary to the wishes of the ratepayers and inhabitants of the Metropolis." I wish to ask you whether that statement, being one of a highly debatable character, ought to appear on the Paper, especially in view of the severity with which Irish questions are edited?

Any allegation of a fact which is disputed ought not to appear in a question. This, however, is rather an expression of opinion than a statement of fact; but I think it we aid have been better if it had not been put in.

I would ask you, Sir, whether expressions of opinion, as well as matters of argument, are not equally prohibited by the Standing Orders?

It is contrary to the rule to ask a Minister what his opinions are on a given point. Expressions of opinion and allegations of fact that are disputed had better be avoided.

I understand you to say, Sir, that this question is objectionable, and, as two or three similar questions have been put, I would ask whether you will direct that such questions are to be ruled out of order?

Yes; I can always direct a question to be ruled out of order if I think it to be so.

I would ask, Sir, by whose authority the question appears in its present form, because repeatedly it has happened that questions handed in at the Table are edited and expressions of opinion struck out, when the question is put by any Member on this side of the House?

The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. This question was not altered; it was an omission that it was not noticed. I think it ought to have been altered, but in the multiplicity of questions it escaped notice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has received any communications from the Government of the Cape, through the Agent General or otherwise, in reference to the confirmation of, or the continuance of, German influence over the immense territories of Damaraland and Namaqualand lying adjacent to British territory in South Africa, and, if so, whether he will state to the House the purport of such communications; and whether it is true that Kamaherero, the King of the Damaras, is desirious of coming under British protection?

Some confidential communications have passed with the Cape Ministers on this subject, but it would not be desirable to state the effect of them as negotiations are going on. Kamaherero has, in past years, expressed a desire to come under British protection, but the answer has always been that as Damaraland has been recognised as under German jurisdiction his wish cannot be met.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to complaints in the Cape Parliament that the Imperial Government had not carried out their part of the contract in regard to the armament of Table Bay Ports, whereas the Cape Government had fulfilled their part of the agreement in the construction of earthworks, and otherwise; what is the cause of the delay; and whether the guns and equipment are being manufactured at Woolwich, or by private firms?

Out of 40 guns for these forts, 31 have been issued, and of the remainder, all that are prac- tically important should be issued by September, and the whole by the end of the year. The guns themselves are almost all ready, but delay has arisen with regard to the carriages. Some are manufactured by private firms and some at Woolwich.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he would state what was the aggregate number of members of the seven Committees, which, without a common link between them, have, at different times, advised the Secretary of State with regard to the defences of Bermuda, referred to in paragraph 65, page 22, Report of the Royal Commission on the Naval and Military Departments; and what was the aggregate number of naval, military, and civilian members respectively who served on these Committees?

Twenty-seven Military, 5 Naval Officers, and 14 civilians, at one time or another, have been consulted as to some part of this question. The case referred to could not occur under the organisation now in force.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the management and maintenance of the police in Orkney is vested in the Standing Joint Committee, although the county is exempted from the Police Act of 1857; and, if not, who is responsible for the control and maintenance of the police?

By Section 76 of the Police Act of 1857, that Statute does not extend to Orkney and Shetland, unless Her Majesty in Council shall so direct. Those counties remain outside the Act of 1857, and the relative Police Clauses of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, an existing police force in Orkney being managed under an arrangement between the county and the burgh of Kirkwall entered into in 1858. I may point out, however, that it is in the power of the County Council to apply to Her Majesty in Council under the 76th section of the Act of 1857 for a direction that that Act shall extend to the County of Orkney.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make inquiries about the alleged tearing up of a Petition from the police constables at Hunter Street Station, by Sub-Divisional Inspector Wakeford; and if the police are denied the right of petition?

I have made inquiry into this matter, and am informed by the Commissioner that no Petition was torn up by Inspector Wakeford. Two report forms, to which it is believed no signatures were attached, were accidently torn by the act of a police constable. The police are not denied the right of petition. Permission has been given to obtain the signatures of the men at the Hunter Street and other stations to such Petitions as they think fit to adopt.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, by paragraph 359 of the Militia Regulations, Militia officers are specifically debarred from attending the classes formed at the School of Military Engineering, which officers of the regular Infantry are expected to attend; and whether, having regard to the important duties now assigned to the Militia under the mobilisation scheme, he will allow at least one officer in every Militia battalion to attend such classes, in order that in every battalion there may be an officer competent to superintend simple field engineering works. I have further to ask whether it is the intention to carry out the recommendation of the Committee appointed to inquire into certain questions affecting the Militia (Summary, p. xxxii.) that officers who, with the approval of their Commanding Officer and the Colonel of the district, attend garrison classes and obtain certificates, shall receive pay and allowances; also whether it is the fact that, as Colonel Grove states in his evidence before the Committee appointed to inquire into certain questions affecting the Militia (Question 212), the duties for which the Militia would be told off on mobilisation would be, broadly speaking, three, namely, first, to re-inforce the garrisons of all our home fortresses and ports; secondly, to re-place the Line Battalions that would be withdrawn from Ireland; and thirdly, to form the greater portion of the Third Army Corps, the organisation of which is now very nearly complete as regards the troops that are to compose it; if so, what, if any, opportunities are now afforded to Militia officers to learn the tactical part of the duties they would thus be called on to perform under this scheme of mobilisation for home defence?

The staff of officers employed in the instruction of Army officers in garrison classes would not at present suffice if Militia officers were added to the class. Officers of engineer Militia are received at the School of Military Engineering. There is no room in the school for officers of infantry Militia. The duties of the Militia, in case of mobilisation, would be, broadly, as stated by Colonel Grove in his evidence before the Committee appointed to inquire into certain questions affecting the Militia. Militia officers are given every opportunity of presenting themselves at the periodical examinations in tactics. The officers of artillery Militia are virtually practised in tactics, as they are taught to work the heavy guns in the positions which in war they would have to defend.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now say whether the Representatives of the British Government have agreed to make the Anti-Slavery Conference an occasion for imposing heavy duties on merchandise in the free trade area of Africa, and a light or almost nominal duty on spirits: and whether Parliament will be consulted before advantage is taken of a Conference on another subject to put an end to free trade in ordinary merchandise while spirits are admitted on very easy terms?

Her Majesty's Government have agreed to Import Duties being levied purely for the discharge of the expenditure imposed by the General Act for the Prevention of the Slave Trade. The conditions of the tariff are to be fixed by a negotiation, to be opened immediately after the signature of the General Act.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Venezuelan Government have offered to refer the dispute between them arid Great Britain to arbitration; whether Her Majesty's Government have accepted the offer; and, if the offer has been declined, will ho state the reason why?

Her Majesty's Government have made proposals to the Government of Venezuela for the settlement of the question, and have now received from that Government a counter proposal which is under consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Provisional Order applied for by the pilots of the Port of Bristol, having for its object the due representation of that Body on the Pilotage Authority, as provided for by the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Act of last year, will be introduced and pressed forward during this present Session?

The Provisional Order to which my hon. Friend refers has to be finally settled and accepted by the pilots and shipowners who have applied for representation before a Bill to confirm it can be introduced. I intend to introduce such a Bill, if this can be done, in time for the matter to be considered during the present Session.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the engagments referred to by Lord Salisbury in his instructions to Sir L. Simmons of 1st August, 1889, under which it is asserted that Her Majesty's Government have come for the enforcement of the Canon Law in Malta; what is the date of these engagements; and where can a copy of them be found?

The engagements referred to are contained in proclamations issued by Mr. Cameron, Civil Commissioner of Malta, dated 15th July, 1801, and Sir Thomas Maitland, the first Governor of Malta, dated 5th October, 1813, copies of which are in the Colonial Office Library.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Canon Law is in its entirety the civil law of Malta; and, if not, what parts of the Canon Law are the civil law of the island, and when and by virtue of what stipulations, proclamations, or enactments did they become so?

It would not be possible to answer this question without a reference to the colony, but the Governor will be asked to report.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the conduct of the gas companies of Leeds, who, by refusing a small rise of wages and other matters to their men, have exposed the Town of Leeds to riots and serious danger; whether he is aware that riots have taken place, that the city is in darkness, and that life and property is in danger; and if he will take steps to bring such a serious state of affairs to a conclusion?

I have no information as to the particular points in dispute between the Gas Committee and their employ^°s, but I regret to say that I learn from the Mayor that the peace of the town has been very seriously disturbed. All possible steps have been taken to insure the preservation of the peace, and negotiations are now in progress with a view to the settlement of the dispute. A meeting of the council is to be held this afternoon, after which I hope to hear from the Mayor that matters have been satisfactorily arranged, and that the town has resumed its normal state of quietness.

In reference to the first paragraph of the question, has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the conduct of the gas companies in Leeds, on whom I charge all the consequences which have ensued?

I have received no information as to the points in dispute.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, with a view to obtain the general assent of the House to the Industrial Schools Bill, he can see his way to leave unrepealed Sections 27, 28, and 36 of the Education Act, 1870, so that the powers at present possessed by School Boards of maintaining, managing, and contributing to industrial schools, and of appointing officers for the purpose of bringing industrial school cases before the Magistrates, may be left unaffected?

I have no assurance that the general assent of the House to the Industrial Schools Bill would be secured even by the radical changes in that Bill suggested by the hon. Member. I hope before long to be able to meet the Representatives of the School Boards, and to discuss with them the provisions they object to, with a view of arriving, if possible, at some arrangement.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-German agreement provides that the German frontier in the latitude of Lake Ngami and up as far as the 18th degree of South latitude shall coincide with the 21st degree of East longitude, as named in the Despatch of 14th June from Lord Salisbury to Sir E. Malet, or whether it extends as far as to the Victoria Falls on the Zambesi River, as represented on the map in the tea room of the House, to which Members have been referred?

The Despatch referred to did not describe the final arrangement, which is correctly shown on the map in the tea room of the House.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State when the full text of the Agreement relating to African affairs and Heligoland, signed at Berlin on Tuesday, 1st of July, by Sir E. Malet and Sir P. Anderson, on behalf of Her Majesty, will be laid before the House; and when the other Papers relating to the negotiations and Agreement with Germany which have been promised will be presented?

Papers relating to this matter will be laid upon the Table as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-German Agreement has bean signed; and, if so, when copies of the Agreement will be in the hands of Members; and when the Bill for the cession of Heligoland will be introduced? The right hon. Gentleman has already answered part of the question, but I hope he will be able to answer the last paragraph.

The Agreement has been signed and certain Papers relating to it will be given with it. I believe that the Bill in regard to Heligoland will be introduced in the House of Lords, so, of course, it will not reach us immediately.

Are Agreements to be made between the German Empire and our own which will be binding on the House before such Agreements have been laid on the Table?

The Agreement in question was made in accordance with Constitutional usage, and will be laid before Parliament accordingly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have a spare sheet put in the map showing the boundary of Damaraland under the German Protectorate before the Anglo-German Agreement?

I am afraid that the information desired by my hon. Friend cannot be given. The boundary of Damaraland to the North had not been previously fixed, and any line would be quite imaginary.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any communication shave taken place between the Home Government on the one hand, I and the High Commissioner for South Africa and the Government of the Cape Colony on the other, with reference to the proposed Anglo-German Agreement; and, if so, whether he will state to the House what the nature of these communications has been?

Various communications have been received from the High Commissioner expressing a hope that Lake Ngami and district would be preserved to this country. His wishes are carried out by the Anglo-German Agreement. Some communications have also passed with the Cape Government, but of a confidential character, the effect of which it would not be desirable to state, as negotiations are going on.

I beg to ask the Attorney General if, in reference to the dormant funds in Chancery, he will consider whether the publication of the lists may not be made more useful to the public by giving the names of the estates and "matters" which are the subject of the suits, in addition to the titles of the suits; and whether the office still retains its objections to publishing the amounts of money to the credit of each suit?

As to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question I am informed that the particulars to be given in the lists in question are controlled by the order of the Treasury. I will make inquiry as to whether the suggestion of the hon. Member as to giving increased information is considered desirable. As to the last paragraph, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. I understand the office still think that, inasmuch as the amounts from time to time vary, it would be inconvenient to attempt to publish the amount of money to the credit of each suit.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Government propose to proceed with their Companies (Winding-up) Bill, which has already passed the Standing Committee on Trade?

I hope it may be possible to proceed with the Bill on an early day. I understand it is not likely to give rise to lengthened Debate.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that violent resist- ance to the payment of tithe rent-charge has been renewed in Wales; that at Llannefydd, in the Vale of Clwyd, Mr. Stevens and a distraining party were unable to proceed with the recovery of tithe rent-charge by the ordinary means provided by the law owing to the disturbance of rioters; that stones were thrown, and one of the emergency men injured; whether he is also aware that there are at present arrears of tithe rent-charge in Wales amounting to thousands of pounds; that grave breaches of the peace are anticipated during the winter should remedial legislation be any longer denied; and whether, in the interests of law, order, and justice, he will recommend the House to proceed with the Tithe Rent-Charge Recovery Bill in the present Session?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unfortunate occurrences referred to in the first paragraph of the question are largely due to the indiscreet and injudicious conduct of Mr. Stevens himself, and that in cases where the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have employed another agent to collect tithes no disturbances whatever have occurred?

I desire to avoid entering into any controversial question as to the action of the officers of the law engaged in collecting tithe, and I trust my hon. Friend will not ask me to express any opinion on the subject. I. venture to hope that the tithepayer in Wales will come to see the impost is one which the law requires him to pay, and which he is not entitled to possess himself of, or refrain from paying. All I can say is that I hope the House will be enabled to pass the Bill.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has considered that, under the arrangement lately made by the Government, the time allotted for the War Office and the Admiralty Office Votes is likely to be swallowed up by speeches on technical questions of Military and Naval administration, thus preventing any adequate examination of the actual ex-expenditure of those Offices; and whether, having regard to the explicit promises more than once made by the Govern- ment that ample opportunity should be afforded early this Session for bringing before Parliament the excessive expenditure in these Offices, he will either postpone a general Debate on the organisation of the Services, or arrange that the Votes shall be taken again at an early date for their proper and legitimate discussion.

I shall endeavour to arrange that an opportunity be given for discussion of the Votes.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Secretary of State for India to order any open inquiry into, or to give any opportunity to the Maharajah of Kashmir to be heard against, the allegations of crime, misconduct, and misgovernment, under cover of which the Maharajah has been deprived of his authority and revenues as a reigning feudatory Prince and whether the Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to inquire into this case?

The Maharajah of Kashmir has been required to withdraw for a time from active participation in the Government of his State—not in consequence of allegations of crime and misconduct, but because the reforms urgently required in the interest of the people of Kashmir cannot be carried out without his so doing. No Select Committee could, with advantage to the Public Service, inquire into the case.

In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman I beg to give notice that on the conclusion of questions I shall ask leave to move the adjournment of the House.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before the cession of Heligoland to Germany was determined upon by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Governor of the Island was consulted; and, if so, what was the opinion to which he gave expression in relation thereto?

I have already stated that the Governor of Heligoland was in England during the time that the cession was being considered; but any communications which passed with him must necessarily be considered as confidential.

Is there not some kind of Executive Council in Heligoland?

I stated that there was two days ago.

Was that Council consulted?

I am not aware, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Governor of Heligoland took any steps himself to ascertain the views of the inhabitants?

I have every reason to believe that he was fully informed. As the population of the Island is only 2,000, it cannot be difficult for the Governor to be so informed.

On behalf of my lion Friend the Member for Hallamshire (Sir F. Mappin) I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with regard to the statement that the Anglo-German Agreement depended upon the Bill to be introduced to Parliament for the cession of Heligoland, whether there is any truth in the report that the Agreement was signed at Berlin on the 1st inst by Her Majesty's Representatives; and whether he will state if Her Majesty's Government have anticipated the decision of this House upon a question of such vital importance by permitting the said Agreement to be signed?

May I ask whether the possession of an island situated in the furthest part of the-German Ocean, without a harbour, without water, without even a lawyer, can really constitute a question of vital importance?

It is not for me to say what may or may not be deemed a matter of vital importance by the hon. member. We are frequently reminded by him of matters which he deems to be of vital importance. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say that the Article ceding Heligoland makes the cession subject to the assent of the British Parliament.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commanding Officers of Her Majesty's vessels have on different occasions ordered the removal of lobster cages set by and belonging to British subjects, and have forbidden the taking of lobsters on certain portions of the Newfoundland coast; if so, were the orders of such Officers given under instructions issued by Her Majesty's Government; will such instructions be laid upon the Table of the House; and under what Law of the Imperial Parliament or the Newfoundland Legislature, or in virtue of what prerogative of the Crown, were such instructions or orders issued or given?

The Naval Officers have general instructions that British fishermen should be prevented from interfering in any manner with the free enjoyment of the French fishermen of their rights of fishery, and they have been instructed, as will be seen from Papers recently given to Parliament, to give warning that lobster traps must be removed when French fishermen are actually desirous of fishing in the waters which are occupied by the traps, but that the traps can be re-set after the waters have been left by the French; but it is not intended that French fishermen should be allowed to supplant the traps by any traps of their own. It is the duty of one nation to carry out its Treaty obligations to another, and the above instructions are framed in pursuance of that duty. It is, however, reported in the newspapers that legal proceedings have been taken against the Commander of one of Her Majesty's ships, and, under these circumstances, no answer can be given to the last part of the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in 1862 an agreement was entered into between this Country and France, by which both countries undertook to respect the independence of Zanzibar; whether in 1885 Germany adhered to that agreement; whether the agreement now entered into between this Country and Germany, by which this Country assumes a Protectorate over Zanzibar, is dependent upon France agreeing to release this Country from the obligation into which she entered in 1862, to respect the independence of Zanzibar; whether the Protectorate involves us in the obligation to defend Zanzibar if attacked by any other Country; whether, by the 23rd Article of the Berlin Conference, any of the signatories to that Act, desiring to establish a Protectorate over any part of the African Continent, must give notice of the intention to the other signatories; and whether this notice has been given in regard to Zanzibar, and to other portions of the African Continent, over which this Country has assumed a Protectorate?

My answer to the first question is, Yes. As to the second question, Germany adhered to the agreement in 1886. With regard to the third and fourth questions, communications are going on between the two Governments with reference to the Convention of 1862, and I cannot, therefore, say anything with respect to it at present. The 23rd Article of the General Act of the Conference at Berlin (of February 26, 1885) relates to loans. The 34th Article says that any power which henceforth takes possession of a tract of land on the coasts of the African Continent, or assumes a protectorate there, shall notify the same to the other signatory Powers. This engagement only applies to the African, coasts, and not to the African Continent generally. This country has not yet assumed a protectorate over the island of Zanzibar.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the general Act of the Anti-Slavery Conference has been actually signed by all the Powers represented at the Conference with the exception of Turkey and Holland; whether Turkey assents to the Act and will sign the agreement; whether it is true that Holland refuses to sign, and, if so, on what grounds; and whether her refusal will prevent the ratification of the general Act?

The general Act has been signed by all the Powers except Turkey and Holland. The Turkish Plenipotentiary has assented to the Act, and will sign as soon as the necessary authority is received from Constantinople. The Dutch Plenipotentiary assented to the general Act, but not to the declaration attached to it authorising the levy of Import Duties in the conventional basin of the Congo. He did not, therefore, sign. The time allowed for the exchange of ratifications is 12 months. It may be hoped that before that time has expired the assent of Holland will have been obtained.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question without notice. It is, whether his attention has been directed to the occurrences at Waterford Gaol two days ago, when the Governor of the prison refused to admit to bail two prisoners who had a right to be admitted to bail, on the ground, as the Governor stated, that he would not take any bail unless a Resident Magistrate was present; whether this action by the Magistrate was in accordance with the law; whether the excuse given to the two gentlemen who were detained in gaol for 24 hours after they ought to have been released is that the Governor telegraphed to Dublin for instructions, and that the telegraph clerk made a mistake in the reply which was sent; and whether it is not the duty of all Governors of Irish prisons to know under what circumstances prisoners should be admitted to bail?

Perhaps, as I am aware of the facts, the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the question. It is the fact that the Governor of the gaol telegraphed to the Prisons Board for instructions. The reply sent was that an ordinary Magistrate could act; but by an error—a rather important error—in transmitting the telegram it arrived in the form that an ordinary Magistrate could not act. That was the cause of the regrettable incident. The hon. Member is quite correct in his views as to the law.

This is really a matter of considerable importance. These gentle- men were detained in prison illegally for 24 hours. I want to know why the Governor telegraphed for instructions at all. The law affecting bail prisoners ought to be known to every Governor in Ireland who understands his duty; and what the Attorney General for Ireland has failed to answer is, whether it is not the duty and business of Irish Governors of gaols to know under what circumstances they can admit, or must admit, to bail prisoners who are lying under rule of bail. Did not the Governor in this case break the law, which he ought to have known? If so, what course do the Government intend to take to show their disapprobation of the Governor's conduct?

The idea of reproving the Governor for breaking the law in this case has never entered my head. No doubt it would have been desirable that the Governor should have been thoroughly acquainted with the law, but as he was not certain he did the best thing he could, and telegraphed to Dublin for specific instructions. The error arose, not out of any laches on the part of the Governor, but out of the blunder of the telegraph clerk.

Are we to understand that these gentlemen who were illegally detained are to have no redress at all, and does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that it is not the duty of the Governors of Irish prisons to understand the most elementary conditions of their duty? I would ask whether the Governor's ignorance of the law is not the result of gross and culpable negligence?

I cannot agree with the hon. Member as to the applicability of the epithets which he has used. If these gentlemen have been wrongfully detained, they have a legal remedy.

I wish to ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury means to proceed to night with the Motion for referring the Police Superannuation Bill to a Standing Committee? I learn from the Chairman of the Standing Committee that it will be impossible to consider this Bill for some time. Therefore, by sending it to the Grand Committee, you will be taking a course which may prevent the measure from being passed this Session.

We hold the view that to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee is the best method of endeavouring to insure its passing this Session, with the concurrence, of course, of the House and the right hon. Gentleman himself. I should be very much surprised to hear that the Law Committee have work on hand that will keep them for more than a very few days. The Motion for referring the Bill will not be taken to-night, but to-morrow.

I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, who has expressed his hope that the House will pass the Tithe Bill, after what date he will not consider it his duty to press that very contentious measure upon the House, in view of what occurred last year?

Perhaps the hon. Baronet will allow mo to defer making any statement with regard to the particular date of a particular measure until after the House has had a little more time for progressing with business. I undertook, last Monday, at the suggestion of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to refer to-day to the question of public business, and I should have been very glad if it had been possible for me to make definitive proposals to the House with a view to the winding up of the business of the Session, which I am aware Gentlemen on all sides of the House desire to see accomplished as early as possible. I would remind the House that the Government have thought it right to propose to the House the consideration of a Standing Order which is intended to provide for the better forwarding of Public Business in this and in future Sessions, and that the whole question of the consideration of the best method by which business may be forwarded has been referred to a strong Committee, which is now considering the question, and which I hops may be able to report in the course of a few days. It will then, without doubt, be the duty of the Government to make some proposals to the House, after they have considered the Report of that Committee, and those proposals must very considerably affect the arrangements the Government will ultimately make for the conclusion of the business of the Session. In these circumstances, I do not feel in a position to offer to the House any suggestion as to the period within which, or as to the method by which, the business of the House should be concluded. The House is aware that we have endeavoured to proceed during the last few days with Bills that have been generally of a non-contentious character. Those Bills will be proceeded with, and I have stated that Supply will be taken to-night, and, I hope, after the consideration of some other non-contentious measures, tomorrow night and during the whole of next week. I trust the House will feel that, having made arrangements in the circumstances of the case for the conduct of business, so far as next week is concerned, I am at liberty to request hon. Members to wait for the consideration of the Resolution to be arrived at by the Committee upstairs before I state to the House definitely the recommendations the Government propose to make with regard to the remaining business of the Session.

As to the Scotch Police Bill, is it proposed to proceed with it to-night? I may point out that it will be impossible to agree with the recommendation to refer the matter to a Select Committee, unless it is taken at such an early hour as to afford a fair opportunity for the discussion of an Instruction I have put down. If the Government are prepared to accept the Instruction no doubt progress with the Bill will be facilitated.

It is not proposed to proceed with the reference to the English Police Bill to the Standing Committee to-day, but we hope to proceed with it to-morrow. I trust we may also proceed with the reference to a Select Committee of the Scotch Bill to-morrow, and that hon. Members opposite will assist us in effecting that object.

When will the Third Reading of the Western Australia Bill be taken?

I believe tomorrow.

Will the Scotch Police Bill be taken before the English Bill?

No, Sir.

Do I understand the First Lord of the Treasury to say that the Western Australia Bill will not be taken tonight? It is on the Orders of the Day, and the right hon. Gentleman has intimated that it will be taken to-morrow. Are we to understand that the Government will not bring it forward to-night?

I have every reason to believe that Supply will occupy the whole evening.

What Supply do the Government intend to take to-morrow?

I hope we may be able to dispose of the War Office Vote this evening, but if it is not disposed of to-night we must take it to-morrow.