I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the large island of South Uist is divided the one half and richer among 12 farmers, and the other and poorer among 1,250 families; that the Crofters have been in use to gather for sale the perishable commodity of sea ware called tangles, not only on the shores of their own lands, but also on those of the large farmers, without let or hindrance; but that, so soon as the Crofters, who had formerly considered themselves bound to sell to the proprietrix, understood they were entitled to free market, and began their operations this season in usual form, the proprietrix instigated some of the larger tenants, who do not themselves engage in the work, to interdict the Crofters from pursuing their occupation, and has in her own and their name instituted process to this effect in the highest and most expensive legal Court in Scotland; whether he is aware that, at a great open-air meeting held at Dalibrugh on the 16th of June, the people loudly complained of their treatment, and demanded legislative redress; and whether he will take steps to legislate for the relief of the people primarily interested, and against the closing of a valuable chemical trade?

I have been requested by my right hon. and learned Friend to answer this question. I am informed that it is not the fact that the Crofters have been in use to gather tangles on the shores of South Uist; nor is it the fact that they have sold the tangles to the proprietor. The industry, which is comparatively of modern growth, has always been conducted by the proprietor of the foreshore on the island, who pays to those Crofters employed to gather the tangles the whole proceeds under deduction of expense of supervision and incidental outgoings, and these Crofters are under no obligation to work if they are dissatisfied with the remuneration the proprietor is able to give them. I am further informed that some months ago some Crofters asserted a right to enter upon and use a farm for gathering and drying tangles. An interdict has been brought against them and is now sub judice. I believe it is the case that an open-air' meeting was held on or about June 16, at which this, among other subjects, was discussed. My information being that no valuable chemical trade has been closed, and that no change has taken place in the manner of conducting this industry, I am unable to discover any legitimate grievance which calls for remedy by legislation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to proceedings which have been instituted by the Vestry of the Parish of St. Mary, Battersea, against Messrs, Hudson and Covington, under the provisions of the Nuisances Removal Act, 1855, 18 and 19 Vic, cap. 121, before the Magistrate sitting at the Wandsworth Police Court, for the purpose of obtaining an order prohibiting the nuisance arising from the deposit of house refuse, &c, on premises in Victoria Road, Battersea; and whether, bearing in mind that the population of the Metropolis has about doubled, while in the same time the population of Battersea has grown from 11,000 to nearly 200,000 since the Act referred to was passed, he will state whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take steps with a view to the insertion of a clause in either the Infectious Disease (Prevention) or the Public Health (London) Consolidation Bills, now under the consideration of the Standing Committee on General Bills of the House of Lords, prohibiting the sorting, sifting, or accumulation of refuse in any part of the metropolitan area?

I am informed that the Vestry of St. Mary, Battersea, are instituting proceedings under the Nuisance Removal Acts against the occupier of certain lands for creating a nuisance by the deposit of house refuse and other offensive matter. No decision in the case has, so far as I am aware, been as yet obtained. I may remind the hon. Member that the Infectious Disease Prevention Bill has been passed in the House of Commons, and was read the third time in the House of Lords on the 17th instant, and that there is no Public Health (London) Consolidation Bill at present before the House. Consequently, the Government cannot, apart from any other consideration, act upon his suggestion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether (1) it is the case that for some time past India Council Bills have been sold much beyond the average monthly rate; (2) whether this was done to take advantage of the higher exchange caused by anticipated silver legislation in America; (3) whether the present rate of exchange is much higher than that at which those surplus sales of Council Bills were made; (4) whether the Indian Treasury has thereby sustained a considerable loss; (5) and whether he will consider the advisability of delaying action as far as possible and await the full effect of the passage of the American Silver Bill, in view of the possibility of a rise to about 1s. l1d. per rupee, the old rate of exchange before silver demonetisation took place?

The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. India Council Bills have not been sold for some time past much beyond the average monthly rate. The answer to the second part of the question is also in the negative. The expectation of legislation in the United States has not influenced the amount of the sales. The answer to the third paragraph is that the present rate is higher than it has been for the last five years. The answer to the fourth paragraph is in the negative. There has been no surplus sale, and consequently no loss. As regards the last paragraph, the Secretary of State cannot delay such sale of bills as is necessary to meet the wants of the Service on the chance of a future rise in the value of silver.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what was the total amount paid into the Indian Exchequer from the Salt Tax during the last financial year; and what, during the fifteen weeks that have elapsed of the current financial year, is the amount received from the sale of bills and transfers over and above the estimate of the Finance Minister of India owing to the rate of exchange having risen higher than his estimate of the probable exchangeable value of the rupee?

The gross receipts from the Salt Tax for 1889–90 were 8,192,500 tens of rupees. The answer to the second question of the hon. Member is that the amount received during the current financial year from the sale of bills in excess of the estimate is £437,000.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the present rate of exchange will yield a surplus of £2,500,000?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the Chairman of the Burma Ruby Mines Company, Limited, at the ordinary general meeting of shareholders of that company, held on the 16th instant, to the effect that the Board had that day discussed the propriety of applying to the Government of India to relieve them of the payment of four lakhs of rupees per annum agreed on as the price of their concession, on the ground that the operations of the company had not resulted profitably; and whether he will undertake that no remission of this portion of the Indian Revenue shall take place without the House of Commons being previously informed of the fact?

The Secretary of State has received no official communication on the subject, but he has seen a newspaper report of the meeting. The Secretary of State cannot give the pledge suggested. But no such application has been made either to him or, so far as he knows, to the Government of India, and he is not aware of any grounds upon which the rent of the Ruby Mines could be justly remitted.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the marked influence of American legislation on the gold price of silver in the London market, he is taking steps to secure a full supply for mintage purposes for our token silver currency?

No, Sir; the Mint does not speculate in silver. But, subject to reasonable foresight and forecast, it must buy according to its requirements.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether complaints have reached him that the temporary School Board school at Willesden has no playground, no class room, is dark and ill-ventilated, and its sanitary arrangements are of the worst possible character; whether any complaints have been made by Her Majesty's Inspector as to the structural condition of this school; whether he is aware that the present School Board has acquired a site for a building to accommodate 1,000 children, and, notwithstanding their engagement to build for this number of children, have persistently neglected to do so; and what action the Education Department intends taking under the circumstances?

I am aware that the temporary school is in a defective condition, but the Board is being pressed to improve the sanitary arrangements, as well as to proceed with the permanent building, which it is their duty to provide; and there is no intention to permit them to evade their responsibility in either regard.

Seeing the length of time which has elapsed, may I ask why the Department has not stirred in the matter?

I have just said that I have received information that the School Board are taking steps.

In the meantime there is no class room, and it is not a suitable building at all for a school.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any assurance that the School Board are about to proceed with the building?

Yes, Sir; I have received an assurance.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give the House any information with regard to the scheme of Constitutional reform for the Colony of British Guiana, as approved by the Secretary of State?

The Secretary of State has formulated his views in a Despatch to the Governor, who has replied on certain points, and pending the completion of the correspondence it would not be to the public interest to give further information.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attentien has been called to the refusal of the Certifying Surgeon of the Retford district of Nottingham to grant a certificate under the Factories Act, 1878, to John Rutherford, aged 15 years, of fitness to work in an iron foundry, upon grounds which another factory Inspector, as well as two other independent medical men, have stated are insufficient to preclude the lad obtaining a certificate; and whether, as it is a serious matter, preventing the lad from following his occupation, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case?

The Chief Inspector has made inquiry and reports that the father wished his son, aged 14, to be apprenticed to him as an ironfounder. The Certifying Surgeon, not considering him fit for employment in an ironfoundry, declined to give him a certificate. The father then had the boy examined by two surgeons, who saw no objection to his being employed. These opinions were placed in the hands of the Certifying Surgeon, who, however, still retained his opinion. There is no appeal from the decision of the Certifying Surgeon. The boy is, therefore, debarred from working in the ironfoundry, but a certificate of fitness would be given to him for other occupations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government will issue to Volunteer Battalions possessing machine guns the requisite ammunition for practice with such guns?

I beg, also, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as Volunteer Battalions to which machine guns are attached are subject to a charge for ammunition on the occasion of field days with the Regular Forces, an allowance, or a free supply, can be issued to them?

Machine guns having been obtained by the Volunteers themselves do not come within the rule which authorises the free issue of ammunition for use in rifle practice. But I will consider the matter before next year's Estimates.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has yet obtained information as to whether the assertion that there are still Christian Armenian prisoners lying untried for the last two years in the gaols of Erzeroum and Erzingian be true; and, if so, will he use his influence to cause them to be tried, and, if innocent, set at liberty?

The Consul at Erzeroum reported in February last that five Armenians, who had been imprisoned for two years, were awaiting confirmation of a sentence of banishment. Her Majesty's Ambassador brought the matter unofficially to the notice of the Grand Vizier. Further inquiries will be made.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Daily News of 18th July, that it was owing to the advice of the British Government that the Turks are increasing the military in Armenia, and also to the report, in the same paper, that in Erzeroum people disappear, no one knows how or whither, and that during the late riots about one hundred persons disappeared, mostly women, who were at the public baths at the time, and are supposed to have been abducted by Mussulmans; and, if he has no information on the latter point, would he cause inquiries to be made into the truth of those reports?

As was stated in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent on the 14th inst., certain recommendations made by the British, French, and Russian Consuls have been communicated to the Porte. A re-inforcement of the garrison of Erzeroum, and the patrolling of the country districts with cavalry, with a view to the protection of. the rural population, were amongst the measures recommended. No corroboration has been received of the alleged abduction of women.

Is it intended to use Turkish irregular cavalry in Armenia?

No, Sir"; I believe they are regular cavalry.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, seeing the Highland Railway Company have now expressed their readiness to continue the letter-sorting carriage at present stopping short at Tain on to Helmsdale without additional charge to the Post Office, and seeing this can be done without interference with or prejudice to the general re-arrangements of the mail service in the North of Scotland now under the consideration of his Department, he will without delay give effect to the improvement by ordering the sorting clerks to continue their duties on to Helmsdale?

It is true that the Highland Railway Company have liberally offered to extend as far as Helmsdale, without charge, the journey of the letter-sorting carriage which is now detached from the down day mail traim at Tain, thus increasing the daily journey by 113 train miles. The employment, however, of the requisite sorting force would throw extra expense on the Post Office, and the number of letters which would be benefited is very small. I will consider whether, under these circumstances, I shall be justified in accepting the company's offer.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to a communication in the Times of the 16th instant, in which negotiations are said to be in progress which may result in the transfer of the British Envoy of Gambia to France; if there is any foundation for this statement; and if, in the case of the transfer being ultimately decided on, due precautions will be taken for the preservation of British commercial interests?

There is no foundation for the report that any negotiations are proceeding in reference to the Gambia.

I beg to ask the Scottish Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the Rev. Thomas Bruce, of the Free Church, Rhynie, Aberdeenshire, was refused permission, on the 24th of May, to inspect and make extracts at the Register House, Edinburgh, from the records of the parish of Calluce, on the ground that he was not the minister of that parish; and whether this restriction has been framed by the authorities, or has been sanctioned by them?

Permission to inspect and make extracts from the register is never refused to anyone who applies and pays the statutory fees. There is no record or recollection in the office of Mr. Bruce having been there on the date mentioned in the question; but, from the search book, it appears that a Thomas Bruce, presumably the reverend gentleman referred to, made a search on the 27th May in the birth register of the parish of Calluce, and paid the fee of one shilling. The inspection of, and making extracts from, these registers is regulated by statute, and the regulations apply-equally to all persons and denominations, except in the case of a Kirk Session of a parish, or, anyone acting under its authority, desiring to have access to certain sessional records of such parish referred to in the statute.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he accepts the statement made by Mr. Denham Robinson, Actuary to the War Office, before the Departmental Committee, presided over by Lord Camper-down, that the rate of mortality among the officers of the Army Medical Department is nearly double that among combatant officers, or in the proportion of seven combatant officers to 13 medical officers serving; and whether, in view of this high mortality, he is prepared tore-consider the question of allowing the medical officers only six months of sick leave as compared with the twelve months which are granted to combatant officers?

Taking the years of service as from 24 to 55, the loss by death out of 1,000 combatant officers would be 335·2, as compared with 497·7 out of 1,000 medical officers—nearly two to three. This medical mortality is based on the experience of the years 1852 to 1871. As I stated in reply to a previous question, the increase of sick leave is a question of expense, as substitutes would have to be provided.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any communication has taken place between the Board of Trade and any railway company, since the termination of the public inquiry with reference to the classification and Schedule under "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888"; and, if so, will he lay such communication upon the Table?

Yes, Sir: letters were written on Saturday to the London and North Western Railway Company and the Great Western Railway Company, enclosing, with the object of coming to an agreement, draft Schedules proposed to be made applicable to those companies respectively. Copies of these letters and Schedules were forwarded to the Railway Association. Copies of all these communications will be on sale at the Stationery Office.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has observed that within a few days the decisions of Committees of this House in the cases of the North British and Glasgow and South Western Railway Bill, the London Central Railway Bill, and the Ayr Harbour Bill have been reversed by Committees of the House of Lords; and whether he will consider the propriety of proposing the substitution of one tribunal, representing both Houses of Parliament, for the present system of double inquiries before Committees of each House?

Yes, Sir; I have noticed the decisions referred to by the hon. Member. The question raised is one of great importance, affecting the whole procedure on Private Business. Her Majesty's Government have proposed a change in this matter with regard to Scotland, and until the House has considered that proposal I do not think it is likely that any legislation on the subject with regard to England can be undertaken.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case decided by the Justices in Petty Sessions at Colwyn Bay, on the 5th July, in which the defendant was fined 1s. and costs, and it was sought to include in such costs a fee of 5s. for interpreting the evidence of a Welsh witness, the Clerk to the Magistrates stating that it was the practice to charge that fee when the services of an interpreter were required; whether the Magistrates expressed their disapproval of the practice, on the ground that it was equivalent to punishing a man because the witnesses were Welshmen, and disallowed the charge; and whether, if the practice be as stated, he could take any steps to put a stop to it in future?

Yes, Sir; the Secretary of State has seen a newspaper report, from which he gathers that the facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs. The practice which prevails in the Metropolitan Police Courts is that the cost of an interpreter whose intervention is necessary to prove the case is paid out of the Police Court fund. The Secretary of State is now in communication with the Justices, with the view of removing any grievance from which Welsh witnesses may suffer in this respect.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Inspectors of Weights and Measures who present themselves for examination, with a view of obtaining their certificates of qualification from the Board of Trade, and who happen to fail in any one of the prescribed subjects, are debarred from further examination for a period of six months; and, if so, whether he is aware that this rule is the cause of great inconvenience to Local Authorities and officers concerned; and whether he can amend the regulations with a view of reducing the limit of time between one examination and another?

Yes, Sir; the rule is as stated by the hon. Member, but I am not aware that its application has been a cause of inconvenience to Local Authorities, who are quite free to appoint another Inspector for the period which must elapse before a failed candidate can again present himself for examination. As the prescribed test is by no means a difficult one, and is chiefly of a practical nature, I am not prepared, as at present advised, to make any change in the regulations.

If a man failed in some insignificant matter is it not a hardship to put him back for six months?

Might it not be possible not to require re-examination on subjects in which the candidate has already passed?

I understand the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) to desire more frequent examinations.

The point I wished to raise was that if a man fails in some insignificant particular, a period of six months should not elapse before he is re-examined. I understand that that is the case now.

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will call the attention of the Registrars to the observations of the Census Committee on the manner in which enumerators have hitherto been selected, and will give instructions that in future a large proportion of the enumerators chosen shall be women?

The special attention of Superintendent Registrars and Registrars will, as suggested by the Census Committee, be directed to the importance of a very careful selection of enumerators and to the particular educational qualifications which it is essential that the persons employed should possess. The Committee observe that women are eligible for appointment as enumerators, and that they think that in many instances they might be so employed with advantage. There will be no objection to the Registrars being informed as to this.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he now has any information to communicate with respect to the outrages committed in and near Van?

No further information has been received since the date of the hon. Member's question on July 1. Inquiry will be made.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government have yet determined upon their recommendation as to the application of the extra taxation upon spirits, approved by this House in the belief that it would be utilised for the benefit of the contributors?

I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman to what purposes the Government propose to appropriate the sum of £40,000 allotted to Ireland as the Exchequer contribution in respect of Local Taxation Licences, and the sum of £40,000, the unallotted portion of the Irish share of the new Beer and Spirit Duties?

Some misapprehension may possibly be conveyed by the wording of the question of my hon. and gallant Friend. He uses the word' "contributors," but a controversy may arise as to who the contributors really are, the distillers and brewers, or the-retailers, or the consumers. But there is the possibility of a further misapprehension. The extra taxation upon spirits and beer was not approved by the-House of Commons in the belief that the whole amount would be utilised for the benefit of the contributors, but with a proposal before it that one-third should be devoted to a certain purpose, an amount of £440,000, out of £1,304,000. If my hon. and gallant Friend's question is intended to suggest that, the purpose having failed, the tax ought to be repealed, the suggestion would only carry us to the repeal of one-third of the tax—namely, 2d. on spirits and 1d. on beer. Such a fractional repeal would, however, I have been given to understand, be unpalatable to those interested in the tax. It would disturb arrangements, contracts, price lists, &c, without, offering any appreciable relief. We, therefore, discard that solution of the application of the money set free. And further we shall abide by the principle-of this extra tax—namely, that it shall be devoted to local purposes spread over the whole country. This precludes the adoption of the suggestion contained in the question put by the hon. Member for Camborne to the First Lord of the Treasury that a large portion should be devoted to purchasing the Crystal Palace for the nation. I Will now state what we propose as regards England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively. As regards England we propose to add the amount set free by the abandoned licensing clauses to the residue which, under the Bill as it stands, goes to the County Councils, accompanying this inclusion by an intimation that possibly new charges may, by-and-by, be put upon them, with reference to intermediate, technical, or agricultural education. It seems very desirable, if more is to be done in this respect, that the localities, and especially County Councils, should be interested in the work. In England there is at present little machinery available for carrying out such an object, and it would be impossible to create such a machinery at this period of the Session. But in Wales and in Monmouthshire the machinery does exist. County Councils may supply funds to the Joint Committee for intermediate education under the Act of last year out of the county rate, but to the extent of a halfpenny of such rates only. We shall propose that the County Councils in Wales should have authority to increase the sum out of the additional funds now placed at their disposal. As regards the £50,000 which falls to the share of Scotland, we also propose that the amount set free should go to the County Councils. The House will bear in mind, that while in England and Ireland much has been done for the ratepayer, so far in Scotland the ratepayer has scarcely had any advantage whatever out of the revision of local taxation, and it seems but just that his case should receive some consideration. As regards Ireland, we shall propose that the £40,000 which falls to her share should be utilised for the further promotion of intermediate education, and for this purpose should be placed at the disposal of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, a body which, I believe, commands the confidence of the Irish public generally, irrespective of political and religious differences.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the revision of this extra taxation in his next year's Budget?

Do the same reservations apply to Scotland as to England?

No, Sir; there is no such reservation.

Will it simply become a part of the residue under the Bill?

Yes, Sir.

To what purposes do the Government propose to appropriate the sum of £40,000 allotted to Ireland, and the sum of £40,000, the un-allotted portion of the Irish share of the new Beer and Spirit Duties?

The £40,000 allotted to Ireland as a set-off against the gain derived by England and Scotland from the excess of licences received over grants dropped, we propose to devote to assisting the Irish Local Authorities who have taken action, or should hereafter take action, under the Irish Labourers' Dwellings Acts of 1882 and 1885.

Are the English County Councils to be allowed to use the money for intermediate and technical education, or do the Government only express an opinion that some day they may have to do so? With reference to Wales I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the County Councils there are to be directed to use this money to help the intermediate education which now exists, or whether they are only to be allowed to do so if they choose to pass a vote to that effect?

Will it be competent to the County Councils in Scotland to devote their share, or any part of it, for the purposes of education?

No, Sir. I believe it would not be possible for them to devote any part of that sum to purposes to which, by law, they cannot apply them. I am aware that the desire of a good many Scotch members is that this money should be devoted to setting education entirely free in Scotland; but that would have to be done by legislation. With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Rotherham, I have explained that at this period of the Session it would be impossible to set up machinery for technical and intermediate education in England. The money will be placed at the disposal of the English County Councils, but an intimation will be given to them which may guide them so that they may not spend it in a manner which would seem to stereotype in any way that payment to them. It will be pointed out to them that charges may, in the future, be put upon them in regard to intermediate education. It will be rather in the nature of a warning to them not to employ the money in such a manner as might imply the permanency of the payment.

What is to be done about Wales?

They will not receive any direction. They have the authority to use the money in that way. I would ask hon. Members whether it would not be better to wait until they see our proposals, embodied in the new clauses, as, in answering questions across the Table, I might be guilty of some slip, which might lead to misunderstanding by-and-by.

I beg' to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to cut down the clump of old trees now standing on what was part of the old fortifications behind the old Clarence Barracks at Portsmouth; and, if so, if it is on account of their interfering with the new barracks which are about to be built; and whether some modification in the plan, could be made so that so great an ornament to the place might be preserved?

This question has been referred to the Army Sanitary Committee as one likely to affect the sanitary condition of the proposed new barracks. Their Report is expected shortly, and upon it will depend the decision as to whether it will be possible so to modify the plans of the barracks as to preserve the trees.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any correspondence has taken place between the Sultan of Brunei and the Colonial Authorities on the subject of recent transactions between him and Rajah Brooke; and if he will lay the correspondence upon the Table of the House?

Some correspondence has taken place between the Sultan of Brunei and the Colonial Authorities on the subject of transactions between him and Rajah Brooke. That correspondence is, however, incomplete, and, the subject being still under consideration, no Papers can be laid at present.

Is there any truth in the statement that Labuan is to be handed over to this country?

No, Sir; it is not the case.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty who is the officer specially deputed to watch the result of compositions applied to ships of the Navy and those of the mercantile marine; is this officer an expert, and what previous technical experience and education has he had to qualify him for his duty; and when will Treasury sanction be obtained for his appointment?

The officer in question is Commander Pitt, R.N. Commander Pitt, in addition to his naval experience and training, was a member of an Admiralty Committee on compositions for coating ships' bottoms, and when that Committee, as a body, ceased their investigations, this officer was retained to watch the matter for a period of six months from the 1st of April, 1888. His services in this capacity were found so valuable that he has since been retained for two further periods of 12 months each, which were renewed as they expired. The term of his present appointment expires on September 30. The sanction of the Treasury has not been asked, the employment of this officer being special, and involving no addition to the permanent establishment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the 2nd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards has been ordered to proceed abroad; and, if so, whither; what regiment will it replace; and- when was the last occasion of the Foot Guards being sent abroad in time of peace?

It is true that, after considering very carefully the evidence taken by the Court of Inquiry and all the circumstances of the case, His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief has decided to order the 2nd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards to proceed to Bermuda. I deeply regret that anything should have occurred to bring any discredit on the battalion, and I am sure that both officers and men will desire at the earliest date to regain the high reputation which attaches to the whole regiment. His Royal Highness has also directed that the command of the battalion shall be taken up by Colonel Eaton, and that no leave is to be granted to officers or men till further orders. The events which have occurred open up some questions which will be very carefully considered by His Royal Highness. But there is one point as to which no responsibility whatever attaches to the Guards, but which ought to be dealt with. I allude to the absence of any sufficient accommodation in the barracks for the officers, a fact which places them at a disadvantage as compared with Line regiments, and for this I hope to be able to provide under the Barracks Bill recently passed by this House, so that an officer per company shall always reside in barracks. The 2nd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards will replace at Bermuda the 1st Battalion of the Leicestershire Regiment, who are proceeding in the ordinary course to Halifax. The Guards are going instead of the 1st Battalion of the Liverpool Regiment from Aldershot, and, therefore, no extra expense is incurred.

Is this course to be regarded as being by way of punishment?

I have stated the facts; the hon. Member can draw his own conclusion.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of my question?

I should have said that Canada is the last place abroad to which the Guards were sent in time of peace.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the present position of Colonel Maitland?

Colonel Maitland no longer commands the 2nd Battalion. The command has been taken up by Colonel Eaton.

Is he on the retired list?

He is, or will be, on half-pay.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not originally intended to send the battalion to the Cape?

No, never.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state how long the battalion is to be away?

No, I can say nothing on that point.

Do men who enlist in the Guards do so upon the understanding that they shall not be sent abroad except in the case of war?

Certainly not.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture-whether it is true that the Hessian Fly has appeared in the neighbourhood of Grantham; and what steps will be taken by the wide-spread diffusion of information, and by other means, to meet the danger which threatens the corn-growing counties?

We have received no complaints as yet of the presence of the Hessian Fly in the course of the present summer in the neighbourhood of Grantham. But inquiries are now being made by the Board as to the truth of the statements which have appeared in certain newspapers respecting the appearance of the fly in that district and elsewhere. Repeated information has been circulated by the Board of Agriculture as to the methods to be employed in recognising and dealing with this insect plague. I have already desired that Circulars on the subject shall be re-issued, and every effort will be made to spread information on the subject as widely as possible, with the view of counteracting as far as possible any danger from that source which may threaten the corn-growing counties.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it has been brought to his knowledge that not only the nets, but the whole gear was taken by the gunboat Watchful from several steam trawlers, which were fishing within the limits in St. Andrew's Bay, on the 6th instant; whether he will state under what Act of Parliament the commanders of gunboats are authorised to seize the gear, which is of considerable value, in addition to the nets; whether he is aware that, when the cases were tried at the Sheriff Court in Cupar, on the 14th July, no copy of the Act containing such authority could be produced; and whether, if it is found that the gear was improperly seized, he will cause it to be returned to the owners of the trawlers without delay.

I am aware of the facts regarding the seizure of the nets and other fishing gear belonging to the trawler Skylark, on the recent occasion of her being caught fishing illegally in St. Andrew's Bay. The seizure of nets is authorised by the Herring Fishery Act of last Session. Whether or not the word "net" includes the other apparatus to which the net is attached, and which it is necessary to use for the purpose of trawling, is a question of law, depending upon somewhat minute facts about the apparatus. I am informed that when the case was tried the right to seize the gear was not questioned, but that the fact of its being seized was successfully pleaded in mitigation of sentence, the accused having tendered a plea of guilty. It is a question for a Court of Law to decide whether the seizure was illegal, but I have no doubt that if a Court held it was illegal, the owners of the nets would recover their property.

I beg to ask 'the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is a fact that there is an unsettled case at the instance of Patrick Lynan, Queen Street, Kilkee, in the Kilrush Quarter Sessions Court, for the past six years and nine months, and which has on some point of law been adjourned from Sessions to Sessions; and whether he will inquire into the cause of the delay?

I am informed that the case referred to, which is one for the administration of assets, was commenced in 1882. Three different solicitors undertook subsequently the case at various times but abandoned it. It was, however, again undertaken by another solicitor, and was partly heard at the last January Sessions and adjourned, not on a point of law, but for further evidence, to a subsequent Sessions. It now stands adjourned, both parties consenting, to the October Sessions, and will, it is presumed, be then finally disposed of.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if county surveyors in Ireland have power, under any Act of Parliament, to fine contractors (without bringing them before any Court of Justice) for non-fulfilment of contract; if he is aware that, in the county of Londonderry, owing to the fines levied by the county surveyor, many contractors, or their sureties, have forfeited the full amounts of their bonds rather than submit to those exactions, and if the county surveyor has since altered the form of bond, and requires security to be given for double the amount of the contract; and if he can state the amount of fines levied, during the past three years, from contractors by the county surveyor of Londonderry without the defaulters being brought before any independent tribunal, or having any right of appeal?

The reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph is, I am advised, in the negative. I have no official information with regard to the matters referred to in the remaining portion of the question, as they are not under the control of the Executive Government. But from a Report received from the county surveyor of Londonderry it appears that in no instance has he inflicted a fine, the practice being, in cases where contractors do not entirely fulfil their contract, for the Grand Jury to deduct from the total amount of the contract the amount of the deficiency as calculated by the county surveyor. No contractor has, to the knowledge of the county surveyor, ever voluntarily forfeited the full amount of his bond in the manner suggested in the question. But in some cases contractors have been decreed in those amounts either in the Court of Quarter Sessions or a Superior Court. He states that no alteration has been made in the form of bond; but that the form of tender heretofore in use has been altered, under the advice of counsel, to amend a defect in the old form of which contractors had taken advantage to evade carrying out the terms of their contract. He reports that the amounts deducted for deficiencies in respect of all contracts during the years mentioned were as follows: Year ending Spring Assizes, 1888, £2,368; year ending Spring Assizes, 1889, £3,505; year ending Spring Assizes, 1890, £3,046.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the case against a Mr. Kent at last Fermoy Sessions, whether he can state if the Constabulary regulations on the question of "shadowing" over-ride the Common Law; and if a police constable or officer has any rights in connection with following or shadowing a civilian which a civilian has not with regard to a police constable or officer?

The reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph is in the negative. I cannot undertake to reply to the abstract question put in the second paragraph. The justification, or otherwise, for the proceedings referred to either by a police constable or a civilian must obviously depend upon the particular circumstances of the case.

Has the Attorney General received the depositions in this case?

Yes.

Do they bear out the allegations made by the right hon. Gentleman in this House?

Yes; but I shall be happy to show them to the hon. Gentleman.

Was not the offence of which Mr. Kent was convicted the shadowing of a detective who was shadowing him?

My original statement was that he was a police officer in plain clothes. That was denied. But my statement appears from the depositions to have been accurate.

Is it an offence to follow a police officer in uniform, and not for a police officer to follow a civilian?

It is not an offence unless the following constitutes an obstruction to the officer in the discharge of his duty.

How is a civilian to know a policeman in the discharge of his duty if he is in plain clothes?

If the hon. Member will read the depositions he will see what the facts of the case are. The man knew perfectly well that the officer was a police constable engaged in the discharge of his duty.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is-aware that Mr. Thomas Hayes, of Portumna, on leaving his house on Sunday, the 11th of May, to attend evening service, was shadowed by Constable Murphy, who, when Mr. Hayes met two-of his friends and stood to speak to them,, stepped in between the three men, and ordered Mr. Hayes, who was smoking at the time, to stop doing so; that, upon Mr. Hayes' refusal to obey the order, and telling the constable that if he did not like the smoke he could easily get rid of it by walking away, he was arrested, brought to the barrack, searched, and £87 found in his pocket; that, although Mr. Hayes told the police he had sent on 15 cattle to the fair of Woodford, which was to be held on the following day, and requested that he should be brought before a Magistrate that evening, or early in the morning, so as to allow him to attend to the sale of his cattle, his; request was refused, and he was kept in custody until 12 o'clock noon on Monday, and lost the sale of his cattle; whether Constable Murphy is the same man against whom both Mr. Fahy and Mr. Morrissey obtained decrees for £5 and £2 at last Quarter Sessions, held at Gort, for false arrest; can he explain how it happened that, although Mr. Hayes was arrested on the 11th of May, the matter was allowed to drop until Fahy and Morrissey had obtained decrees against the constable; whether he has seen that it was proved at the trial that the constable had taken several pints of porter before he arrested Mr. Hayes, and that, after a full hearing, the case was dismissed; and, if so, what compensation is Mr. Hayes to get; and what action he proposes to take in reference to the constable?

I do not gather that the account in the first place can be taken as accurate, but the evidence given at Petty Sessions on the subject appears to have been conflicting. Mr. Hayes did not ask to be brought before a Magistrate, but, as a matter of fact, every effort was made to find a Magistrate at the earliest possible moment. Constable Murphy is the man referred to in the second paragraph. The police have, I believe, appealed. Through a mistake the summonses were not taken out by Hayes for the next Petty Sessions. But this had nothing to do with the claim against Murphy. There is no suggestion that the constable was drunk. The Magistrate, in dismissing the case, said the constable was injudicious, and that he gave Hayes the benefit of the doubt. The constable will be prosecuted at Portumna Petty Sessions, by order of the Solicitor General, under 6 William IV., c. 13.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the case of Mr. James O'Brien, of Killeagh, who was arrested for obstructing the constable who shadowed him at a fair, if he can now state whether it is a fact that Mr. O'Brien was compelled to wear the prison garments in Cork Gaol whilst confined as a bail or untried prisoner; and, if so, what explanation the Prisons Board have to offer on the matter?

The General Prisons Board report that the allegation that the prisoner mentioned wore the prison dress is without foundation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in bringing into operation the scheme for distributing the Ulster Royal School Endowments, published 30th April, 1888.signed 28th June, 1889, remitted 6th November, 1889, and signed, as amended, 6th December, 1889; and can he explain why the scheme was not put in operation last February, in view of the fact that the delay will give the existing endowments the benefit of another half year's rent?

After the amended scheme, dated December 6, 1889, was submitted to the Lord Lieu tenant, further objections were made, which resulted in its being remitted to the Educational Endowments Commission in May last, and a further question has since arisen as to the provision for the superannuation of officers. This necessitates a further sitting of the Judicial Commissioners, notice of which sitting has been given for the 30th inst., the earliest day after the return of the Judicial Commissioners from circuit. It is not possible to put the scheme into operation until it has been finally approved by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and this cannot be done until after all the objections have been disposed of.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his. statement has been called to the report of the judgment of Mr. Justice Monroe, re "King's Estate," in the Dublin papers of 4th July, dismissing Mr. Matthew Weld O'Connor from the receivership, and commenting strongly on his conduct in allowing four tenants to be sued for £27 2s., rent they had already paid, and surcharging him therewith, and with other sums, amounting to £181 13s., "verified" by Mr. O'Connor to have been spent on police huts and emergency men; whether Mr. O'Connor is a Magistrate for the three counties of Longford, Cavan, and Meath, and will be retained in the Commission of the Peace; whether he has observed that Judge Monroe also condemmed the conduct of an under agent, named Francis Cooke, of whom his Lordship remarked that his form of receipt was "a curiosity," but that he

"Did not feel at liberty in holding on mere suspicion that Cooke had been guilty of perjury and fraud;"

whether Cooke is barony cess collector, process server, and summons server in Longford or Leitrim; will the Government take any steps to have him removed from these positions; will a Secret Inquiry, under Section 1 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, be held to obtain evidence to prosecute Cooke in case that existing already is not considered sufficient; if not, is the judicial suspicion of "perjury and fraud" considered insufficient to ground such inquiry; and is Cooke the same person who was tried for shooting a girl in Mohill, and got off on the plea of self-defence?

I beg to refer the hon. and learned Member to the replies already given on the matters of fact referred to in this question. As regards the alleged statement made in court with respect to Cooke's action, steps are being taken to ascertain what actually occurred in Court, and the Attorney General for Ireland will then consider the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, on Sunday, 6th July, a number of Catholic excursionists from Portadown and Armagh, returning from the yearly trip to Lough Neagh, were stoned by an Orange mob at Clonmacate and Cloncore, six miles from Portadown, and that Stephen M'Guigan, senior, and Stephen M'Guigan, junior, were also attacked and threatened with death; and if the authorities will take steps to prevent such attacks on excursionists as are alleged to have taken place?

The Constabulary Authorities report that a police party passed through the places at which the alleged attacks occurred, first in the morning and again in the evening, and that they were engaged all day on duty where the excursionists were, and no complaint was made of any person having been molested. Since the question appeared upon the Paper the local police have visited the two men mentioned. They allege that they were struck with stones on the road, but they have no marks of injury, and, up to the inquiry, they had made no complaint to the police. The excursionists had ample police protection on the occasion.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether complaints have reached him as to the state of the law regarding pawnbrokers in Ireland, and that the hours during which pawnbroking establishments are kept open in some localities in Belfast is largely in excess of the time permitted by Act of Parliament; and whether he will consider the propriety of assimilating the law of Ireland with that of England, as regards the granting of licences to pawnbrokers, and the general regulation of the trade?

No complaints have reached me with reference to the particular point mentioned in the question, but I am bound to say that my examination on several occasions of the law of pawnbroking in Ireland has led me to the conclusion that it is in a very unsatisfactory state. It is governed by two old statutes, passed in the 26th and 28th years of George III., the latter of which contains the provisions as to hours referred to in the question. The provisions of this statute as to hours of business apply only to Dublin and a district within three miles of that city. I shall certainly consider the question referred to in the concluding paragraph of the question, with a view to introducing legislation on the subject in the coming Session.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the charge of Judge Gibson, at the present Cork County Assizes, in which the learned Judge stated that offences of a moonlighting character are of frequent occurrence in the barony of Duhallow; if he can state at what date was Duhallow proclaimed under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and under what sections of the Act the district is proclaimed?

I am informed that it is the case that the Judge referred in his charge to the prevalence of moonlighting in the barony of Duhallow. The barony was proclaimed (with two others), with regard to Section 7 of the Statute quoted on the 17th of September, 1887. As part of the county it had also been proclaimed on the 23rd of the previous July, with regard to Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that at the last results examination, John Henry M'Dermot, who has been recommended by Canon Stenson for the position of monitor to the Bunamadden Boys' School, was promoted by the Inspector from the first stage of sixth class to the second stage of sixth class, the highest class in the National Schools, and of the difficulty of one person teaching efficiently a large number of boys, the Commissioners will re-consider their decision and comply with the request of Canon Stenson, and appoint the monitor he wishes?

The Commissioners of National Education report that, for the reasons stated in reply to the previous question on this subject put by the hon. Member, they cannot sanction the proposed appointment.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether at the recent sitting of the Land Commission in Cork on the 3rd inst., Mr. Commissioner Wrench is correctly reported to have said, while hearing a fair rent appeal in the case of M'Grath, tenant, and Bullen, landlord, addressing the tenant—

"You are a very wise man to get your grass seeds from England. If more tenants did that they would have better grass. It will pay you well to get your seeds from England;"

and whether intimation will be conveyed to Mr. Wrench that language such as that quoted is likely to do great mischief to the Irish seed trade?

As Mr. Commissioner Wrench is at present on Circuit perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to defer this question until Thursday next.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a judgment of the Court of Exchequer, whereby it would appear that certain professors of the late Queen's University have sustained a loss of nearly one-half their incomes by the dissolution of that university, and to the observations of Chief Baron Palles and Mr. Baron Dowse as to the imperfections in the Act, which prevent the legal award of compensation; and whether Government will give effect, by legislation or otherwise, to the suggestions of the learned Judges?

I have carefully examined the judgments delivered in the case referred to in the question by the Judges of the Exchequer Division. It is quite clear from these judgments that losses of the kind mentioned cannot form the basis for a claim for compensation under the University Education (Ireland) Act of 1879. I have ascertained that since the decision of this case, the position of the professors who are affected by it has been brought before the Treasury, and, after full consideration, the Treasury have decided not to re-open the question of compensation, but to leave it as it was determined by the Act of 1879.

I beg to ask the Attorney General, with reference to contentious business in England, what are the rules which regulate the employment of the Law Officers of the Crown in actions to which the Crown is a party, either as plaintiff or defendant; do both of them claim to receive a brief in every such case; if not, how is it determined whether both of them, or only one, and which one of them, shall receive the brief; who fixes the fees to be marked on the briefs; are the fees, however simple the case, larger than would be paid in similar cases to other Queen's Counsel; if so, does the Junior Counsel who appears with the Law Officer receive a fee proportionate to the higher fee paid to his leader, or only such a fee as he would receive if his leader was an ordinary Queen's Counsel, and not the Attorney or Solicitor General; and if the Crown succeeds, and the other party to the action has to pay the costs, has he to pay all these higher fees?

The question whether one or both of the Law Officers shall appear in actions to which the Crown is a party depends entirely upon the nature of the case. The standing rule for some time past has been that only one Law Officer is instructed except in cases where, owing to the number of witnesses or difficulty of questions raised, the services of both are considered necessary, and the personal directions of the Attorney General are taken before a second Law Officer is instructed. The brief fees are fixed by the solicitor instructing the Law Officers in the ordinary way, but they are on a scale lower than would be paid in similar cases to other Queen's Counsel. The Junior Counsel receives fees in the ordinary proportion to those fees. If the Crown succeeds the costs are taxed as between party and party in the ordinary way.

Does the Attorney General decide whether he or the Solicitor General shall be briefed?

Under ordinary circumstances they are taken in rotation; but if any question at all arises the directions of the Attorney General are taken.

Is it not the fact that in the case of "The Queen v. the East and West India Docks" the Master of the Queen's Bench cut down the fees from 77 guineas to 12 guineas, that there was an appeal, and that the Divisional Court refused to review the Master's taxation.

I have had no notice of this, but I remember that something of the kind occurred after I had made a rule not to go into Court under a certain fee. The Master was, in my opinion, right in not allowing those costs against the other party.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether Messrs. Hare and Company, agents to the Solicitor of the Treasury, will only get half the allowance fees or taxed costs in the case of "Mitchell v. Regina," and the other half go to the Exchequer receipts of the Crown; whether this arrangement is in contravention of paragraph 32 of the Solicitors' Act of 1843; whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the bill of costs in the case of "Mitchell v. Regina," both in the Court of Queen's Bench and in the Court of Appeal; and, what is t\he amount in each Court of the costs of the Crown?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that under an arrangement in force since 1806, Messrs. Hare and Company receive half the profit costs, plus disbursements, and pay over all sums received in respect of taxed costs. No portion of the costs in the case referred to will go to the Exchequer receipts of the Crown. Section 32 of the Solicitors Act, 1843, has no application to the case in question. I must decline to lay upon the Table the bill of costs in question. The costs of the Crown, as taxed in the Court below, amount to £160. The costs in the Court of Appeal have not been made out.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will furnish a Return showing the number and objects of reference of the several Royal Commissions issued since the year 1870, in which the Commissioners were precluded by the terms of Reference from embodying in their Report any recommendations-for legislation or otherwise?

The Government do not see that any useful purpose would be served by the preparation of the proposed Return, which they are therefore unable to assent to.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government, next Session, to give the Tithe Rent-Charge Bill and the Irish Land Purchase Bill precedence over other Government Bills until they have passed this-House?

It is our intention to put these Bills forward, so that they can be dealt with by the House at the earliest opportunity next Session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what date he will, in fulfilment of the undertaking given on 16th May last, afford the House the opportunity of passing its opinion upon the Motion, of which notice has been placed on the Paper, disapproving the Treasury Minute of 15th July, relating to perpetual pensions?

I have not had time to consider this matter, but if the hon. Gentleman will be so good as to postpone the question I will endeavour to fix a date.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in case Her Majesty's Government find themselves unable to deal in the present Session with the question raised in connection with the first part of the Indian Councils Bill, they will consider the expediency of trying, at least, to carry through the non-contentious later portions of the Bill?

I still entertain the hope that the House will deal with the Bill as a whole in the course of the present Session.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say to when he intends to postpone it from to-day, as I notice the Bill appears on the Orders of the Day?

If the hon. Gentleman will be so good as to allow the Orders of the Day to be called on we shall then be able to answer the question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Members will have, at the beginning of the Session to be opened in November next, the same right of balloting for Bills and Motions as at the beginning of ordinary Sessions of this House, and whether they will be able to set down Bills and Motions for the Wednesdays and Tuesdays and Fridays between the beginning of the Session and the adjournment over the Christmas Recess?

The existing Standing Orders or Rules of the House' will apply to the next as to the past Session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, on the occasion of the recent disturbances at Erzeroum, the Mohammedan population of that place organised a demonstration-in front of the British Consulate; and whether the windows of the Consulate were smashed and the Union Jack was repeatedly fired at by the Moslem fanatics; and, if so, what reparation, if any, has been demanded of the Turkish authorities for this outrage?

During the recent disturbances at Erzeroum the mob took possession of the street in which Her Majesty's Consulate is-situated; its windows were broken in common with those of other houses in the same street; Her Majesty's Consul-hoisted his flag, and communicated with the Vali, who sent a guard of gendarmes, and subsequently troops, who cleared the streets.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury 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, have they become so; and whether he is aware that Mr. John Austin and Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who were sent out as Commissioners to the island in 1838, reported that "most of the law of Malta (like most of the law of many other-European Nations) is derived directly from the Roman Law?"

The Crown Advocate at Malta has reported that—

"The matters which, in Malta, are governed by the canon law are marriages and ecclesiastical benefices (advowsons). The canon law on these matters was introduced in these islands by usage long before the British occupation, and has remained in force to the present day."

This is the whole of his Report. The quotation from page 39 of Mr. Austin's. and Sir George Cornewall Lewis's Reports (which were laid before Parliament in 1839) is correctly cited by the hon. Member, but it is not inconsistent with the above statement by the Malta Crown Advocate.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to continue the practice of granting to the clergy of different denominations in Malta licences to celebrate mixed marriages in that island, as was the custom down to the time of the commencement of the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Pope.

It is understood that the Governor's licence for a marriage has not been granted when it was known to the Governor that one of the parties was a Roman Catholic and had not obtained a dispensation from his Church. The question of the law of marriage in Malta is engaging the anxious attention of Her Majesty's Government, and they are not at present in a position to give a definite answer as to the practice which will be adopted in future in respect of the issue of licences by the Governor.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he still declines to afford hon. Members who may desire to visit the Post Office, with a view to seeing something of its internal administration before they are called upon to discuss and criticise it on the Post Office Estimates, the necessary facilities for so doing?

I am not aware that there has been more than one application recently on the part of any Member of this House to visit the General Post Office; and I think every Member who has applied at a convenient time will not be slow to admit that I have always been ready to do all in my power to facilitate his visit. The present moment is, however, not the best to select for such an inspection.

Will such a convenient moment offer before the Post -Office Estimates come on for discussion?

No, Sir; I think not.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the reason given by the representatives of the Netherlands at the Anti-Slavery Conference at Brussels for declining to sign the Convention, and whether this refusal was on account of objection to the articles relating to restrictions on the liquor traffic; whether he is aware that the Netherlands is largely interested in the importation of spirits into the areas affected by the Convention, and whether the objection entertained by the Netherlands to the imposition of import duties in the Congo State could be removed by increasing the duty on spirits and allowing free trade in all other merchandise; whether the refusal of the Netherlands to sign the Convention will render the whole General Act nugatory, or only the particular part to which objection is taken, and, in the absence of the adhesion of the Netherlands, will the General Act in whole or in part be binding on the Powers who have signed; and whether the proposed duty on the importation of spirits to the Congo and elsewhere is only l½d. per quart, whereas in England the duty is as high as 2s. 7½d. per quart?

The reason given by the Netherlands Representative for declining to sign the Convention was that the imposition of Import Duties was contrary to the provisions of the Berlin Act, which they did not consider the Brussels Conference competent to alter. Her Majesty's Government desired that a much higher rate of duty on spirits should be imposed, but were unable to procure its adoption. The proposed duty will be about l½d. a quart. I believe that negotiations are going on which, it may be hoped, will procure the removal of the objection; but the General Act will remain in suspense until all the Powers, parties to the Act of Berlin, have signed it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, after the Dacca was wrecked in the Red Sea last May, two girls, Ann and Maria Walsh, of Bally- dinan, County Clare, emigrants to Australia, were brought back to Suez and detained there a month, waiting for the ship Zaroba; that, though their trunks and outfit were lost, the Company only tendered them £2 each, an offer afterwards increased to £8 each, which they were constrained to accept; and whether the law affords any protection to emigrants in such cases; and, if not, if he would take the subject into his consideration, with a view of providing some authority to which friendless emigrants might have recourse for assistance and advice?

I have not received any official Report of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, but through the courtesy of a Representative of the Queensland Government, I am informed that the passengers in question were sent out with other emigrants in the Dacca by the Queensland Government. After the wreck of the Dacca, they were transferred to another vessel, on which they were kept and treated, exactly as they would have been on the Dacca, until it was possible to send them on to their destination. I am also informed that they were not in need of advice or assistance, and were not landed at Suez. I need hardly remind the hon. Member that British subjects who may be in need of advice abroad can always have recourse to Her Majesty's Representatives. As regards compensation for loss of outfit, &c, that is obviously a matter for arrangement between the parties concerned, and I do not think the circumstances of this case show the necessity for any alteration of the law with regard to emigrants.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the highest, lowest, and average amount of remuneration received by the unsalaried Official Receivers in Bankruptcy, whether by fees, or commission, or otherwise; and the total amount of such remuneration, and the number of such receivers?

The highest and lowest amounts of remuneration paid to the unsalaried Official Receivers for the year 1889 were respectively £1,517 and £208. The total amount of remuneration paid to 56 unsalaried Receivers during the financial year 1889-90 was £44,308, and the average amount paid to each Receiver was £791. These are the gross amounts paid, out of which the Official Receivers have to provide office accommodation and clerical staffs. The present number of unsalaried Official Receivers is 46.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a woman named Margaret Brown, who is known to be drunk frequently and has recently been in prison for drunkenness, was taken up in York Street, Westminster, and obliged to be removed to the King Street Police Station on a stretcher quite drunk at 10 o'clock in the morning on Wednesday, 25th June; whether any and what steps were taken to ascertain where she was supplied with drink; and whether the person who supplied her with the drink has been prosecuted; and, if not, will he explain why this has not been done?

I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that a woman giving the name of Margaret Brown was arrested as stated. She had been charged with a like offence on the 18th June, and sentenced to seven days' imprisonment. As she was not seen leaving a public house, it was quite impossible to ascertain where she was supplied with drink. In nearly all such cases the drink is procured at several houses, and the difficulty of obtaining proof in a place like London is very great. If proof were forthcoming, the police would not hesitate to institute proceedings.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 6th of June, a man named Connors was sentenced by Colonel Evanson, R.M., to three months' imprisonment on a charge of intimidating an emergency man named Holmes; whether the only witness against Connors was Holmes, who swore to some offensive language as having been used by Connors; and whether, under the circumstances that Connors is well known to be a harmless simpleton, he will be compelled to fulfil the sentence of three months?

I am informed that the facts are not accurately represented in the question. Connors was proved to have used most violent language towards Mr. Robert Holmes, a land steward. In addition to the evidence of Mr. Holmes, a police sergeant gave evidence as to the defendant's violence and bad behaviour. The defendant was not sentenced to imprisonment, but was ordered to enter into recognisances to be of good behaviour, or in default three months' imprisonment. He refused to give bail, electing to go to prison in default. The defendant is not known as a harmless simpleton, but is represented to be a man capable of doing much mischief. He can obtain his immediate release by entering into the required recognisances.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made full inquiries as to the state of this man's mind? Is he not a lunatic?

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

Has the right hon. Gentleman received his information from the Doctor of Clonmel Gaol, who was himself a lunatic?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Patrick Burke, of Tipperary, has for 13 years pursued his calling as repairer of boots and shoes in a street in Tipperary, and that policemen in Tipperary have passed his stall repeatedly, saying to Burke, "hurry on with our jobs;" and have they offered him money in the presence of other persons, for the performance of work supposed to be done for the police by Burke: and, if true, what is the object of the police in thus interfering with this man?

The Constabulary Authorities report that they are not aware how long Burke has worked at his calling of boot repairer in the streets of Tipperary, but that it is the case he has done so for some time. They cannot find that there is any truth in the particular allegation with regard to the police; but they state that it is the case that his movements have been watched, owing to complaints made by boycotted shopkeepers that he, while ostensibly carrying out his trade in the street, took up a position near their shops, and promoted their boycotting by warning persons not to enter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Patrick Staunton, having appealed from the decision of a Court held at Castlemartyr, County Cork, on the 24th February last, had his sentence increased by one month by Mr. J. Hamilton, the Cork Recorder; and whether the extra month imposed by Mr. Hamilton was given subsequent to the confirmation of the original sentence, for alleged contempt of Court; and, if so, whether Mr. Staunton will be treated during the additional period of imprisonment as a bail prisoner?

I am informed that it is the case that after the Recorder confirmed the sentence he increased the original term of three months' hard labour by an additional month, owing to the violent conduct of the man in Court. He will not, therefore, be in the position of a bail prisoner during that additional month's imprisonment.

Is it usual for a County Court Judge to give hard labour for contempt of Court?

I have not the facts of this before me, and, therefore, I cannot answer any question relating to it.

Is it within the jurisdiction of the Judge to increase the sentence, not in respect of the original offence, but for something that happened in Court.

I must ask for notice. I have not the facts before me.

This is a question of general principle, and not dependent on the facts of a particular case.

I can only repeat that I am not acquainted with the facts of the case1; but it is absolutely in the power of the Judge, on the hearing of an appeal, to increase the original sentence. I presume that the demeanour of the accused was an element in the consideration of the case.

I want to know whether the decrease or increase of the original sentence must not have relation to the original offence?

Is not the County Court Judge a landlord at variance with his tenants, and is he, therefore, competent to try cases in which disputes between landlord and tenant are concerned?

I know nothing about that.

Is it in the power of any County Court Judge to sentence a man to hard labour for contempt?

I must respectfully repeat, it would be much more satisfactory if the facts of the case were before me before answering this question. No general expression of opinion in such a matter can be of much value unless applied to the facts of a particular case.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that it is perfectly clear that a Court of Appeal has power to increase sentences on appeal. May I ask whether the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been called to the statement of the Master of the Rolls in a Debate in the other House, to the effect that—

"Equally contrary to English law was it that a sentence passed by a Judge should be increased, but a sentence that was too severe might be diminished;"

and whether that statement of English law by Lord Esher is also the law in Ireland?

I have not any knowledge of the particular facts of the case to which that general statement referred to by the right hon. Gentleman applies. I think it is inconvenient to ask for a commentary on such a statement without giving notice. If the right hon. Gentleman will kindly put a question on the Paper, I will examine into the subject, and see whether there is any inconsistency between that statement of the law and the position in Ireland with reference to the power of County Court Judges to increase sentences on appeal.

With regard to increasing sentences on appeal, I wish to ask whether the Chief Secretary has seen a letter addressed by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to a correspondent, stating that the increase of sentences was un-English, more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and practically promising that it would not occur again. I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has no power to pledge the Government to any action; but will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in these circumstances, examine into the facts of this case, and be good enough to advise the Lord Lieutenant to remit the sentence?

The hon. Member has referred to a letter of mine. I do not recognise its contents in the account which he has given of it

I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman repudiate even so gracious a letter.

As to the observation of the Master of the Rolls, I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is not within his knowledge that the Lord Chancellor, in the course of the same Debate, mentioned the practice as within his experience, and referred to a very old case in which sentence was increased on appeal.

I rise to order, Sir. Is it in order to refer to a Debate in the other House?

Reference has already been made to the other House; but I think the whole discussion is becoming one of general law, and is out of place in answer to a question.

I beg to give notice that I shall at the proper time move as an Amendment to the proposed dealing with the £50,000 unappropriated out of the new Whisky Tax in Scotland, that the money be devoted directly to the completion of a scheme of free primary education.

I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether his attention has been called to the report of a speech made a few days ago by Mr. Pinching, Government Inspector of Mines in Cornwall, with reference to the excessive mortality among Cornish miners? He said—

"Their friend Mr. Conybeare asked two questions in the House of Commons on the previous night with regard to the unsanitary condition of Cornish mines. He thought Mr. Conybeare was mistaken in his question, end mistaken in his premisses. He did not mean the unsanitary condition of the mines in the ordinary acceptation of the term, but the unsanitary condition of the air in the mines. He did not think it would be a breach of confidence to say that he had the pleasure of replying to the questions. Since the Report of Dr. Ogle was written, the conditions had much altered. The excessive mortality of Cornish miners was attributed to excessive ladder climbing and bad air. Since the Report was written, he was able to say the causes had been almost entirely eliminated by the improvements in machinery adopted for raising and lowering men, and boring machinery which produced a current of air in foul ends; and except the men themselves were guilty of an omission, there was no danger whatever to be expected from phthisis, which was the miners' complaint. He hoped the question would be answered that afternoon, and the answer would probably relieve their friend's mind."

I wish to know whether the inquiry promised last Monday has taken place, and whether the Inspector has presented any Report thereon; whether it is part of the duty of a Government Inspector who has been instructed to hold such an inquiry to prejudice beforehand the case by making such ex parte statements in after-dinner speeches, and whether, having regard to the fact that by his speech Mr. Pinching has destroyed all confidence in the value of any Report he might hereafter present on this subject, he will cause the promised inquiry to be held by some independent and impartial authority?

The Inspector replied provisionally by telegram to the inquiries which the Secretary of State addressed to him when the hon. Member first placed his question on the Paper. Such reply did not arrive in time to enable its substance to be given in the House. It was to the same effect as the words used in the speech referred to. The full written Report from the Inspector has not been yet received, but is daily expected. The Inspector when he made the speech was no doubt under the belief that the substance of his telegram had by that time been communicated to Parliament, and he was probably anxious to allay as soon as possible any further anxiety that might be felt on the subject. The Secretary of State is not aware of any circumstances calling for any inquiry other than what it is the duty of the Inspector to conduct, and which he can be perfectly trusted to conduct with impartiality.

The question was asked this day week in the House, and yet full particulars are not yet forthcoming. Will the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to satisfying the population of Cornwall in this matter, order a public and impartial inquiry at which the men can be represented? My constituents demand it, and nothing less than that will satisfy them.

If the question is of such gravity, it seems to me that the hon. Member should have given notice.

Then I beg to give notice that I shall give notice.

When will the Amendments to the Local Taxation Bill be put down, and what is the business for tomorrow?

The Government hope that the Amendments to the Local Taxation Bill will be in the hands of Members on Wednesday; they will be put on the Paper to-morrow. To-morrow further progress will be made with the Census Bill, the London County Council Bill, and afterwards the Army Votes. On Wednesday, the Post Office Votes will be taken first.