I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he has in contemplation to remedy the great inconvenience to which British traders are put by the charges for transmitting printed matter to the Colonies; and whether he is aware that British firms, in order to obtain the cheap postage prevalent on the Continent to India, Australia, New Zealand, &c, send large packages of price-lists and circulars to an agent abroad, to be posted there?

I have been informed that certain firms send their price-lists and circulars to the Continent to be posted; but the transfer of this unremunerative business to foreign post offices is not financially disadvantageous to the British Post Office, though a slight advantage may be gained by the senders of the circulars. I have for some time been considering the question of postage rates as they affect the book post, which have formed part of the subject recently inquired into by a Departmental Committee. But I cannot' at present say whether any reduction can be made in this particular case.

I bag to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the surplus drawings of Council bills, which now exceed the amount estimated in the last Budget by about £750,000, without reckoning the sum announced to be drawn next week before the end of the present financial year, are in anticipation of the amount required next financial year, and will be deducted from the £16,000,000 estimated in the new Budget?

I beg, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir J. Gorst), to answer the question. The amount of £14,989,000 in the Budget for 1890–91 has, in the revised Estimate just published, been raised to £15,989,000. The Estimate for 1891–92 is £16,000,000. Unless the sum received up to the 31st instant exceeds £15,989,000, there will be no deduction from the £16,000,000 estimated for 1891–92.

Can it not be possible in future to bring the balance nearer?

The estimates are drawn as carefully as possible. The amount now estimated has been very carefully considered.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Statefor India (1) whether he supports the statement made in the official "Collection of Papers relating to the Excise Administration of India" (page 334), issued by the Government of India in 1890, that there exists only one opium den in the Akyab district of Lower Burma, or has he any further information which would support the statement that there are over 1,000 opium dens in that district; and (2) what is the total amount of opium consumed in Upper and Lower Burma in the years 1887, 1888, and 1889, respectively and separately?

As regards the first question of the hon. Member, I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to a similar question on the 26th of February, when it was stated that the Government of India would be asked to inquire into the allegations as to the number of opium shops; but that, according to the latest Excise Reports, there was only one licensed shop in the Akyab district, and that if information were given to the police of others they would be suppresed. A Despatch on the subject has been sent to the Government of India. The answer to the second question is that the lawful consumption of opium in Lower Burma in 1887–8 was 48,226 seers; in 1888–9, 51,139 seers; and in 1888–9, 53,348 seers. No correct statistics exist for Upper Burma. The Report for 1889–90 says that 669 seers were imported during those years, but that probably a much larger quantity was smuggled.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether he is aware that a Government tenant, Russ Ram by name, farming 17 acres in the Jolesar Tahsil, Etah District, North-West Provinces, whose Kharif and Rabi crops in 1887 were of the value of Rs.321 90, paid as rent Rs.306, being 95 per cent. of the gross produce; (2) whether his attention has been called to the following cases cited in the Report on the economical condition of the Agricultural and Labouring Classes of the North-West Provinces of India (1886): Aba Ram, a cultivator of 21 fields in Nanganm, Payana Chhata, whose gross yield in 1887 was Rs.70 4 0, the sum of Rs.68 15 0 was taken for rent and canal dues, being 99 per cent. of the gross produce; Hira Singh and Bhara Singh (brothers), of Hazara, cultivators of 10 acres, whose gross yield in 1887 was Rs.67, the sum of Rs.40 11 G was taken for rent; and Baksha, cultivator of seven acres in the Jolesar Tahsil, District Etah, the gross produce in 1887 was Rs.85, and the rent taken was Rs.40; (3) whether the above cases may be taken as samples of the manner in which the State, as landlord in the North-West Provinces, treats its tenants; and (4) whether any remission of rent or delay for payment was granted; and, if not, under what circumstances are remissions or delays granted?

In reply to questions No. 1 and No. 2 I have to say that it is a mistake to speak of these ryots as Government tenants. They are tenants of private landlords. Other- wise, the facts are correctly reproduced from the Return presented to Parliament on the 21st of June, 1889. The Return being very bulky has never yet been printed. The reply to the third question is, No. The ryots whose names are given were tenants, not of the State but of private landlords. In the two districts concerned—Etah and Muttra—the State Land Revenue falls on the cultivated area at the rate of 1½ rupees per acre in Etah and 2⅓ rupees per acre in Muttra. The answer to the fourth question is that the Secretary of State cannot say whether the landlords in these cases granted remissions of rent; but the Reports contained in the Parliamentary Return show that these ryots, with the exception of Aba Ram, were not in arrears with their rent and were not seriously involved in debt.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, on Saturday, 6th March, the County Magistrates at Sunderland refused the application by Mr. Dix, on behalf of the miners of Silks worth, to enter into a bond with two sureties to try the point of law in the Superior Court, and also refused to delay the execution of the warrants of eviction; and whether, having regard to the provisions of 1 & 2 Vic, c. 74, s. 3, the Magistrates, if satisfied of the sufficiency of such sureties, had "any legal power to refuse the said application; whether he is aware that, on Saturday, 13th March, after notice of mandamus, the said County Magistrates agreed to bind the said miners, but required a bond of £6150 in each case, or, there being in all nearly 500 cases, a total security for costs of £75,000 sterling; whether, the point of law in all these cases being one and the same, the practice of the Superior Court is, under such circumstances, to consolidate the actions into one; whether Clause 3 of the Act requires the Magistrates to approve two sureties

"in such sum as to them shall seem reasonable, regard being had to the value of the premises and the probable costs of an action; "

I am informed by the Clerk to the Justices that on the 7th March the Magistrates refused the application of Mr. Dix, because in their opinion, which had been twice expressed in previous cases and acquiesced in by the tenants, the point of law which Mr. Dix raised, namely, that a new tenancy had been created in the miners by holding over, and that there was no lawful right to possession in the landlord, was not well founded. On the 14th March the application of Mr. Dix was renewed as to another batch of warrants, and counsel for the landlord on this occasion joined in the application in order to get the legal question definitely settled. For this reason, and not because Mr. Dix on the 14th March intimated his intention of applying for a mandamus, the Magistrates agreed to accept sureties. The amount of the sureties was settled between Mr. Dix and the counsel for the landlord at £100 for the value of the premises and £50 for the probable costs of the action in each case. There were 173 cases included in the application of the 7th March. Ultimately bonds were completed in two cases only, the sureties in those cases refusing to execute any further bond, no other sureties being offered. The Magistrates made various offers to facilitate the finding of sureties by the defendants; and ultimately made an offer, with the landlord's consent, to reduce the amount in all cases, but the two above mentioned to the nominal sum of £5; but this offer was refused. The Magistrates held that under Section 3 of the Statute they were bound to require separate bonds in each case; that they had no power to delay the remedy under one warrant because security had been given with respect to another; and that they had not power to consolidate the cases, as the Superior Court might and probably would do. I have no authority to interpret the Statute, and must decline to express an opinion on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can inform the House whether it is true that the interest in arrear upon the various public loans in connection with the Local Loans Fund is in England over £400,000, and in Ireland over £200,000?

The situation is as follows:—In the Report of the Controller and Auditor General on the Local Loans Fund the arrears of interest are given, but a great portion of that interest has already been written off as lost, and is kept on the account merely as against the debtor. As regards England, the amounts advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners applied not only to English loans, but to loans made by them in Ireland in old times; the arrears are the accumulations of a long period. Such items as the following are included in the account:—The Ulster Canal, £227,000; Rosslare Harbour, £25,000: Pulteney Harbour, £19,000; and Carlingford Lough, £20,000. The only other considerable item on this account is "Battersea Park," where the arrears of interest were £74,000. In this case the property, consisting of lands adjacent to the park, is in the hands of the Office of Works, who pay over all available receipts to the credit of the loan. In Ireland the list of arrears comprises a large number of relatively small items, of which the largest represents Clare Slob. Railways show arrears of £123,000, and each individual case is now annually examined by the Treasury and the Board of Works.

Have any of these arrears been written off?

I think it will be found that some of the items have been written off.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the indebtedness of Local Authorities in England and Wales which, by the last Return, amounts to £195,442,397; and to the fact that the local debt is now 42·7 per cent. higher than it was in 1880, while during the same period the rateable value of the whole country, excluding the Metropolis, has only risen 8·6 per cent.; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will cause inquiry to be made into the financial condition of Local Authorities?

The indebtedness of Local Authorities in England and Wales, inclusive of the Metropolis, was, according to the last Return, as stated, £195,442,000, and this shows an increase of 42·7 per cent. since 1880. During the same period the rateable value of the whole country, excluding the Metropolis, has risen 8·6 per cent., and, including the Metropolis, about 12 per cent. The increase of indebtedness in respect to harbours, piers, and docks amounts to £6,362,400, and it should be borne in mind that the debt in respect of these undertakings, which amounts to about £31,000, is with very few exceptions not a charge on local rates, but on tolls, dues, &c. A considerable portion of the increase on the outstanding loans is attributed to the works acquired or undertaken by Municipal Corporations and other Local Bodies in their capacity of Sanitary Authorities. There has been a large expenditure on waterworks, gasworks, sewerage, and sewerage disposal, markets, street improvements, and similar undertakings. A considerable proportion of the expenditure, such as that for waterworks and gasworks, is the result of the Local Authorities themselves undertaking the supply of gas and water, instead of leaving the supply to companies. These undertakings, the outstanding debt incurred in respect of which exceeds £51,000,000, are to a large extent remunerative. In respect of the provision of schools under the Education Acts, there has also been a large capital expenditure during the period referred to. Notwithstanding the circumstances which I have mentioned, the increase of local indebtedness as so large that it is well worthy of attention; but I do not consider that any advantage would result from an inquiry into the financial condition of the Local Authorities of particular districts, and clearly an inquiry into the condition of the districts of all Local Authorities, which number many thousands, could not be undertaken.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will be good enough to state to the House what measures are now being taken, with regard to the day training colleges for teachers at Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Cardiff, Nottingham, Leeds, &c, to carry out the recommendation of the late Royal Education Commission, that in all day training colleges for teachers due provision should be made for the religious instruction of the students?

The Report of the Royal Commission mentioned the point as one for the consideration of Parliament, but did not suggest any means by which the Education Department could secure such provision. It is no part of the duty of the Department to inquire into the character or amount of the religious instruction provided, even in residential colleges, which it is assumed will be the care of those responsible for their maintenance; but by requiring that every day training college shall be under the direction of a committee who are responsible for the moral conduct and discipline of the students, and by seeing that all arrangements for the purpose are satisfactory, the Department has, in my opinion, gone to the full extent of its obligations in this important matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the large consumption of chlorodyne, especially among women, and the grave evils which result from this practice; whether the fact of chlorodyne being a patent medicine and protected by a stamp exempts it from the operation of the Sale of Poisons Act; and whether the Government will take into consideration the expediency of classing chlorodyne with other narcotics, and only allow it to be sold under the same restrictions?

I received last year a representation from a Coroner's Jury that some restriction should be placed on the sale of chlorodyne. I forwarded this representation to the Privy Council Office, which is the Department concerned. The answer to the second paragraph depends upon the proper construction of Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, to which I beg to refer the hon. Member. Section 2 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, prescribes the manner by which any article may be added to Schedule A of that Act, namely, by a resolution of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society. The hon. Member should address any representation to that Society in the first instance.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that many of the recommendations for the promotion of Second Division clerks at the Admiralty have, although involving no change in the organisation of the office, been under consideration now for a period of nine months, he can say when there is any likelihood of effect being given to these recommendations?

The delay in dealing with applications for promotion of Second Division clerks is due to various causes, among others, the question of fixing a normal establishment for the Department of the Accountant General, and the creation of a new Department of Ordnance in which one or two of the best Second Division clerks may be included with higher pay. I hope that shortly it will be possible to deal with these applications, each of which will receive careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Boy Messengers' and the District Messengers' Companies could be allowed to carry out and to reap the benefit of the system which their labour and capital inaugurated, and if he will, with that view, grant them licences to work the electric call system upon payment of a royalty to the Post Office; and' whether, if it should be legally necessary, he will introduce a short Bill to authorise charging a royalty?

It is my first duty to vindicate the rights of the State in the Courts of Law if necessary. After this has been done, I am quite willing to consider any suggestions that may be made in the interest of public convenience, so far as they can be reconciled with the law. If the hon. Member has read the correspondence which has passed between the Post Office and the companies, he must be aware that the system inaugurated by these undertakings has-been commenced and carried on in the* face of repeated warnings of its illegality.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury sends, five times a week, written communications to the Government's supporters by messenger; whether that is not an infringement of the rights of the State; and whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take any steps to vindicate those rights in this case?

Of course I cannot suppose that the hon. Member's question is serious; but I have no reason to believe that the action to which he refers is in any way illegal.

May I ask whether it is illegal to employ commissionaires in the delivery of letters; and, if it is not illegal, whether the right hon. Gentleman will say where legality ends and illegality begins in this matter?

There is no illegality in the employment of commissionaires for the delivery of letters. We are advised that it is equivalent to the employment of any ordinary messenger for a particular message. It is not a system for the collection and delivery of letters to the profit of a company which, by that profit, trenches upon the revenue. There is no profit to any company in the employment of commissionaires.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to grant some ready way of deciding the legal point involved—as to the right of these companies to deliver letters? Further, when the point is decided, will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to grant licences to the Messenger Companies for the use of the electric call system?

It is my intention to have the legal point decided almost immediately. An information will be filed before the Easter holidays, and the case will be heard as soon as the Courts re-assemble. When a decision is given, I shall be in a position to consider the proposal of the hon. Gentleman as to the electric call system, together with any other proposal which may be made.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the fact that, on the 16th instant, one of the Palling lifeboats, stationed on the coast of Norfolk, was launched to the assistance of a stranded vessel, and rescued six lives; whether he is aware that she struck on the wreck of the "Danmark," and was seriously stove in: whether this is one of the wrecks for the removal of which the professional advisers of the Board of Trade refused to grant the funds under "The Removal of Wrecks Act (1877) Amendment Act, 1889," notwithstanding the recommendation of the Committee of the Trinity House that it was dangerous to lifeboat service; and whether he will give the necessary instructions for its speedy removal?

Yes, Sir. The facts stated by the hon. Baronet are substantially correct; but I am now in communication with the Trinity House with regard to the removal of the wreck referred to.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the actual expenditure in the Post Office Savings Bank exceeded the Estimate in each of the years 1887–8, 1888–9, and 1889–90; whether he will state the amounts of the Estimates, of the total Votes, and of the actual expenditure for overtime in the Post Office Savings Bank in each of these three years; and whether the actual expenditure for overtime for the current financial year up to 14th March exceeds the Estimate for the year 1890–91; and, if so, by what amount?

I give the figures asked for by the hon. Member as they appear in the printed Estimates and Appropriation Accounts. The actual expenditure in the Post Office Savings Bank for all purposes in 1887–8 was less than the amount estimated by £7,089, and was greater by £8,085 and £9,356 in the years 1888–9 and 1889–90 respectively. The amounts given in the Estimates, which were also the amounts voted, as the cost of extra duty of the clerical force in the same years were £8,500, £8,500, and £13,000 respectively, and the amounts expended in these years were £11,585, £13,643, and £15,796. The whole amount payable in 1890–91 is £16,282, which exceeds the Estimate by £3,282.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the Commissioners of Northern Lights have recently urged strongly the erection of a lighthouse and fog-signal station on Rattray Head, as a necessity for the safe navigation of the adjoining coast, but that this request was refused by the Trinity House, and also, on appeal, by the Board of Trade, on the grounds of the insufficient amount of funds allotted to the Commissioners out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, whether he will take steps to secure that an adequate sum is allotted to the Commissioners of Northern Lights, to enable them to render navigation safe along the coasts for the lighting of which they are responsible?

The Board of Trade have, on appeal, sanctioned the establishment of a light and fog signal on Rattray Head; but the order in which this and other new lighthouse works sanctioned in Scotland should be carried out has not yet been determined, and I think there are more pressing works than this.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has information of the number of life-belts on board the Utopia, and of what description; and whether any new life-belts of foreign design have been submitted to the Board of Trade, and with what result?

The vessel has been plying between Trieste and New York, and I have, consequently, no official information as to the number of life-belts on board, but I am informed by the owners that there were 160. Only one life-belt of foreign design has been submitted to the Board of Trade, who have not approved it.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why, although the parcel was properly insured, all compensation has been refused for the loss of a sum of £8 17s. 7d., which was stolen, in transitu, from a parcel sent by post from West Pennard to London, on the 19th January last, and insured at the Glastonbury Post Office; if, in spite of application being made at the time, the Post Office authorities have been wholly unable to discover the thief; if he is aware that the money was collected in West Pennard Church for the purpose of relieving distress among the London poor; and if, under the circumstances, he will re-consider his decision, and order some compensation to be paid?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that compensation has been refused on the ground that the parcel contained money—money being expressly excluded from insurance under the Regulations of the Parcel Post. The parcel when insured was not known by the Post Office servant who received it to contain money. If this had been made known by the sender, the insurance fee would not have been accepted. The thief, I regret to state, has not been discovered. I understand that the money was collected for the purpose named. I regret that it is out of my power to direct that compensation should be paid.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether, without giving a Return, he can state the number of persons now in prison in England and Wales for contempt of Court, the periods for which they have been in prison, and the places and dates of their committal?

I have asked the Prison Commissioners to furnish me with this information, which I will in due course communicate to the hon. Member. I do not, however, propose to include in the Return persons who have been committed by County Court Judges for non-compliance with an order to pay a debt.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the great importance of the decision of the House of Lords on the appeal case of "Sharpe v. Wakefield," and the desirability of removing any uncertainty as to the existing Law in regard to the renewal of licences, he will consent to print the full text of the Judgments delivered, and to deliver Copies to hon. Members of this House, and to the Magistrates' Clerks and Clerks of the Peace throughout England and Wales?

I do not think that the re-production of the newspaper reports as a Parliamentary Return would be advisable, as they would not necessarily have the authority and accuracy which in such a case would be essential. These Judgments will in due course appear in the most authoritative form in publications devoted to reporting the decisions of the Courts of Law. Such publications are well known and perfectly accessible to all Magistrates' Clerks and Clerks of the Peace.

Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Solicitor General to draw up a short abstract?

did not reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether the decision given by the House of Lords overrules that given in the City of Dublin (Queen's Bench) to the contrary effect?

I am afraid I am not sufficiently acquainted with both Judgments to be able to answer that question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what decision has been arrived at with regard to the protest of the Agents General of the self-governing Colonies, presented to the Trade and Treaties Committee of the Board of Trade, against the maintenance of the clause in the Treaty of Commerce concluded with Belgium in 1862, and with the German Zollverein in 1865, prohibiting British Colonies from admitting to colonial markets the goods of Great Britain and Ireland at a lower duty than the products of Belgium or Germany, and practically of any foreign nation; whether a similar denunciation was also urged by a deputation comprising Members from both sides of the House, and of the Canadian Legislature; whether the Committee made some weeks ago a Report on the subject; and when such Report will be laid upon the Table?

Evidence to the effect stated in the question was given to the Trade and Treaties Committee, and the Committee have reported on the subject; but I do not think it advisable at present to publish their Report.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the case of a large manufacturer at Ipswich, who on submitting a specimen of 20,000 circulars in new type somewhat resembling type writing, to be transmitted at the cost of £80 postage, was told that they could not be sent except at the letter rate, because

"The Department cannot undertake to distinguish between type-written letters and letters or circulars produced by means of printing or other mechanical process in imitation of type-writing";

"By means of ordinary type, engraving, lithography, or other mechanical process"?

I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the Post Office refuse to pass at the halfpenny rate circulars printed in characters resembling those of the type-writer; and whether he will give orders that they may in future be accepted?

I beg also to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain on what grounds, although the Act of 1870, passed when the halfpenny postal rate was introduced, defined a newspaper as—

"Any publication consisting wholly or in great part of political or other news, or of articles relating thereto, or to other current topics, with or without advertisements,"

I am advised that under the Act of 1870 it is for the Postmaster General to decide when a publication contains a sufficient proportion of

"Political or other news, or of articles relating thereto, or to other current topics,"

"News or to articles relating thereto, or to other current topics,"

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to complaints from the mining district round Airdrie, alleging that the provisions of Section 21 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, which requires that daily personal supervision shall be exercised either by the manager or by an under manager, nominated in writing by the owner or agent of the mind, is in many cases habitually neglected; if so, whether he has made inquiry into the complaints, and with what result?

My attention has been drawn to these complaints, and I have made inquiry. The Inspector reports that the existing arrangements work satisfactorily; but I am not satisfied that in some cases the requirements of the law as to personal supervision are fully observed; and I have it under consideration what further proceedings it may be desirable to take.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has under consideration any arrangements for making local provision for courses of annual drill for men of the Royal Naval Reserve serving on Royal Naval Reserve vessels which are placed on distant stations and do not come to ports in the united Kingdom; and whether such facilities could be afforded at Hong Kong and Esquimalt for men serving on Pacific Mail Steamers earning the Admiralty subvention?

Provision has been made for drilling Royal Naval Reserve men abroad, serving in vessels subsidised by the Admiralty, and this will include arrangements at Hong Kong for men serving in steamers running between that port and Esquimalt which earn the Admiralty subvention.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee appointed to report upon the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers is specially instructed to collect the opinions of both officers and men who have the experience of actual service in either Force?

No special instruction of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend seems necessary, as the Committee have power to take evidence, and they would naturally take the opinions of those who have the most practical experience on the subjects upon which they are directed to Report?

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why a number of letter carriers at Nottingham, who have been on the permanent staff about five years, are only receiving 21s. weekly, whilst others, who commenced their service at the General Post Office on the same date, are receiving 25s. or 26s. a week?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the second class postmen at Nottingham, to whom I presume the question refers, are on a scale of wages rising from 18s. by 1s. a week to 21s. a week. On promotion to the first-class they would receive wages of 22s., rising to 26s. a week. The rate of wages for postmen employed in London has always been higher than that for postmen in provincial towns.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inform the House when the Memorandum containing the data and facts, upon which the provisions of the Inflammable Liquids Bill have been founded, is to be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether, if this cannot be done before the 26th instant, he would be willing to give proper time for full consideration of such facts and data by postponing at once the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill to some date well after the 13th proximo?

The Memorandum containing the data and facts upon which the provisions of the Inflammable Liquids Bill have been founded has been some days in the hands of the printers, and I hope that it will be circulated to hon. Members in the course of the Recess. The notices, however, of opposition to this Bill are so numerous as to render its chances of passing this year very remote. I propose, therefore, as soon as the Memorandum is before the House, to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the whole subject, and to await their Report before asking the House to legislate.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will make arrangements for the collection of letters by the Post Office employés in London on Sunday evenings in time for the despatch of mails to the country, in the same way as is done in other parts of the United Kingdom?

In reply to the hon. Member I have to state that, in view of the strong disfavour with which extensions of Post Office labour on Sunday are regarded by a large section of the public, as well as of the decision of the Select Committee on this particular question, I have not seen my way to impose additional work upon the Post Office servants in order to make a general collection of letters in London on Sunday evening.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities to a private company to carry out such a collection of letters?

I think I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colony of British Guiana has been in negotiation with the United States of America, and also with the Dominion of Canada, with a view to the establishment of Reciprocity Treaties for commercial purposes; and, if so, whether he is now prepared to make any statement on the subject?

Suggestions have been made for reciprocal fiscal arrangements between Canada and certain West Indian Colonies, of which British Guiana is one; and the question whether this and other West Indian Colonies should enter into reciprocal arrangements with the United States has also been under consideration. The subject is receiving the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government, and it is not possible to make any statement at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will stop the further manufacture of Brennan torpedoes, pending the completion of the experiments with the dynamite gun, which, it is believed by many, does all that the Brennan torpedo can, and probably much more, and is not open to many of the objections to the Brennan? I beg also to ask whether any Admiralty opinion has been obtained as regards the sites selected for the Brennan installations?

I should have thought that my hon. and gallant Friend would have been aware that the dynamite gun differs so essentially from the Brennan torpedo that the weapons cannot be compared; and it is improbable that the adoption of the former, should it occur, would justify the neglect of the latter means of defence. A naval officer detailed for the purpose advised as to, and concurred in, the sites selected for the Brennan Torpedo Stations.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the statutory accounts of expenditure required to be provided under the Imperial Defence Act, the Naval Defence Act, and the Barracks Act for the year ending 31st March, 1891, will be delivered to Members before the Budget?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that statutory accounts required under the Acts in question are accounts of expenditure actually incurred and audited. It is, of course, impossible to furnish such accounts till some time after the close of the financial year, in view of the distance of some places, such as Hong Kong. But I am considering the form of a Return which will give the Exchequer issues to the various Departments during the year.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, as a number of newspapers now exceed the four-ounce limit for foreign postage, he can see his way to alter that limit, and place the postage for newspapers for places abroad on the same footing as regards weight as newspapers sent by post in the United Kingdom?

Without pledging myself as to the decision which may be come to on this subject, I may say that the question raised is already under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government proposes to lay out a long range down the coast to Warden Point, Shoeburyness, and on to the Nore Light; and, if so, whether, in view of the serious injury to and destruction of fishing on that portion of the coast, the scheme can be modified?

I cannot follow my hon. and gallant Friend's question. Warden Point is in Sheppey, and Shoeburyness on the north bank of the Thames, and it certainly is not intended to fire across the river. The extended range at Shoeburyness is over the sands, nearly parallel to the shore, and no injury to fishing is anticipated.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the Corps of the Commissionaires receive and take in letters, for delivery by express messengers, at their office in the Strand, precisely in the same way as the Boy Messengers' Company does; and whether he will state the grounds on which he proposes to differentiate his action under the Post Office Acts between these two useful organisations?

I am not aware that the Corps of the Commissionaires receives and takes in letters at its office in the Strand in the mode stated by the hon. Member. The Corps of the Commissionaires has no resemblance in organisation or objects to a company organised for profit, such as that of the Boy Messengers.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the occurrences which took place at the Charing Cross Railway Station upon the occasion of the departure, on Tuesday last, of the right honourable the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) for Hastings, when the crowd broke down the frail barriers which had been erected, and two persons were thrown down between the saloon carriages forming part of the moving train, and narrowly escaped being crushed to death; and that again, on the same day, at the Tunbridge Wells Station, another crowd broke down the barriers, and gathered round the train there; and whether the Board of Trade have any power to prohibit the use of railway stations for political demonstrations; and, if so, if he is able to give the House an assurance that it will in future be exercised?

No, Sir; I have no official knowledge of the facts referred to, and the Board of Trade have no statutory authority to take any action in the matter. But I agree with my hon. Friend in thinking that it is most undesirable that the safety and convenience of those whose business compels them to use railway platforms should be interfered with by political or other demonstrations. If an accident resulted, those who permit such demonstrations will incur a grave responsibility.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Return, "Coal Mines (Explosions)," was compiled (and especially as to the hours of the shifts when the explosions took place) from information already in the Home Office or in the hands of the Inspectors, or whether it was specially obtained from the colliery owners for the purposes of the Return?

The Inspectors whom I called upon to furnish this Return do not in all cases state the sources of their information; but it appears to have been gathered for the most part from notes and documents in their possession, and in part from inquiries made at the collieries.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the case that he has appointed a Committee to investigate the question of arranging a system of watertight bulkheads and compartments in merchant vessels; if any of the members of such Committee are shipowners, actually at the present time carrying on business in that capacity; if he will state the names of the members of the Committee, and the terms of the Reference placed before them for consideration, and Report; and whether they have been authorised to take evidence on the subject?

As stated in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Sunderland on the 13th of March, 1890, the Board of Trade have appointed a Special Committee consisting of the following gentlemen:—Sir Edward Harland, M.P., Mr. James G. S. Anderson, Professor Philip Jenkins, Mr. A. C. Kirk, Mr. James Laing, and Mr. T. B. Royden, M.P., to consider and Report upon the question of the efficient subdivision of merchant ships by means of watertight bulkheads, and I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with a copy of the terms of Reference. All the members of this Committee, with two exceptions, are shipowners. The Committee are still engaged upon their Inquiry, and have no doubt obtained such evidence as they required; but they have received no special authority for this purpose, beyond that implied in their appointment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce his Bill to consolidate the Gaming Laws during this Session of Parliament, so that it may be printed, and Members have an opportunity of considering its provisions?

I have nothing to add to the answer which I have already given, and to which I beg to refer the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the affidavits filed by a retired officer of the Royal Engineers in the Court of Queen's Bench, and in which a rule nisi for mandamus v. Secretary of State for War was obtained, 15th November, 1890; and whether he intends to give effect to the official recommendations of the Commander in Chief and Attorney General to make a payment to this officer, and thus end this protracted litigation?

I can only refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for War, on the 28th November last, to an almost precisely similar question. To that answer I have nothing to add.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that great distress prevails in the parishes of Kiltimagh and Kilkelly, in the County of Mayo; whether it is his intention to mitigate the distress in these parishes by means of the relief works proposed to be started at Black-loon and Kilbeagh in the same county; whether he is aware that the latter places are a long distance from the former two places; whether he can say how many hundreds of names the police-have given as needing relief in Kilkelly and Kilmovee, and how many have been relieved in these places; and whether, considering the numbers in need of relief in Kilkelly and Kilmovee, he will consider the propriety of starting some relief works in that neighbourhood?

Relief works have been arranged, and are now in progress. I cannot say anything about Kilmovee at present.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there is any truth in the rumour that the mail car which has been plying between Tinahely, Hacketstown, and Kiltegan for the last eight years is about to be discontinued; and, seeing the great advantage and convenience to the commercial and residential community of the existing system, whether he will make arrangements for the continuance of the present postal service through that locality?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that while a scheme is under consideration for giving a later despatch of the day mail from Hacketstown and Kiltegan, which would involve working the mail car from Baltinglass instead of from Tinahely, I have not as yet full information before me, and I have come to no decision on the subject. I have certainly no desire to make any change which would not be acceptable to the residents generally; and I will take care that their views shall not be lost sight of when the matter comes before me for final decision.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an abortive sale by auction, on behalf of the Irish Land Purchase Commissioners, at Marsh's Auction Mart, in the City of Cork, on the 3rd instant, when the farm of Daniel Kelly was put up for sale, he having failed to pay the instalments to the Commissioners; but no bidders appearing, the sale was abandoned; whether he will inquire at what terms as to valuation and number of years' purchase Daniel Kelly purchased the farm, and whether he purchased under threat of eviction by the landlord, Mr. James H. Payne, of West Cork; and whether, in his new Land Bills, he will take measures to save the taxpayers from the cost occasioned by such transactions?

The Land Commissioners report that the holding referred to was put up for sale as stated in the question. There being no bidders, the sale was adjourned, but not abandoned, as the Commissioners have reason to believe that a sale will be effected. No evidence or complaint reached the Commissioners that the purchase was made under threat of eviction. On the contrary, the terms appear to have been favourable to the tenant. The Poor Law valuation of the holding was £23, the judicial rent was £30, which, by the sale, was considerably reduced, the purchase annuity being £20 in respect of the purchase money of £500 agreed upon. The Commissioners do not apprehend any loss whatever in regard to the transaction.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that charges have been made against Police Officer James Curry, of the F Division of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, in connection with the action of "Smyth v. Madden and Curry"; and whether he will have inquiries made as to whether there is any foundation for these charges?

The Commissioner of Police reports that no charges have been made against the police officer mentioned, except those referred to in previous questions put by the hon. Member in 1888. As then stated, the charges were groundless.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will allow the telegrams coming in to the telegraph station at Kiltimagh, County Mayo, to count, as well as those going out, towards making up the £68 required by the Post Office, in consideration of the fact that the former, equally with the latter, contribute towards the revenue of the station?

The telegrams coming in to an office at Kiltimagh from other places would represent revenue proper to those places, and not to Kiltimagh. I regret, therefore, that I am not able to allow them to be credited to the guarantors at Kiltimagh.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the Kiltimagh district of County Mayo, the regulations for the reduction of judicial rents do not apply to the rents due on November last; and whether, although the Government is actually giving relief to the people of that neighbourhood, they are now compelled to pay their rents without any reduction?

I assume that the hon. Member refers to the provisions of the 29th section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887. It is the case that the variations of judicial rents throughout Ireland, under that section, only applied to the rents which accrued due for the three years commencing from the first gale day in the years 1887, 1888, and 1889. The half year's rent due in November, 1890, was therefore not affected.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the reported illness of Mr. John Dillon, M.P.; and if he can give any information with regard to Mr. Dillon's health?

The General Prisons Board report that Mr. Dillon had for a few days a slight internal complaint, but that he reported himself well on Friday morning.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with respect to the request of the two Houses of the Legislature of Newfoundland conveyed by telegram on the 20th instant, if Her Majesty's Government are now able to make known to the House their reply to that request?

At the same time, I will ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, his attention having been drawn to certain Resolutions passed by the Legis- lature of Newfoundland, he is prepared to acquiesce in the request contained in those Resolutions?

In answer to the questions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and of my hon. and learned Friend behind me, I have to state that the Secretary of State for the Colonies telegraphed on Saturday to the Governor of Newfoundland, requesting him to inform the President of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the House of Assembly that the Bill to give effect to the modus vivendi would not be proceeded with in the House of Lords until the 16th of April, allowing ample time for such further communications from the Parliament of Newfoundland as they might think it right to make, but it would be necessary, if the colony failed to make legislative provision for the observance of existing Treaties and the temporary arrangements with France, for Her Majesty's Government to proceed with the Bill.

May I ask whether the Government has made any attempt to dispose of the whole of the Treaty rights, or supposed Treaty rights, of France in Newfoundland by suggesting an exchange of territory or other equivalent?

The proposals made by the delegates here from Newfoundland were submitted to the French Government, but were declined. The French Government have declared themselves unable to negotiate for the surrender of any of their rights until the extent of those rights has been authoritatively settled.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government intend to try and compel the Newfoundlanders, by a new enactment, to obey an old and repealed Act of Parliament (the Act of George the Fourth) against the wishes of the Parliament and people of that colony, who are anxious to settle the whole question by buying out the Treaty rights of France?

This country is bound to secure observance of Treaties and international arrangements with a foreign country as long as they are in force. This obligation is not put an end to by the grant of a representative Legislature to the colony, and if the Colonial Legislature decline, as they have done, to pass the necessary measures to secure observance of Treaties, the responsibility of this country must be met by the Legislature here. This is not a measure interfering in any way with the internal government of the colony, or with local questions, but is simply a measure of international obligation. If at any time the Colonial Legislature pass the measures necessary for this purpose, it is provided that the original Act shall be suspended.

Will the Government, before endeavouring to enforce upon Newfoundland the present modus vivendi, give the Newfoundlanders an opportunity of pressing upon them the re-consideration by the French Government of some of its clauses?

I have already said that the Bill will not be proceeded with in the House of Lords until the 16th of April. We have information that the delegation from Newfoundland will start immediately, and there will be ample time for any representation which the Legislature of Newfoundland may wish to make to Her Majesty's Government.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, with regard to the buying out of the French Treaty rights, the real difficulty is not our occupation of Egypt?

That is a question which can only be put after due notice has been given.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consideration of the general desire of the House, and the great importance of the question, he will give a day for the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill for miners?

It is not in my power to set aside a day for the consideration of the Eight Hours Bill for miners.

Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman gave us strong hopes that we should discuss this Bill on the 18th inst., will he now re-consider his decision?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to say I did that; I only expressed a desire that the question should be discussed, and suggested a mode by which the Debate-could be brought on.

Cannot the Government give a Saturday after the Easter holidays for the purpose?

I am afraid that that would be a most unpopular proposal.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Sydney is the recognised headquarters-and base of the British Fleet maintained in the South Pacific for the protection of the maritime interests and sea commerce of the Empire; whether the contemplated surrender of the Admiralty establishment at Circular Quay, Sydney, to the Colonial Government (as referred to in the statement explanatory of the Navy Estimates) includes the surrender of the land; whether this land belongs to, and is under the control of, the Imperial Government; and whether the land to which it is proposed to remove the Admiralty establishment at Sydney belongs to the Imperial Government or to the Colonial Government; and, if to the latter, will the Admiralty reserve the right to use this new naval establishment for Imperial purposes for a fixed period or only during the pleasure of the Colonial Government?

Sydney is, and remains, the headquarters of the Royal Navy in the South Pacific, in the sense that Admiralty stores are kept there; but the ports of other colonies will be equally visited by Her Majesty's ships, and serve as bases in the event of war. The Admiralty will cease to have any interest in land which is surrendered in exchange for land more suitable for naval requirements. The "Imperial purposes" for which the naval establishments are maintained are primarily the defence of Australasian commerce, and Her Majesty's Government are fully satisfied with the conditions under which the land will be held, which have been agreed upon by Her Majesty's Government and the Colonial Government.

Does the noble Lord mean to say we hold the land subject to the consent of the Colonial Government?

I would not put it in that way. We have an absolute right of ownership of a certain part of the land, and other land is now being transferred to us.

Will the noble Lord lay the Papers on the Table?

We have not the Government contracts.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of his statements on the great importance of the Dock at Gibraltar and of the lengthening of the Mole there, and also of the fact that no reference is made to these important works in his statement for this year, he will state what is the practical upshot of the deliberations of the Committee which reported last year on the Dock, and whether any steps are being taken towards its construction; and whether the Mole is going to be lengthened so as to enable it to store more than the ridiculously inadequate amount of coal it can at present?

The Committee on the Gibraltar Dock reported last year; but considering the many urgent demands made upon naval finance, and the amount of work of various kinds now in hand, it was considered desirable not to begin the work until a large sum could be annually applied to it, and its construction rapidly and continuously pushed forward. An extension of the Mole would be part of the scheme.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the general dissatisfaction now existing with respect to the police in Her Majesty's ships, he will take steps to improve their position, and so induce petty officers and other seamen of standing and good character to join the Force?

This matter is now under consideration; but as it involves questions beyond those connected with the improvement of the position and pay of ships police, it requires very careful investigation, and a final decision has not yet been arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the evidence in several recent baby-farming cases in which convictions have been obtained for manslaughter; whether he has observed that it appears from the evidence in these cases, and in similar cases, that the children are largely obtained by means of advertisements in daily and weekly newspapers published in London and the provinces; and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of legislating with a view to control or prevent the insertion of such advertisements?

I observe that the evidence in these cases shows that children are obtained by means of advertisement. I do not see my way to legislative interference with these advertisements, which do not invite to anything necessarily illegal. Neither the Infant Life Act of 1872, nor the amending Bill of last year, which was considered by a Select Committee of this House, proposed to control or prevent the insertion of such advertisements, which are, moreover, found by the police to be a useful clue to the whereabouts of the baby-farming establishments.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the case that he has appointed a Committee to investigate the question of arranging a system of watertight bulkheads and compartments in merchant vessels; if any of the members of such Committee are shipowners, actually at the present time carrying on business in that capacity; if he will state the names of the members of the Committee, and the terms of the Reference placed before them for consideration, and report; and whether they have been authorised to take evidence on the subject?

As stated in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Sunderland on March 13th, 1890, the Board of Trade have appointed a Special Committee to consider and report upon the question of the efficient sub-division of merchant ships by means of watertight bulkheads, and I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with a copy of the terms of reference.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received any remonstrance from the Government of China respecting the recent annexation of a port of Burma, which part of Burma was tributary to the Empire of China?

I must ask for notice of the Question. Speaking offhand, I am not aware of any recent communication on the subject.

May I ask when the Memorandum explaining the Government proposals for increasing the pay of workmen in our dockyards will be issued?

I hope it will be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days.

Will the Motion for the Adjournment be made at the commencement of the Sitting to-morrow?

No, not necessarily. It may be necessary to advance one or two Bills before the Motion is made.

As there are a great many Notices down on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply, and as the first Order, the Committee regarding Scotch Private Bill Procedure, is apparently likely to give rise to some discussion, may I ask on what day after Easter the Government will set down the Order for Supply, Civil Service Estimates?

It is not usual for the appointment of a Committee to take a very long time, and I hope that in an hour and a half's time we may be able to proceed with the Civil Service Estimates.

I took exception to a like course being adopted on the Navy Estimates, and the First Lord of the Treasury gave way. I must now ask whether it is not the case that there is no precedent for putting down Supply as the second Order?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the majority of Scotch Members left town on the understanding that the Scotch Private Bill Committee would not be taken to-night?

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the proposal to nominate the Committee before the Easter adjournment has created great satisfaction in Scotland?

And I will ask whether, in case the Speaker is got out of the Chair to-night, it is intended to take effective Supply?

No, Sir, it is not intended to do that. There is no rule against moving the Speaker out of the Chair as the second Order of the Day, when it is preceded simply by the question of the nomination of a Committee. I gave notice early in the week that if the Scotch Committee was not appointed before Easter it would not be taken until the Thursday after Easter; and, in answer to a question, I gave notice on Friday that I should propose it to-day, being aware, as the noble Lord has stated, that there is a strong feeling in Scotland in favour of the Committee being appointed. I am only keeping my engagement, therefore, with the House in putting down the Committee for to-day. The Member for Stirling Burghs spoke to me privately on Friday, and I told him, as I told other hon. Gentlemen, that the Government intended to proceed with the Motion on Monday. I should be exceedingly sorry if Scotch Members are not present, but I repeat I have given full notice, and I must adhere to the arrangement.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not state on Thursday that the Private Bill Procedure Committee would be nominated on Friday, and whether it is not within his knowledge that a large number of Scotch Members, relying on that statement, arranged to leave town on Saturday morning?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that though I may propose I cannot dispose of the time of the House. I certainly had no expectation that the proceedings on the Welsh Tithe Bill, with regard to one clause, would be protracted as they were. Owing to that fact, it was impossible to take the Motion on Friday.

Was there not an hour and a half available on Friday when the Motion might have been taken?

I do not wish to impute anything to the hon. Gentlemen who differ from me in my views, but I had reason to believe that the opportunity would be taken to talk out the discussion on that night.

When the right hon. Gentleman stated on Thursday that if the Motion was not taken on Friday it would not be taken till after Easter, did not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs make arrangements to leave England on Saturday, so that when it was decided to bring that on today it was too late for him to alter them?

I should be exceedingly sorry if the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. Bat if reference was made to the record it will be seen that my statement was that if the Motion for the Committee was not taken before Easter it would not be taken till the Thursday after. Moreover, no suggestion was made to me of an objection being raised at a sitting like this, which is a day before the adjournment.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will persevere with the Motion, as great interest is taken in the matter in Scotland.

What business will be taken before the Motion for the adjournment for the holidays is made?

I hope the Motion for the Adjournment will be reached at a Morning Sitting to-morrow. The course will be to move that the House after a Sitting on Wednesday, or perhaps, Thursday—because the Government can hardly tell when the Commission will arrive for the Royal Assent—adjourn until Monday, April 6. It is not intended to proceed with any business at the Sitting on Wednesday or Thursday, whichever may be the day fixed for the Royal Assent to the Tithe and other Bills. The Commission will make a House, and therefore no quorum of Members will be necessary.

Will the First Lord of the Treasury be good enough to say what Bills will be advanced before the Motion for Adjournment?

The Mail Ships Bill, the Electoral Disabilities Removal Bill, and one or two others.

What Supply will be taken when the House resumes?

Class I. of the Civil Service Estimates.

Will the Tithes Bill come before the House again prior to the holidays?

Yes, Sir; we have reason to believe it will be before us to-morrow.