I do not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the Bill at this stage—I merely wish to point out to the House what the Bill proposes. It is promoted by the Cork Harbour Board, and proposes to extend the jurisdiction of that Board some 80 or 90 miles, thereby affecting the rights and interests of a number of pilots who live along the south-western sea-board of County Cork. It cannot be denied that the shipping interest of the county and therefore of the pilots will be affected. These pilots render valuable service to the shipping on the coast, and they have been instrumental in saving valuable lives and property, because they can approach vessels under the security of the land when the Queenstown pilots cannot leave the harbour. It would be disastrous to the shipping interest if these pilots were disqualified or prevented by this Bill from earning their livelihood and assisting in the rescue of vessels driven by stress of weather to the harbour of Crookhaven. The Cork Harbour Board seek to extend their jurisdiction by the Bill, but I think they should give some representation on the Board to the localities where these pilots live, and also some guarantee that the rights of these pilots should be safeguarded. I wish, further, to point out that this Bill seeks to give the Cork Harbour Board jurisdiction over waters 90 miles from Cork, where no Harbour Authority at present exists; but it is quite possible—and indeed desirable—that a Harbour Authority should be created in this district; and I would propose that there should be some provision by which, should Local Harbour Authorities be established, they should have some jurisdiction over their adjacent water. I hope that when this Bill comes to be considered in Committee these local interests will be safeguarded. At this stage I offer no opposition, but I reserve the right to oppose at a subsequent stage should the rights and interests of the pilots along the south west seaboard of County Cork be disregarded by the promoters.

As President of the Board of Trade I have special responsibility in regard to matters affecting pilotage, and I must say that it is not without some doubt that I assent to the Second Reading of this Bill. There are several points connected with it which have been duly noticed by the Board of Trade and brought to the attention of the House—above all, the extension of jurisdiction referred to by the hon. Member; and the Bill proceeds in a direction rather contrary to the character of pilotage legislation in recent years. The extension is from Knockadoon Head to the eastward of Cork Harbour over a district westwards to Mizen Head. No doubt there is some force in what the hon. Member has said, that this may interfere with the pilotage of another locality. Certainly there should be nothing in the Bill which could be construed into instituting compulsory pilotage over so wide an area; and I think that a provision should be inserted enabling the pilotage charges to be separated according to the section of the district over which the pilots serve, upon the principle which prevails in the Bristol Channel. Then there is a provision in the Bill enabling what is called "choice" pilotage to be established, by which, in consideration of pilots serving a particular line of vessels, less may be charged for this service than for others. That is contrary to the views expressed in the Report of the Select Committee which was appointed three or four years ago, and it should, I think, be carefully considered in Committee. There are, I understand, financial considerations which have prompted the Bill, and there is a proposal for the payment from pilotage revenues of the interest of money borrowed by the pilotage authority. This point will require careful consideration. Finally, there is the provision for the representation of pilots on the pilotage authority, which hardly, I think, gives sufficient representation when compared with what was done in 1890 in the case of Bristol, and last year in the case of Swansea, and in other places. I think it is my duty to call the attention of the House to these points, which are points of importance, and which will, I trust, be considered in Committee, together with those points mentioned by the hon. Member.

I am informed by the promoters of this Bill that in regard to the point raised they are disposed to assent to the insertion of the most equitable and even liberal provisions in regard to the Crookhaven pilots—four, I understand—

Nine.

In regard to the four Crookhaven pilots, and five other pilots immediately outside Cork Harbour. These points, no doubt, will be satisfactorily dealt with in Committee. As to the extension of jurisdiction, the view of the Cork Harbour Board is that, taking into account the point at which ships for Queenstown require protection, the extension is necessary, having in view the importance of the trade entering Cork Harbour. I make no complaint whatever of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the protection of individual interests; and as to the financial arrangements, I am informed that the position of the general body of pilots will be improved by the Bill. Whereas the nominal earnings are now 28s. a week, that amount is lessened by the necessity to provide boat hire; but the provisions of the Bill will allow of the earnings being actually what they are now assumed to be. I am informed that the Committee of the Local Pilots' Association are in favour of the Bill, and I have no doubt whatever that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman will be sufficiently considered before the Committee, and no further discussion is necessary at this stage.

I do not offer any opposition, and only wish to say that this day week I shall move—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom this Bill is referred that they have power to inquire and report to the House whether any further or special provisions should be inserted in the Bill to secure the peaceful observance of Sunday in Eastbourne."

I do not want to raise any formal objection to the Instruction, for I think the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend fairly meets the case; but my own opinion is that much wider discretionary powers should be given to a Committee of this nature. Of course, it is impossible to have finality in regard to the subjects that come under their view. We often find that in practice an Act works badly, and the wants and requirements of localities finding expression in clauses in Private Bills often useful suggestions for legislation. So we find that many of these Bills are made up of clauses passed by various Committees for Local Acts. With the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, I think the Instruction will work well enough.

I quite agree with my hon. Friend, and I think the experience of Members on Private Bill Committees will confirm what he has said. But I merely want to ask how far this Standing Order, as amended, will affect the position of London, where special circumstances have been recognised as rendering special provisions necessary?

I think the Amendment of my right hon. Friend entirely meets the case. The House will agree, I think, that there should be some direct responsibility placed upon the Committee, and this is practically all that is done by the Instruction as amended.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General will he explain why sums up to 10s. can be sent by Post Office order to Malta, Gibraltar, and Constantinople for 1d., whereas to send similar amounts in the same way to Canada, Australia, and other Colonies to which British emigrants go costs 6d.; and whether, having regard to the fact that in remitting money by Post Office money orders to the Colonies, the rates charged are for £10, 1 per cent., but for 10s., 5 per cent., and again, for £5, 1 per cent., but for 5s., 10 per cent., he will endeavour to equalise the rates thus charged to the senders of small and of large sums respectively by authorising the issue of Money Orders for any sum not exceeding £1, payable in the Colonies, at a charge of not more than 2d.?

It is not the case that the charges for sending money in the same way differ in the cases of Malta, Gibraltar, and Constantinople on the one side, and Canada, Australia, &c., on the other. The fact is, that the commission charged on Post Office money orders (the mode of remittance which extends to the Colonies mentioned and to the greater part of the world) is the same in all cases. But, in addition to that system, the cheaper inland postal order system also applies to Malta, Gibraltar, and Constantinople. It has not been deemed expedient to extend the postal order system to British Colonies generally on account of the risk of fraud, which it would be difficult to detect and prevent in Colonies so far distant from England as Australia. The rates of charge for remitting small sums by money order as compared with the charge for larger sums are as stated; but it should be borne in mind that the various processes to be gone through with an order for 10s. cost the Post Office as much as those to be gone through with an order for £10. Hitherto the commission on colonial money orders has been maintained at 6d., as it was considered that a reduction would entail a loss on the revenue, but it has for some time been under consideration whether the commission for foreign and colonial money orders can be revised.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General when the second-class foreign newspaper sorters who have been performing the duties of first-class foreign letter sorters since July last will have their appointments ratified; and whether their promotion will date from the occasion of the vacancies—namely, 13th June, 1891, or from the time of their transfer seven months ago?

The appointments of these sorters have been ratified, and date from the 7th February. They were previously employed on probation. I will consider whether an acting allowance can be made to them for the period during which they were reported to have satisfactorily performed the duties.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in his evidence before the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, Sir E. Du Cane stated that there was no barrier in the Prisons Office beyond which clerks could not rise, and that there was nothing to prevent their being promoted to the office of secretary; if so, whether there was a clerk fit to be appointed, and why one was not appointed?

Sir Edmund Du Cane informs me that his evidence is correctly quoted. He did not, however, say that the appointment of secretary was limited to promotion from the rank of clerks. Without discussing the relative merits of eligible candidates, I may say that the office has been filled by the appointment of the person considered most competent for the situation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, bearing in mind that it has been the policy of every British Government to do its utmost towards the suppression of slavery, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any notice of the grave charges of slavery and oppression on the Zambesi brought against officials of the Portuguese Government by Captain Sir John Willoughby, Royal Horse Guards, in his articles entitled "Under the Portuguese Flag," published in the Graphic of 27th February, 5th March, and 12th March?

The Portuguese Government having recently submitted the question of the ratification of the Brussels Act to the Chamber of Deputies, and the Chamber having accepted it, it may be presumed that Portugal will take some steps as regards the suppression of abuses connected with slavery and the Slave Trade. Under these circumstances, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to interfere in the matter referred to in the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware as to the decision of the National Congress of Venezuela with reference to the 30 per cent. Differential duty imposed upon West Indian exports to Venezuela contrary to Treaty; and, if not, whether he will make a representation to the Governor of Trinidad on the subject, with a view, if possible, to strengthen the hands of the Venezuelan delegates who advocated its abolition?

Her Majesty's Government have not received any information as to the alleged decision of the National Congress of Venezuela, and they are not satisfied that any representation made to the Governor of Trinidad would have the effect suggested.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the Government still adheres to the old system of running the mails between Tralee and Dingle by a one-horse cart at a cost of £430 per annum, whilst the Tralee and Dingle Light Railway Company have offered to carry the mails six miles further, and give additional facilities to the public, for the sum of £500, thereby causing a yearly loss to the ratepayers and also to the Treasury, the line being guaranteed by the Treasury and the baronies, and causing delays and inconvenience to the inhabitants of the district; whether he has received a memorial from the inhabitants of Dingle relative to the above; and whether he has taken any action in the matter?

The Mail Car Service is maintained at a cost of £410, not £430 a year, because the Railway Company ask £90 a year more, and the service is already carried on at a loss. Moreover, the departure from Tralee by railway as proposed would be considerably later than it is by road.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he intends to introduce a Bill, and, if so, when, for repealing or amending "The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883," in the interest of tenant farmers?

If I thought that a measure for the repeal or the amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883, was urgently called for in the interest of tenant farmers, I should endeavour to deal with the question at the earliest opportunity. But I am not of that opinion. I believe, on the contrary, that its repeal would be injurious, and that, under that Act, even in its present form, tenant farmers were never in a stronger position for making advantageous agreements with landlords for themselves than they are at present. Under these circumstances, and in the present state of Public Business, I see nothing to be gained by the introduction of a Bill upon the subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is hardly a farmers' club or a Chamber of Agriculture which has not passed a resolution in favour of an amendment of the Act?

I do not happen to be aware of that fact, but I do not know that I should have given a different answer if I had been aware of it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that upon the trial, at the last Winter Assizes at Winchester, of Fanny Gane, for the murder of her newly-born child, Mr. Justice Cave, in summing up, commented on the unsatisfactory nature of the medical evidence, and directed the jury that they could not convict the prisoner of murder unless they were convinced that the child had a separate existence; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the only medical testimony as to the separate existence of the child was that of Dr. Adams, the Divisional Police Surgeon, and to the comments of the Judge upon the unsatisfactory evidence given by him, and to the fact that the jury, without leaving the box, found a verdict of wilful murder, with a recommendation to mercy; whether memorials, signed by upwards of 75,000 persons of all classes, have been presented to Her Majesty the Queen and the Home Office, praying that the prisoner, who was sentenced to death, which has since been commuted to penal servitude for life, may receive a free pardon, and large public meetings have been held, at which resolutions to the same effect have been carried; and whether he can state when any decision will be arrived at?

I am informed by the learned Judge that he directed the jury, as stated in the question, that they could not convict in a case of infanticide unless they were convinced of the separate existence of the child. The separate existence of the child was proved by Dr. Adams and supported by another medical man, and the learned Judge informs me that he has no recollection, nor any note, of having said that the medical evidence was unsatisfactory. He further states in a recent communication to me that he was at the time, and still is, of opinion that the verdict of the jury was right. The jury recommended the prisoner to mercy, and, according to the newspaper report, found their verdict without leaving the jury-box. A memorial signed by 25,250 persons to the effect mentioned in the question has reached the Home Office. As I informed the hon. Member in answer to a question earlier in the Session, it is as yet too soon to announce the ultimate reduction of sentence, which will be considerable, in this case of infanticide.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the 3rd and 4th Battalions of the Lancashire Fusiliers, whose headquarters are at Bury, are ordered to assemble for their annual training at Chipping; whether he is aware that is regarded as a most out-of-the-way and inconvenient place for the purpose by both officers and men; and whether, in the interests of the regiment, and considering the fact that these battalions furnish annually a large number of recruits for the Line, he can alter the programme, and allow the regiment to train at Altcar, as recommended by the officers commanding both battalions of the regiment?

The ground at Altcar is not well adapted for military training; but, on the other hand, a large tract has been leased at Chipping for the purpose of brigading together the Militia and Regular troops of the district, and it is anticipated that a great improvement in the training will be the consequence.

But would it not be more convenient to hold the training nearer headquarters?

A more convenient place could not be found for the purpose of brigading together the Militia and Regular troops of the district. As I am informed, the objection to Altcar is that physical difficulties, such as rabbit warrens, &c, spoil the manœuvring ground.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has investigated the case of the prisoner J. Curtin Kent, by the light of any documents recently placed in his hands; and, if so, whether he sees any ground for considering the case one for consideration favourable to the prisoner's release?

I have given full consideration to the document with which I have recently been furnished by the hon. Member with regard to the prisoner J. Curtin Kent; and I regret that I have been unable to discover in it sufficient reasons for interfering with the sentence.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the promise made to the postmen of an increase in their wages from August, 1891, has been fulfilled; and, if not fully, to what extent has it been carried out?

The increases in the pay of the postmen are set forth in a Return dated 5th August, 1891. It is not intended to add to these.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether there is any sufficient reason for summoning between 36 and 50 jurors to try a civil cause in the Court of Session, or 45 jurors to try a criminal case in the ordinary Sheriff Courts in Scotland; whether he is aware that the summoning of so many jurors is much complained of; and whether, if the numbers summoned could be reduced without detriment to the administration of justice, he will take steps to authorise their reduction?

So far as juries in criminal cases are concerned, the object desired by the hon. Member has already been attained by a provision of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1887, which provides that sufficient jurors only shall be summoned. Whether a somewhat similar provision might be enacted as regards jury trial in the Civil Courts is well worthy of consideration should a favourable opportunity occur of legislating on the subject.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the Sheriff Substitute at Dundee, who recently described the law of Scotland under which the father of an illegitimate child can relieve himself from further payments of aliment by offering to take the child, if a boy, attaining the age of seven, into his own custody, as "an antiquated abomination," adding that "a law which takes a boy from its mother when he is seven years old does not suit modern ideas of civilisation"; whether he is aware that, under a recent decision of the Supreme Court, the mother of an illegitimate child has no legal claim to compensation for his death owing to the negligence of others, and no claim for support in old age from a living son able to maintain her, and whether there is any prospect of the law being amended in these particulars?

I have no knowledge of the first case referred to except from the question of the hon. Member. If the Sheriff Substitute is correctly reported, he is in error in suggesting that the law takes an illegitimate male child from its mother at the age of seven. The father, when ascertained, is under a legal obligation for the aliment of the child, and he is entitled, when the child reaches seven years of age, to discharge that obligation in the way least burdensome to himself. I am aware of the recent decision referred to in the second paragraph of the question. I can hold out no hope of the law being altered in either particular, especially in a direction which might tend to the encouragement of illegitimacy.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the cause of the delay in filling up the appointment of assistant superintendent of the telegraph school for learners, and whether, in view of the slowness of promotion in the Central Telegraph Office, he will take immediate steps to fill up the vacancy?

There has been no delay in filling up the appointment. The late assistant superintendent was pensioned on the 2nd instant, and he died on the 4th instant. The necessary steps are being taken to select a suitable successor.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Exeter, as a Charity Commissioner, whether he is aware that although the Charity Commissioners have, since 4th March, 1891, repeatedly stated that it appeared to be clear that the Trustees of James Thompson's Charity were entitled to be paid a sum of £45 which had been lent by their predecessors some years ago to the churchwardens as Trustees of the Church Estate, and that interest should be paid thereon in priority to any payments towards the current expenses of the church, no payment has yet been made; whether any application has been received by the Commissioners in reply to their letter of 4th March, 1891, in which they expressed their willingness to consider the expediency of establishing a scheme for the future income of the charity, upon receiving an application from the vicar and parish officers; whether the accounts of the Charity for the past year have yet been furnished; and whether, having regard to the continued delay and neglect, and to the near approach of the time for the Easter Vestry, the Commissioners will make a strong representation to the vicar, churchwardens, and overseers, and if necessary direct a local inquiry to be held?

The sum of £45 referred to, forming the capital of James Thompson's Charity at Hillmorton, in the County of Warwick, was lent in or about the year 1822 by the Trustees of that Charity to the Trustees of the Church Estate in that parish, and has not yet been repaid. Interest upon the loan has been regularly paid, though not always at the stipulated rate of 5 per cent. The Commissioners have now received a letter, dated the 1st instant, from the parish churchwarden, expressing his willingness to adopt the suggestion made last year by the Commissioners that the principal should be repaid by yearly instalments. The Trustees of James Thompson's Charity have invited the Commissioners to suggest a scheme for the future application of the income of the Charity. The last accounts, for the year ending 30th March 1891, were received on the following day. In the present aspect of the case the Commissioners do not consider that a local inquiry is necessary.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the practice of throwing over carcases from cattle ships in the immediate proximity of our coasts; and whether he will give this matter his best consideration, with a view of stopping this practice, which might lead to disastrous consequences owing to the carcases being washed on shore?

I am not aware that any representations have recently reached my Department with regard to the practice to which my hon. Friend refers. Any person who throws the carcase of an animal which has died of disease or been slaughtered as diseased into the sea, within three miles from the shore, is liable to a penalty; and in the event of my becoming aware of the commission of such an offence, I should certainly take steps with a view to the institution of proceedings if the evidence were sufficient. But the offence is one which it is obviously very difficult to detect.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will inform the House on what principle the "market value" of sparkling wines is arrived at; whether the administration of "The Customs (Wine Duty) Act, 1888," is so uncertain that merchants are left in ignorance of the rate of duty that will be charged on certain wines, and whether the country has lost a large revenue owing to the way the Act was construed for more than three years; whether it is true that the Board of Customs has divulged information of a confidential nature obtained by them under the provisions of the Act; and whether, in face of these difficulties, the Custom House authorities are in favour of the ad valorem duty being abandoned, and whether it will be abandoned in favour of a fixed duty irrespective of price?

May I, at the same time, ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether British wines which pay no duty do not contain a larger quantity of alcohol than many foreign wines, and whether the Revenue does not thereby suffer?

In answer to the question put to me by my hon. and gallant Friend, I can only say that I have not sufficient knowledge of British wines to form an opinion as to the amount of alcohol they contain. The definition of "market value of sparkling wine" is stated in the Wine Duty Act of 1888 to be "the price which the wine would realise if sold in bond at the port of importation." But, as such actual sales are now seldom effected, means must be taken to ascertain, as fairly as possible, what that price is. The most important element in the case, as a guide, is the wholesale selling price to the distributing trader in this country. No difficulty occurs, I am informed, with regard to at least nine-tenths of the whole importation, and, in the case of the great bulk of the imports, there is no ignorance whatever as to the rate of duty which will be charged; but when wines are very near the border line, importers may hope to get their wines through at the lower duty and may not succeed. The country has not lost a large revenue owing to the way in which the Act has been administered during the last three years. It is not true that the "Board of Customs has divulged information of a confidential nature" obtained under the Act. In one instance the source of supply of some champagne was divulged to a customer of an importer, owing to a mistake of a clerk in the pressure of business, for which regret has been already expressed in a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Wine and Spirit Association; and I venture to think that, under the circumstances, the hon. Member—who is, I understand, a member of that Association—ought scarcely to have made the reflection on the Board which is contained in his question. No opinion has been expressed by the Custom House authorities on the Sparkling Wine Duty; but I may say that it ap- pears to me that a change to a fixed duty, irrespective of price, as suggested, would either involve a loss to the Revenue, if put so low as to relieve the higher wines as compared with the present duty; or, if an average was struck between the higher and the lower duty, it might, from the information I gathered at the time, seriously affect the importation and the consumption of the cheaper wines.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Inspection Committee under "The Savings Banks Act, 1891," has made any proposals to the Treasury, under Section 4 of that Act, with respect to the remuneration of members and officers; and whether the Treasury has sanctioned them; and, if so, whether he will lay a Copy of the particulars upon the Table?

had notice of the following question—To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House what remuneration is fixed for the members of the Inspection Committee of Trustee Savings Banks under the Act of last Session (54 & 55 Vic, c. 21); whether each member respectively is to be paid a like amount, and from what source the payments are made; and whether such payments will annually come under the cognisance of Parliament; and, if so, under what head in the Civil Service Estimates of each year respectively?

I propose to answer at the same time the question given notice of by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. The National Debt Commissioners have recommended, and the Treasury has approved, a scale of remuneration for the members of the Inspection Committee of Trustee Savings Banks. The chairman is entitled to receive £7 7s. for each attendance at a meeting of the committee, and each member £5 5s.; but the total remuneration of the committee may not exceed £600 in any year. The scheme provides for the payment of reasonable travelling expenses, in addition to this remuneration. I under- stand that the chairman of the committee—Sir Albert Rollit—a Member of this House, has not accepted, and does not intend to accept, any remuneration for his services. The Treasury has sanctioned the salary to be paid to the secretary of the committee, and proposals for the appointment of inspectors and for their remuneration are now under consideration. The payments are made from the sources specified in Section 4 of the Act—namely, to an extent not exceeding £6,000 a year from the interest earned in that year by the National Debt Commissioners in respect of the separate surplus fund which has accrued under Section 29 of the Savings Banks Act, 1863, and which does not carry interest to the Trustees of savings banks, and, if this sum should be insufficient, from contributions from the several Trustee Savings Banks. The money accordingly will not be drawn from the Exchequer, and will not have to be voted by Parliament.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say by what body was Sir Albert Rollit nominated for the Committee?

I prefer notice of that question, but I believe the matter was left, to a great extent, to the Trustee Savings Banks themselves.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the Society of Actuaries of the Trustee Savings Banks?

No, that is not my meaning.

Will this come before Parliament annually?

No, I think not; though, of course, hon. Members may raise the question. It will not come financially before the House. The House will remember the desire was expressed that this should not be made a Government affair. The House will, probably, be asked in the main to fall in with the arrangements of the Inspection Committee, but it is not proposed to make this a Government department.

I shall take an opportunity to refer to the matter in Committee of Supply.

Was it not intended by the Government two or three years ago that this Inspection Committee should be a regular bonâ fide committee to do the work in a business-like way, and not as amateurs? Is it likely that the work will be so done when some of the Committee are paid and some are not?

I belive this cannot be called an amateur body. I need not mention all the names again, but great pains have been taken to secure the services of eminent men. I have seen the first proposals made, and they seem to me to be eminently satisfactory. I shall be very glad to produce the instructions to Inspectors, showing the general scheme on which they are to work, and I do trust that nothing will be done in the House to discourage the committee in their very useful work.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the estimated losses of revenue, due to the operation of the Reciprocity Treaty with the United States, in each of the West Indian Colonies affected; and what are the steps that have been taken, or that it is proposed to take, in each Colony, for the purpose of making good the deficits?

The estimated loss of revenue in the various Colonies is as follows: Jamaica, from £22,000 to £29,000; Leewards, about £10,000; Windwards, about £4,000; Barbados, £12,000; Trinidad, £15,000; British Guiana, £29,000. I could not, within the limits of an answer, give the hon. Member a satisfactory statement of the various ways in which the Colonies propose to make good these losses of revenue; but he will find full particulars in the Papers about to be presented.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board for Ireland are aware of the provisions of the Mullingar Water Act, which enable the Guardians of that Union to recover the costs and expenses of obtaining the said Act, particularly Section 41, in which it is stated that those costs and expenses—

"Shall be recouped by and charged to the moneys to be borrowed by the Guardians under the powers of the Act";

As I stated in reply to a previous question, the power of the Guardians in the case mentioned is purely a legal question, and they appear to be taking the advice of their counsel. The Local Government Board have no title to interfere.

I desire to state I have seen the opinion of counsel, and it is stated the action of the Guardians was not legal.

Then surely it is quite open to any ratepayer to raise the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he was correctly informed when he stated that the Colonial Governments had not seen their way to undertake the necessary defensive works in King George's Sound and Torres Straits?

I find on looking at the reports of my speech that by inadvertence I did not do justice to the energy of the Australian Government. I am glad to say that the fortifications at King George's Sound are rapidly approaching completion, and those at Thursday Island have been pressed forward in a satisfactory manner. Both these places will therefore be fully armed during 1892—a result which reflects great credit on the various Colonial Governments concerned.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is able to state when Mr. Roberts' Report upon the Lough Erne drainage works and taxation will be distributed?

The general Report is now ready, and will be distributed immediately.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Irish Daily Independent of the 14th instant as to the discovery at Limerick Junction, "under peculiar circumstances," of a parcel containing dynamite in the Dublin mail train to Cork, and the consequent arrest of a young man called Halligan at Templemore; whether the circumstances are as reported; if so, upon what grounds did the guard of the train depart from the ordinary practice of the company by handing over an unowned parcel to the police instead of forwarding it to the lost luggage office; whether there were any detonators affixed to the alleged dynamite, or any other appliance which would tend to show an intention on the part of the owner to provide for its explosion subsequent to his abandonment of it; what grounds had the police for suspecting that Halligan, who was returning home from his place of business in Dublin to attend his father's funeral, was the owner of the alleged dynamite rather than any of the other persons reported to have left the train very shortly before him; whether any warrant was issued for Halligan's arrest; and, if not, was his summary arrest in accordance with the ordinary procedure in such cases; and whether, in view of the grave suspicion very generally amongst all classes in Ireland as to the complicity of agents provocateurs and of the police in cases where Irishmen are charged with illegal possession of explosive substances, he will order a searching and efficient inquiry into all the circumstances of the case before sufficient time shall have elapsed to enable the traces of such a plot, if existent, to be obliterated

The Constabulary Authorities report that the facts are substantially as stated in the newspaper report as to the discovery of dynamite in the Dublin mail to Cork. The railway guard, having found the parcel to contain dynamite, properly handed it over to the police at the next station. There was no detonator affixed to the alleged dynamite. The young man Halligan was arrested on a statement from the guard that he was the only man in the carriage where the dynamite was found. No warrant was issued. The action of the police was in accordance with the ordinary procedure in such cases. The police at once instituted inquiries, with the result that the ownership was traced to another man who had left the train at an earlier station. The young man had been put to as little inconvenience as possible in the matter.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is proposed to compensate this young man?

No, Sir; I do not think it is a case for compensation, nor do I know that it is desired.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that, although the County of Limerick is entitled to a "free" police force of 404 men, the average "free quota" is only 382, while the ratepayers are charged for an extra force of 162; and if he will arrange that, when the next demand is made on the County Limerick for payment of "extra" police, credit will be given for the cost of 22 men, being the difference in number between the "free quota," to which the county is entitled, and the actual free force serving?

The free quota of constabulary for the County Limerick is 404 men. The extra force numbers 144, to which it has been reduced within the past year from 172, as opportunity offered. It would not be practicable to adopt the course suggested in the second paragraph. Vacancies necessarily at times exist in a county, owing to recruits training at the depôt, and to absences through ordinary leave or sickness.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, seeing how often these burdens on ratepayers are made the subject of questions, if he will give a Return, showing for each county the force the county is entitled to; the force actually serving in the district; the number at the depôt in Dublin; and the number of the extra force?

I have not the slightest objection to lay a Paper on the Table giving such information. There has been some confusion about the matter, and I was not able at first to understand it fully. There is a total fixed Force of 10,006 men distributed over the counties of Ireland, and, of course, in this number are included vacancies from time to time. I think it is desirable to make the information known, and I will have a Paper drawn up, putting the matter clearly.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the chief clerk of the sorting office of the General Post Office, Dublin, with a salary of £500 a year, has been recently transferred to a vacancy in the accountant's office, the pay attaching to which is £300 to £400, thereby stopping the promotion of all the minor officials of this office, nearly all of whom are Catholics; and whether by this transfer and the filling up of his place in the sorting office, there will be any consequent increase in the Estimates?

The transfer in question has been made, and, of course, it prevents the promotion in the office to which it was made. I do not know anything about the religion or the politics of any members of the Service unless they intrude them; and the appointment in question had no reference to such considerations. There will be no increase in the Estimates caused by the appointment.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Scottish Education Department has been called to the judgment of the Court of Session pronounced last week in the case of the Provost of Port Glasgow against the Port Glasgow School Board, in which it was declared that that Board, declared by the Returning Officer in terms of Article 13 of General Order of the Department, dated 1st October, 1890, to have been elected, was, in fact, not duly elected, and that the Article in question was inconsistent with the provisions of the Scottish Education Act of 1872, and ultra vires of the Department; whether it is proposed to withdraw the Article in question; and whether Government intend to make any compensation to the members of the School Board for the expenses to which they have been put through their observance of the Order of the Education Department which the Court of Session has pronounced illegal?

It is the case that in an action raised by certain ratepayers in Port Glasgow against the School Board, to which the Department were not parties, the second division of the Court of Session held by a majority that a regulation made by the Scotch Education Department, and acted upon without challenge for 15 years, was beyond the powers of the Department. Lord Young dissented, and held that the Department had acted within their powers under the Education Act. The position of matters as affected by the decision referred to is now engaging the attention of the Department. No delay which can be avoided will take place in arriving at a decision as to the proper course of procedure, and in announcing that decision. But, pending further consideration of the matter, I think it better to refrain from making any further statement.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Education Department will order a new election to take place at Port Glasgow?

That is one of the matters under consideration.

I will put a question on the point to-morrow.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, when speaking at the dinner of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, he stated that the loss of life at sea had been reduced to 1 in 256, he was speaking of the total loss of life at sea from all causes, or whether he was speaking of the loss of life under two headings alone of several under which the loss of life at sea is classified; and what were the headings under which loss of life at sea are classified which were not included by him in the figures he gave?

When speaking on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers, I was not stating the "total loss of life at sea from all causes," but, as I clearly explained, only the loss of life among seamen arising from wrecks and casualties at sea to merchant ships registered in the United Kingdom—namely, lives lost in direct consequence of accidents causing total loss or damage to the ships. The corresponding figures for 1881 are 1 in 79. The loss of life which is not included in the foregoing figures was that which occurred from drowning and other accidents, although the ships were in no way damaged or in danger.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the lottery got up by Mr. W. Hunter, Supervisor of Inland Revenue, Glasgow, in aid of the lad Miller, if he will state the total sum realised by the sale of tickets, and the various disbursements (including any commission paid to sellers of tickets), and the amount of each; and whether the accounts of the lottery were audited; and, if so, when, and by whom?

I am informed that the gross receipts on the lottery got up by Mr. W. Hunter, Supervisor of Inland Revenue, Glasgow, in aid of the lad Miller, were £1,135 5s. 8d., and the expenses (printing tickets, postage, cost of prizes, premium clocks, and payments to clerks) were £759 6s., leaving a balance of £375 19s. 8d., out of which payments have already been made to the Miller family amounting to £77, and the balance, £298 19s. 8d., is vested in Trustees. The accounts were not audited by anyone except Mr. Hunter himself, but he has assured the Board of Inland Revenue that "not a single penny of the money received for the boy Miller has ever been used for his own benefit."

The right hon. Gentleman has not said the amount of commission which has been paid to the sellers.

I am afraid I cannot discriminate between the sums. I have no information to enable me to discriminate the commission from the other accounts.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government can furnish any information as to the safety of a party consisting of 100 young men who sailed from Durban to Madagascar on 23rd July last, with the object of prospecting for nugget gold on a large concession called the Talbot Dawson; and if the Government have no information, will they endeavour to procure such through the British Consulate in Madagascar or otherwise?

Her Majesty's Government have no information on this subject, but they will cause inquiries to be made.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has noticed the case of a trawler charged with illegal trawling at the Sheriff Court in Elgin about six months ago, in which the Public Prosecutor withdrew the charge because the Judge did not feel able to decide a point of law—namely, whether the Fishery Board had power by bye-law to decree a penalty of £100, while Section 7 of the Act of 1889 decrees a penalty of £5 only for a first offence and £20 for subsequent offences; and whether the point in question has been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown; and, if so, with what result?

I am aware of the case referred to in the question, but the hon. Member is in error in saying that the prosecutor withdrew the charge because the Judge was unable to decide a point of law. The point in question was considered by the Law Officers some time ago, and I hope a satisfactory solution of the difficulty will shortly be arrived at.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the unsatisfactory condition of the mail service to the South Isles of Orkney; and whether any practicable proposal has been made to remedy this state of things by starting a local steamer under subsidy from the Department to take the place of the present sailing packet?

The matter is under inquiry, but I have not yet received a report upon it.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, prior to the Raikes' Scheme, telegraph clerks, equally with other Post Office servants, received one calendar month's holiday annually, when on a scale of pay rising to £150 per annum; whether the Raikes' Scheme, when revising the scale of pay given to first class clerks, declared that there would be no alteration in respect of the annual leave hitherto granted; whether, notwithstanding this declaration, telegraph clerks on a scale of pay rising to £150 per annum receive only three weeks' holiday, other Post Office Servants still being granted the calendar month when on this scale of pay; whether complaints have reached him that the result of this departure from the practice of 20 years is that the prospect of a calendar month's holiday is indefinitely postponed for the vast majority of the Central Telegraph Office staff, thus placing them in a worse position in this respect than they were for the 18 years preceding the issue of the Raikes' Scheme; and whether he is now prepared, in view of the above facts, to restore the former practice, and place these officers on a footing of equality with their Post Office colleagues and of all Civil servants?

The senior telegraphists only in the Central Telegraph Office have been entitled to one month's holiday, and they retain this privilege. When my predecessor issued his scheme under which first class telegraphists had the maximum of their salaries raised from £140 to £160, the following proviso was added to the announcement:—

"As regards annual holidays the Postmaster General does not feel justified in further extending the privilege now enjoyed, and the augmentation of salary is given subject to this condition."

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in connection with this question, whether it is not a fact that in the provinces, where the salaries are at £150, the provincial telegraph clerks get four weeks annual holidays; and whether it is not possible to re-consider the matter so as to put the Metropolitan clerks on the same footing as the provincial telegraph clerks?

I should not like to answer that question without enquiry: for there is a good deal of difference in the position of provincial telegraphists.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information with regard to recent hostilities in Nyassaland between the British and the natives or Arabs; what was the cause of the hostilities; and what is the position in which British traders and missionaries now are in that district; whether Consul Johnson is at present in Nyassaland, or where; and whether communications have been received direct from him?

The Foreign Office has no information beyond that already published. A telegram sent by Mr. Johnson, on 16th February, from Zomba, his headquarters in Nyassaland, and received on the 12th March, speaks of successful operations against the slave traders south of Lake Nyassa. It makes no mention of a reverse. The object of the hostilities was undoubtedly the stoppage of slave caravans and the release of slaves. We have heard nothing tending to cause alarm as to the position of traders and missionaries.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Captain Young, Commissioner of Famagusta, was nominated, at the recent elections, as a candidate for the Legislative Council in Cyprus with the approval of the High Commissioner; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to permit paid officials in the Cyprus Service to enter into contests with native gentlemen for seats in the Legislative Council of that Island?

I have already, on the 26th February, answered a somewhat similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Dundee. The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. The answer to the second part is that the Queen's Advocate opposed the petition as private counsel for the Native Members, and did not support it as assumed by the hon. Member. The answer to the third part is that, on learning of Captain Young's candidature, the Secretary of State instructed the High Commissioner to inform public officers that they should not in future offer themselves for election unless expressly authorised; and there is no present intention to take advantage of a clause in the Order in Council which renders such candidature possible.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General what amount of compensation postal telegraph clerks in the established list are entitled to on retiring according to class service and salary, who from the nature of their duties fear a continuance in the service would impair their health; what number of years' service entitles them to compensation; whether being employed as postal assistants before being established clerks would count as part of the time served in the established service; how many years' service must a telegraph clerk have to entitle him to two-thirds of his present salary; and if he will cause a scale both of pension and compensation to be drawn up and issued to the different offices, in order that clerks may know what their future prospects are?

Under the Superannuation Act, telegraphists, like other Civil servants, are entitled to either pension or gratuity, according as they have served more or less than ten years. The title arises, however, only on the production of a medical certificate to the effect, that, owing to infirmity, either mental or bodily, they are no longer fit to discharge the duties of their situations. The gratuity is ordinarily calculated at the rate of one month's pay for each year of service, and the pension at the rate of 1-60th of the salary for each year of service up to a maximum of 40-60ths on having served 40 years. No. Unestablished service would not be reckoned. The Superannuation Act, 1859, gives full information on the subject of the last paragraph.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether Messrs. Holland and Hannen are at present executing a contract for repairs at Somerset House; if so, whether the contract has been given to them, subject to the Resolution of the House of 13th February, 1891; whether it is a fact that the painting, instead of being done by skilled painters receiving the trade rate of wages, is being mainly done by "handy men" at 6½d. per hour; whether it is a fact that some of the work was spoiled last week by these men, and had to be re-done; and will he see that the terms of the Resolution are duly carried out by the firm?

The conditions of Messrs. Holland and Hannon's contract for ordinary works and repairs were settled before the Resolution of the House of 13th February, 1891, was proposed, but they were framed in the spirit of, and conform to, that Resolution. No painting work is at present being done by them at Somerset House. The only work of the kind which they are doing in that district is in the office of the Official Receiver for Companies, in Carey Street, where they have 29 men employed. Of these 19 are painters, and are receiving the wages assigned to painters—namely, 8d. (in some cases 8½d.) an hour. The remaining men are paint cleaners (sometimes, I believe, called "handy men"), and they are receiving the wages assigned to that class in the Schedule—namely, 6½d. an hour. I understand that, this being measured work, our clerk of the works did object to a very small piece of painting done last week, and had it at once properly finished. That is, of course, an event which is sure to happen from time to time, no matter what wages are paid. As to the last part of the question, I believe that Messrs. Holland and Hannen have in this, as in every case, faithfully observed the Resolution of 13th February of last year.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will exercise the powers conferred upon the Board of Trade by "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888," and grant a reasonable extension of the time for the lodging of any objections to the revised classifications and revised schedules of maximum tolls and rates, required by that Act to be deposited with the Board of Trade, as, otherwise, owing to the fact that the period within which canal proprietors were required by the Act to deposit their revised schedules has been so frequently extended (the total extension of time being three years), and that several of the revised schedules were deposited many months ago, persons interested in these schedules, and desirous of opposing them, may be debarred from doing so, in consequence of their having failed to lodge their objections with the Board of Trade within the eight weeks after the advertisement of the deposit of the revised schedules allowed by the rules of the Board; and whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to place on sale the list of canals and navigations in respect of which revised schedules have been deposited, which was laid upon the Table of the House on the 11th instant, and to hold a public inquiry in regard to these schedules in the course of the present Session, similar to that held in 1889–90 with reference to the revision of Railway Companies' powers?

Yes, Sir. Having regard to the facts stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I am of opinion that it is reasonable that the time for lodging objections to the canal schedules deposited with the Board of Trade before the present year should be extended, and that the time for lodging objections to all the schedules should expire on the same date. Consequently, I have given directions for the issue of a rule extending the time for lodging objections to all the canal schedules to the 30th April next; and I hope that if, as will probably be the case, it is found necessary to hold an inquiry with reference to those objections, the inquiry may be begun on Monday, 9th May. The list referred to by the hon. Member has been presented by command, and can be purchased in the usual way.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has been received from the British Embassy in St. Petersburg with regard to the murder of an English governess in that city; and, if not, whether he will at once make inquiries on the subject?

No information has been received at the Foreign Office upon the matter, but inquiries will be made.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the firm of Thornycroft, Chiswick, who have obtained a contract from the Admiralty, have sub-let a portion of the contract to the firm of Ransome and Co., Battersea, who refuse to pay trade rates of wages; and what steps have been taken to insure the observance of the Resolution of this House on 13th February, 1891?

My information is to the effect that, so far as this firm are concerned, they have fully complied with the terms of the Resolution referred to.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, under the Local Government Act of 1888, or any other Statute, it is legal for a county pauper lunatic asylum to be managed by a joint committee, of which ten are appointed by the County Council, and five by voluntary subscribers, only 13 in number, whose annual voluntary subscription amounts to no more than £40 13s.; and whether, in such circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the business connected with such asylums is part of the administrative business of the county involving the expenditure of large sums out of the rates, it is legal for such voluntary subscribers, who are in no sense responsible to the County Council or to the ratepayers, to speak and vote at the meetings of such committee?

I am advised that the arrangement referred to could not be made now; but that it was properly made under the Acts in force when the asylum was built, to which I presume the hon. Member refers—I mean the Cornwall County Lunatic Asylum, which was established at the joint expense of the county and of subscribers under Acts of Geo. III. and Geo. IV. The effect of numerous subsequent Statutes on this state of things is a question of some difficulty, and the Lunacy Commissioners have advised the Visiting Committee to take legal advice on that point.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the £21,000,000 voted by Parliament in 1890 for increasing the naval defences has been spent; and if he could state to the House the amount upon each class of war vessels respectively?

In answer to the first question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Memorandum by the Financial Secretary of the Admiralty, which is printed at page 4 as a preface to the Navy Estimates for the year, and which will give him all the information he requires. Particulars as to the actual expenditure upon the various classes of ships building under the Naval Defence Act up to the end of the last financial year are now before the Comptroller and Auditor General, and will be shortly presented to the House.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will explain why 180 tons of coal were supplied to a German man-of-war (the Princess Wilhelm) at Queenstown early this month by the Admiralty authorities at Queenstown; was it in the power of the coal merchants of Queenstown or Cork to supply the vessel with the required quantity of coal; and is it usual with the Admiralty to supply foreign vessels of war calling at British ports with coals or other necessaries?

The German Consul at Queenstown having represented that a certain quantity of coal was urgently required by the Princess Wilhelm, the Admiral commanding at Queenstown authorised the supply of 150 tons from the naval store as an exceptional measure. I am not aware whether the coal could have been supplied by the local merchants, but it is possible that some delay would have occurred in applying to them. Naval stores are allowed to be issued to foreign men-of-war in cases of emergency, and it would be a shortsighted policy on our part to refuse to foreign nations those friendly offices which international courtesy demands, and from which we on our side also derive benefit.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, in considering the question of the pay and prospects of Civil Service writers and copyists, to include the case of the established class called "Admiralty Writers," now serving in the Royal Victoria Yard at Deptford, who, having satisfied every condition as to age, length of service, and examination, laid down as necessary qualifications for promotion under the provisions of the Order in Council of the 12th February, 1876, were specially recommended in that year, by the head of the Department in which they were then and are still serving, for promotion to clerkships of the second division, and whose claims have since then been repeatedly advocated by the superintendents of the yard, pointing out that "they are practically debarred from promotion, and are constantly seeing men who entered the Service long after they did pass over their heads without any fault of their own?"

A certain number of the class of Admiralty writers have already been promoted to be second division clerks in the Admiralty establishments in London. As regards the remainder, their promotion must, as in the case of those already promoted, be regulated by their qualifications and abilities, and by the exigencies of the Service.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill this Session providing for the establishment of District Councils; and whether he is aware that the un- certainty as to the intention of the Government in this matter is causing serious inconvenience to Local Authorities?

We are anxious to proceed with this measure, and are prepared to do so as soon as circumstances give us any hope that we may carry the Bill through. I have not heard that great inconvenience is being caused to County Councils by the delay, but I shall be ready to consider any representations to that effect.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consent to set on foot the inquiries necessary to prepare a Return of owners of land in the Metropolis, in supplement of the Returns of owners of land in the United Kingdom?

I am in entire accord with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that a Return of this kind would be very important and very useful, but it would be very difficult to obtain. I have consulted the President of the Local Government Board on the subject, and he informs me that there is no power now to compel the occupier of a house to disclose who is the owner or lessor from whom he holds. If the necessary legislation were passed, I am told that the cost of obtaining such a Return as the right hon. Member wants would be very great, and that elaborate machinery would have to be contrived for its preparation. In these circumstances, I hesitate to give an affirmative answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, although I entirely sympathise with the object which he has in view.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what number of rifles were manufactured at the Royal Small Arms Manufactory at Enfield in the years 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887, and 1888?

The complete rifles and carbines turned out from Enfield were, in round numbers, in 1884, 37,000; in 1885, 66,000; in 1886, 48,000; in 1887, 45,000; and in 1888, 45,000. Owing to the large amount of other work given to the Enfield Factory the average number of men employed in 1892 will be fully equal to those employed in any of the years named.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a measure relating to the Superannuation of Civil Servants, in accordance with the Report of the Royal Commissions on Civil Establishments; and whether he will lay upon the Table a Paper showing in what manner the recommendations of the Royal Commission, with respect to the Civil Service, have been dealt with?

In view of possible delay before a new Superannuation Bill could become law, the Government have taken steps whereby effect has already been given to the main recommendations of the Royal Commission on the subject of Civil superannuation. Retirement at the age of 65 has become compulsory for officers above the grade of the second division. Abolition of office no longer entitles the retiring officer to a special rate of pension. Arrangements have been made whereby the medical certificate of a retiring officer can, if necessary, be tested by independent medical investigation. No appointment made since the Report of the Commission has entitled the holder to a special rate of pension on the ground of the professional nature of his duties. Her Majesty's Government would be glad to ask Parliament to give legislative effect to these regulations, but I doubt very much whether it would be possible to pass a Bill during the present Session. I propose shortly to lay upon the Table a Paper showing in what manner the recommendations of the Royal Commission with respect to the Civil Service have been dealt with.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an accident, which occurred on the 13th inst., at the foot of St. James's Street, to a runaway cab, it being alleged that the horse, although hopelessly injured, was allowed to remain lying there in a paralysed state, guarded by the police, from 10.45 till 4.45; and whether, in future, orders may be given to the police to have horses in such a condition put out of their misery, on the recommendation of a veterinary surgeon, without delay?

The accident referred to occurred at 11.10. The owner of the horse soon arrived on the spot; but, although the driver had gone in a cab for a veterinary surgeon almost immediately, the surgeon did not arrive until 2.15 p.m. He then directed the horse to be slaughtered. A telegram was sent to a firm of slaughterers, who immediately sent a man. The horse was killed and the carcass removed at 3.40. The owner's foreman had charge of the horse all the time, and would not allow it to be slaughtered until it had been seen by a veterinary surgeon. The police had no authority to slaughter the animal under such circumstances.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question as to the course of business. I observe that there are twelve Supplementary Estimates down for to-day, and wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman which Vote does he propose to take first. I also desire to ask him if he can now state positively when he can go on with the Irish Education Bill?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, would he be good enough also to give the House some information on the subject of the Small Holdings Bill, because many of us are naturally anxious to know when it is to be again proceeded with?

My expectations and hopes with regard to Public Business are of this kind. I think that to-night we ought to pass all the Supplementary Estimates except the Scotch Vote, and we ought also, I think, without difficulty, to pass the Vote on account. If that expectation is realised, and I do not doubt it will be, I will put the Scotch Vote first to-morrow, and in all probability it will be for the convenience of the House that I should to-morrow move the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule, not that I think there is any business really likely to require us to sit after 12 o'clock, but because we must pass a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means, which might be objected to if the Twelve o'Clock Rule were not suspended; and I do not think it should be in the power of any individual to prevent us getting through that business. On Monday next we propose to read the Small Holdings Bill a second time, and after that we shall have, of course, to carry on the necessary formal work of Supply, as hon. Members know we have to take Report of Supply, and to read the Appropriation Bill a first time. Tuesdays are allocated, by Resolution of the House, either to financial business or the first readings of Bills; and I should hope on Tuesday next to continue the discussion upon the Bill with regard to Irish Education, and to ask the House to read that Bill a first time.

With regard to Vote No. 1, the right hon. Gentleman will not take the Supplementary Estimate to-night.

I will not take that Vote to-night. I shall put it down for to-morrow afternoon, not first. Perhaps it may be convenient, though I do not think it necessary, if I were to supplement the statement I have just made by informing the House generally, and the hon. Member for West Belfast in particular, that it will be necessary to take the Report of the Teachers' Pension Fund Vote to-night.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he can now oblige me by giving an answer to the question which I put to him last night? It was as to whether, in the statement of Eggleton, who has been hanged this morning—which has been referred to in this House—Eggleton stated that he had himself been struck senseless to the ground, and that he remembered nothing that took place after having been struck senseless?

I am sorry that the hon. Member did not inform me that he was going to put that question, so that I might refer to the document in order to see whether it contains this statement. But perhaps I may be able sufficiently to answer it by saying that in all the previous statements sent to me by the prisoners each of the men disclaimed any participation in the death of either of the keepers.

With all respect that answer does not meet the question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman referred yesterday to a statement which he said was the only material statement except the Judge's; and I want to know whether in that statement Eggleton did make the statement, and reiterated the statement, that he was senseless from the moment that he had been struck by the keeper and knew nothing about what subsequently passed, because it will be observed this has a very important bearing upon the question. ("Order, order!") I want further to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in considering all the matters relating to the death of these men, he had regard to the case in which the late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn gave his decision upon facts almost similar to those in this case—("Order, order!")—and which decision was practically diametrically opposite to that given by the Judge in this case. I took the trouble myself—("Order, order!") I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had that case under his revision, a matter which I took the trouble to bring under his notice myself personally after this House rose last night, and I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman referred to that case before he decided upon the fate of these men?

With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, the hon. Member desires me to state precisely what are the contents of a long written document. After such short notice I am unable to answer it fully. My clear general impression is that the statement of Eggleton, like the statements of the other two men, disclaimed all participation in either of the deaths. Whether the particular statement that he was knocked senseless is repeated in the second letter to me or not I will not assert positively; but, certainly, there is nothing in the letter inconsistent with the inclusion of that statement. With regard to the latter part of the statement of the hon. Member, the hon. Member did me the honour to write me a note last night, in which he alluded to a case which he gave me no means of identifying, and which he said was tried by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn; but I was unable to find the case.

Did the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to look for the case? ("Order, order!") If he did not, I think this was a judicial murder.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, with a view to prevent the constant recurrence of judicial scandals, whether he will bring in a Bill to amend the legal definition of murder, so as to bring it more into harmony with the moral sentiment of the community?

I really must have notice before I could answer that question. The hon. Member asks me without notice whether I will introduce a Bill to alter what has been the law for centuries in this country. I think the hon. Member must feel that that is a case which requires consideration.

I beg to give notice that on Monday next I shall move that Mr. George Woodyatt Hastings be expelled from this House.

Sir, last year I had an opportunity of waiting on the Committee and upon some officials connected with this Exhibition in Chicago; and I frankly made to the projectors a promise that, if necessary I would bring under the notice of the House of Commons the necessity, of applying some portion of public money towards this "World's Fair." It was principally in the interests of my own countrymen that I waited on the Committee. The Irish people are very much affected by this Exhibition, and I notice in a foot-note to this Vote that we are asked to sanction a sum of £10,000 for the expenses of the Royal Commission, and for the organisation of the British section of this Exhibition. I suppose the British section includes Ireland. The Irish people in America are likely to take a very large interest in the Irish exhibits. At the present moment they have no very flourishing industries. In the year 1882 we had an Exhibition, in Dublin, of Irish manufactures. That was followed a year or two later by an Exhibition at Cork and by an Exhibition at Manchester, at which there was some space entirely devoted to Irish manufactures. Now, Sir, these three facts relating to what has occurred during the past ten years, show that the Irish people at the present moment are honestly engaged in an effort to bring before the world the products of their industry. I therefore claim that whatever may be done with this Vote of £10,000, and that whatever Commission may be appointed to carry out the purpose for which this money is voted, should be impressed with the idea that prominence should be given to the products of Irish industry. Now, Sir, I asked the Committee of the Chicago World's Fair whether they would be willing to devote a separate space to the products of Irish industry, and the Secretary of the Committee assured me that it would give him profound pleasure to do so. That being so, I do not think it is too much to ask that great and sufficient prominence should be given to Irish manufactures and industries. The Irish people will be proud of the efforts made by their own countrymen to compete with the world in industrial matters and achievements, and what I claim is that upon the Commission there should be placed some representative of Irish manufactures.—I do not say necessarily a Member of this House, but some gentleman with a large connection with Irish manufactures, because I am informed that upon this Commission the only Irishman is a man who has no connection with Irish industry. The Duke of Abercorn represents the landlord interest. I do not wish to disparage the Duke in the least. I have no doubt he is anxious for the promotion of Irish industries and for the general welfare of the country; but it would be more satisfactory to Irishmen if a gentleman was placed upon the Commission who is more intimately connected with and acquainted with Irish industries. I have another request, and that is that the Government should bring before the Secretary, whose name I think is General O'Brien, his promise to me to devote several and separate spaces to the products of Irish industry. For the last ten or twelve years we have endeavoured to bring our industries before the world, so far with very beneficial results. Those industries which are indigenous to the soil are being promoted by Irish capital and Irish industry, and are for the present, at least, flourishing to a greater degree than before. English industries are so well able to take care of themselves, are so established and enjoy such preeminence in the world, have such capital and skilled labour to commend them, that they need scarcely any assistance at all. They are sought out by reason of their excellence. On the other hand, Irish industries have been neglected in the past, and they are unknown in the present, hence there is the greater necessity for exhibiting them to the world. It is for this reason that I ask for this information.

Sir, I am extremely glad to have an opportunity of making a brief, and I trust a satisfactory, reply to the hon. Member for Tipperary and to the hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin and the hon. Member for Cork, who, I am sorry to say, are not in their places. In their observations last Friday—when, owing to the lateness of the hour, I could not then reply—they showed that there is a good deal of misunderstanding prevailing as to the constitution of the Commission. All three hon. Members have imagined that there was a personal selection of the Members of the Commission. They are entirely mistaken. The fact is that Her Majesty's Government applied to the Council of the Society of Arts asking if they would be disposed to become a Royal Commission, and they agreed, and undertook the duties of such a Commission. The constitution of the Council was fixed last May, long before the question of a Royal Commission arose, and since last May there has been no opportunity of changing or adding to the Council, nor will such an opportunity arise until next May. It was made a condition of the appointment of the Council as a Royal Commission that the Council should be appointed without any special selection ad hoc at the time. I can assure hon. Members representing Ireland that their wish that there should be a further representation of Ireland and Irish industries will not be overlooked. But, of course, the work of the Commission is not done by the Commission alone. It is largely done by different Committees, appointed and working under the Royal Commission, with the view of adequately determining the various interests of securing exhibits worthy of this nation in the various branches of art and industry. Now, Sir, it has been said that on no single Committee is there any representative of Irish industry or Irish trade. At the present time, with regard to industries of importance in Ireland, there is a very large representation. I have an official list of the various Committees before me as well as the list of the Commissions. Besides the Duke of Abercorn, I believe General Donnelly is an Irishman. On the Committee for Textile Manufactures, consisting of 18 or 20 Members, there are no fewer than seven or eight Irishmen representing Irish industries. Their names are: Mr. J. W. Barbour, Mr. Charles C. Connor (Mayor of Belfast), Sir William Q. Ewart, Sir Howard Grubb, Mr. A. Hogg, Mr. T. Mahony, and Mr. J. T. Richardson. If anyone will communicate to me any other names that they may think it desirable to add, their wishes will receive consideration. On the Agricultural and Food Products Committee there are the Earl of Rosse and Sir Maurice Fitzgerald (the Knight of Kerry). The Earl of Rosse was asked as President of the Royal Dublin Society, but did not reply to the first invitation, so his name was not printed on the first list. On the Committee for Engineering, Architecture, &c., is Mr. M. F. O'Reilly. On the Committee for Electricity, Mr. Charles A. Parsons and Mr. John Perry; on that for Transportation, Sir Edward James Harland; on that for General Manufactures, Mr. John Young; and on that for Science and Education, Sir Howard Grubb, Mr. M. F. O'Reilly, the Earl of Rosse, and Mr. Robert H. Scott. There are thus 14 Irish gentlemen connected with Irish trade who have already been giving their services on these Committees, and who are taking a very active interest in the work. Four of them serve on two Committees. The next error, arising from want of information, is the statement that hitherto no single Irish firm or manufacturer has applied for space. The actual space at the disposal of the Commission for British exhibits is 60,000 square feet. Up to the present 282 exhibitors have applied for 41,521 square feet of space; have paid the deposit with their application. Of these 26 are Irish, applying for 3,239 square feet, which is more than one-twelfth of the space applied for by the whole of the United Kingdom. The Irish exhibitors include Barber and Sons, Belfast; Mahoney, of Cork; Harrington Brothers, Cork; Belfast Rope Work Company, Belfast; Cantrill and Cochrane, of Belfast; Brookfield Linen Company, Belfast; the Irish Woollen Company, Belfast; John Power and Sons, Belfast. I am told these are all firms of the highest standing. Besides the firms who have paid their deposit there are a considerable number with which the Commission are now making arrangements. The total space available for Great Britain (exclusive of the Colonies), after deducting the amount required for passages, &c., I estimate, as I have already said, at about 60,000 square feet, so that the Committee will see that more than two-thirds of the space is actually occupied and paid for. It is fair to say that a small proportion of the exhibitors will have to be weeded out as not being representative. As to the time having expired for applications for space, that is a mistake. No time has ever been fixed as the final date for the receipt of applications for space. The 29th February was fixed as the date at which exhibitors were asked to send them in. In accordance with what I am told by Sir Henry Trueman Wood, who has great experience of exhibitions, is the ordinary practice, applications will be taken as long as any space is available; and, owing to the alterations and retirements, the allotment generally goes on until close before the opening of the Exhibition. Sir Henry is in correspondence with other representatives of Irish trade, and it must not be taken that the applications sent in represent the total that will be received from Irish exhibitors, or the space that they will occupy. Now, Sir, as to the charges for space. They have been fixed on a sliding scale, from 2s. 6d. to 5s. per square foot. The Royal Commission have been compelled, owing to the small amount of the grant, to take steps to see that they could do their work. I think the general feeling that this country should be worthily represented may possibly lead to this House suggesting an increase of the grant. But it is absolutely essential that the Committee should not act foolishly or attempt too much with so small a grant. Accordingly it was determined to make the charges for space which I have mentioned, but that was done on the distinct understanding that the money would be returned pro rata if we were able to do it after meeting the necessary expenses connected with the installation—if I may use the expression—of the British Section. I must contradict a suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork that we shall want to make a profit out of the transaction. We have had to undertake advertising, correspondence, the building and preparation of offices to represent the British Section, so that the expenses falling on the Commission are very heavy, and I doubt whether the money will, as I have said, be sufficient. Now, Sir, as to the charges made by the hon. Members for North Cork and Dublin, that we have utterly neglected Irish industries, I wish to call attention to the circumstances, which will show that they are mistaken. Applications were made to five Irish Chambers of Commerce—namely, Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, and Waterford. They were all asked to form Local Committees. A meeting was held in Dublin on the 12th March, which was attended by Sir Trueman Wood, who went as representing the Royal Commission, and it was agreed that a Joint Committee should be formed, consisting of members of the Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce and the Dublin Royal Society. The Belfast Chamber thought it undesirable to appoint a Committee. The other three Chambers did not reply. Sir Henry Wood had some correspondence in August last with the Belfast Linen Merchants' Association, but nothing came of it; and he has been in communication, since the first appointment of the Commission, with Sir Howard Grubb, the Secretary of the Royal Dublin Society. We do not know of any actual result from the Dublin meeting, except that one agent, acting for several exhibitors, wrote to say that they were holding back their applications in consequence of their having got the idea from the meeting that the charges would be reduced. From personal knowledge, therefore, I can state that the interests of Ireland have not been neglected. Now, Sir, as to the amount of the grant given by this country, I quite agree it does not compare favourably with the grants made by other countries. Germany has given £50,000, Norway £117,000, France £120,000, and Russia a still larger amount. While the Commission hope that from the experience many of their members have had of previous exhibitions, that they will be able to secure to British and to Irish manufacturers a thoroughly worthy representation, yet it would be most satisfactory if, as the result of the expression of opinion in this Debate, Her Majesty's Government could see their way to an increase of the grant.

I recognise, Sir, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has addressed us in a spirit of conciliation, and with a desire to meet the complaints that have been made. His explanation, however, as to the charge of five shillings per foot for space is insufficient, whilst his intimation of the amount of the grants of Russia, France, and other countries shows that the grant made by this country is altogether inadequate. There are 60,000 square feet allotted to this country, and it is proposed to make a charge of 5s. per square foot. The revenue expected from that charge is £15,000. Considering the generosity manifested in this affair by the Corporation of Chicago, the American Congress, the State Legislature, and also the Governments of various countries in Europe, is it not rather too bad that, for the sake of that revenue, you should make a charge of 5s. per square foot? It tends to put this country in rather a ridiculous position before the United States. The charge may not prejudice the interests of other British exhibitors, because they are wealthy; but Irish industries are mostly struggling, and I fear that even a charge of 5s. per square foot, useless as it is for any practical purpose, and paltry as it is from a public point of view in the case of a great country like this, may have the effect of discouraging exhibitors from Ireland, who are the reverse of wealthy, and deter them from taking any part in this Exhibition. It is worth while to consider whether this charge of 5s. per square foot will not greatly inter- fere with the interests of Ireland. There has been some remark about the money being returned. But that is not the way in which exhibitions are managed. This is not a guarantee fund—it is a charge which wants levying and which will never be returned. I would strongly urge the abolition of this charge. I think the foot-note of this Estimate is one which it is hard for Irishmen to read with patience; and patience is not our strong point. It speaks of the British Section of the Exhibition. In a matter concerning the United Kingdom, when you speak about it as British, you not only ignore Ireland, but directly exclude it. Whilst considering the interests of other countries, you deliberately exclude the interests of a country which lies at your very door. I thought it rather naïve of the Attorney General to say that Ireland is represented by the Duke of Abercorn.

I did not say that the Duke of Abercorn alone represented Ireland—there are other Irish gentlemen on the Commission.

But the Commission has been reconstituted.

The Commission was not reconstituted at all—the names of the Council were decided upon in 1891, before there was any idea of a Royal Commission. Now, it is proposed to constitute the Council of the Society of Arts as part of the Commission, and no name has been added to it.

In the case of the United Kingdom, including countries with separate interests, this seems a new way of appointing a Commission. The Council of the Society of Arts is substantially an English body, and the Government propose to get rid of their trouble and responsibility by appointing that Council holus bolus to be on the Commission for the Exhibition. It is no answer to say that on Sub-Committees there are Irishmen. Those Sub-Committees will have no power regarding the expenditure of money. I do consider it a matter for grave complaint on the part of the Irish Members that, in appointing men to represent the interests of Scotland and Ireland, the Government has gone to a body in London and given them supreme control. The Duke of Abercorn cannot be supposed to represent any Irish industry which will find a place in this Exhibition. He is concerned in Irish land, and, if there be any Irish interest in which he is concerned, it is the collection of rents. You cannot exhibit specimens of Irish land, nor would it be interesting to the public to have an exhibition of the collection of rents. Amongst the names cited by the Attorney General there is only one connected with the City of Dublin, and I am informed that he is since dead. Also, upon the Agricultural Committee there is the name of Lord Rosse, and to say to Ireland at large that he is to represent the interests of agriculture is simply comic and cannot be regarded seriously. I think the Government should take some independent step to recruit that Commission and make it more representative. But more important than all these questions is the question of a separate Irish Section. You have 60,000 square feet of space. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has told us that the Irish interests have already 3,000 feet. What is the meaning of arranging that these 26 Irish exhibits should be hidden away amongst the British industries in the 60,000 square feet? The effect of that will be directly prejudicial to the interests of Ireland, and will serve no British interest. Let the Commission give Ireland a separate section, as they ought to do, and then keep the rest for themselves. The interests of Ireland are minute, no doubt; but, minute as they are, they are important to us. There is a strong connection between Ireland and the United States, which renders the Chicago Exhibition of great importance. If you allow us to have a separate section, there is no doubt the material consequences will be beneficial to Ireland. There are many thousands of Irish people who are citizens of the United States, and, very naturally, these people take a deep and affectionate interest in the welfare of the old country. If you make arrangements such as common sense dictates, and allow the Irish exhibits to be separately shown at the Chicago Exhibition, I have no doubt that, without injury to any British industry, the effect would be very good indeed. The linen trade of Belfast has been prejudicially affected in recent times, and it needs every encouragement at the present moment. I am certain, if you take away the charge of 5s. per square foot, and allot to Ireland 4,000 or 5,000 feet for a separate Irish Exhibition, the effect would be to improve the market, and stimulate the demand for Irish linen throughout the United States. If you bury the 26 Irish exhibits amongst the other hundreds—if you put the 3,000 feet amongst the 60,000 feet, the effect will be that anyone who visits Chicago will have no idea where the Irish exhibits are to be seen.

I will certainly bring this matter before the Commission, and consult them in regard to it. If it should turn out that it be the wish of the exhibitors that there should be a separate Irish Section, certainly this will be considered.

Allow me to mention that I have already brought the matter before the Committee in Chicago, and they promised me personally to afford every opportunity of building a separate Irish Exhibition.

I am sure that the Chicago Exhibition, as far as Irish industries are concerned, will be divided in the usual way. There will be an Irish Department as well as an English and Scotch Department, and you will find that Irish exhibits and matters appertaining to them will be separately exhibited under the denomination of an Irish Department. In former years such has been the case with exhibitions in all parts of the world. Everyone will be delighted to find Irish industries very much sought after as the result of the Exhibition, for I happen to know they ought to be sought after, as the Irish people make specialities of their industries. There is one matter further—namely, the prohibitive duty on certain articles. There is one article alone on which there is a duty of 60 per cent. which is certainly prohibitive. I am certain the Government will do all they can for the interests of Ireland.

I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to lay aside law for a little, and look to the interests of trade. I quite agree with the Irish Members that Ireland should be treated separately. I would like to ask the Attorney General a question or two. He stated just now that some of the hon. Gentlemen who spoke the day before yesterday had gone wrong over one thing. Who is to blame for that? I should think the Government is to blame. And I fancy before this Vote came on we should have had all the information that the Government or the Commission could have given us with regard to this matter. I notice something in what are called the details about a grant of £10,000 to account of the total grant of £25,000, besides a sum for "franking." I would ask the Attorney General what is this "franking" business?

Posting.

Well, that is not a very big item, I expect. I do think we ought to ask the Government to do away with this charge of 5s. per square foot. As I understand, the American people, or whoever has charge of this Exhibition, have given up the space entirely free, and I should think, when they do that, they give it for the benefit of manufacturers and exhibitors, and not for any particular Government. I would urge on the Government as strongly as possible that they should take into consideration the necessity for increasing this grant. When it comes to a matter of this sort, with which the trade of the country is so intimately connected, we should do what is necessary in the way of spending money; spend the money economically by all means, but do not let us be afraid to spend a few pounds when the object is to advertise our trade and manufactures, and show the world what we can do. I would also ask the Government to consider the necessity of asking a larger grant from Parliament with regard to the expenses in connection with this matter. The Government have got over their scare with regard to foreign exhibitions, and have recognised that promoted by the French Republic. I am glad to see they have done that, though I do not know whether it has been done on account of the near approach of the General Election; but I am glad to see they have taken notice of the great Republic over the water. But I want them to do more. The idea that the Duke of Abercorn represents Ireland seems absurd, and I should like the learned Gentleman to do something in the way of having Ireland better represented. Let us do everything we can to have our trade, business, and manufactures properly represented at this Exhibition.

All articles of all kinds intended for exhibition are to be allowed to be imported and exhibited free of any duty whatever. But a charge will be made if they have been sold in the Exhibition or close to the Exhibition.

The great object in all these matters, which, to a certain extent, are international, is that there should be absolute harmony; and in view of the fact that there is no one on the Commission who represents the feelings of Ireland, or of the majority of the people of Ireland, it really does seem to me only reasonable that the Government should make this concession. If the hon. Members for West Belfast and South Tipperary were put on that Commission, it would meet the wishes of the Irish people, and insure that Irish interests are properly attended to. I would call the attention of the Attorney General to the fact that he has expressed very noble sentiments about the desirability of our money Vote being larger than it is, and he has pointed out that in other countries they have voted three times as much as we have, and it is to be hoped the House will take that fact into view. I hope the Attorney General will realise the rights of the House. If I move that this Vote be increased to £50,000 or £100,000, you, Sir, would tell me I was out of Order—that I cannot move an increase on the Estimates. The Government are always parading their excellent intentions; but I would suggest to them that they should act on those intentions. Let the First Lord of the Treasury and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury say they are perfectly ready to recommend that there should be a larger amount of money than there is for the Exhibition. With regard to the charge for space, it must be remembered that exhibitors will not pay for their space; and it does seem an invidious thing that whilst the promoters of this great Exhibition throw it open to the whole world, Irish and British exhibitors are obliged to pay for space.

Other countries are charged.

Let us set a good example. Observe how small this Vote is. I would put it to the Attorney General to use his influence—which, no doubt, is great—with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the First Lord of the Treasury to increase it. And I would tell the First Lord of the Treasury, whom I now see in his place, that the Attorney General has complained bitterly of the Government giving so small a grant.

I hope this will be a lesson to the Government, whilst they are going to appoint a Royal Commission for an Imperial purpose, not to appoint a local committee in London, and also that the words English and British will be no longer used in official phraseology. If the Government are going to do anything they will require to do it quickly, because the exhibits have to be in by October.

Unquestionably, this charge will weigh heavily on many small Irish exhibitors. With regard to having Irish exhibits in a section by themselves, that is of the greatest possible importance to Irish industries, in view of making an outlet for them. If our manufactures are lost away amongst the Scotch and English and Welsh manufactures, they will produce practically no effect. Surely, in the interest of the manufactures themselves, and not for any political reasons at all, it will be most desirable to have Ireland represented in our own Irish Department. The departments would be scattered all over the building, and the visitors would not be able to see in a mass and at one view what are the manufactures we have to sell. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that question, and meet the wishes of the people of Ireland.

If the Attorney General threw out his suggestion as to the inadequacy of the sum for the purpose of testing the opinion of the House, he ought to be well satisfied with the result. The House seems to be unanimously of opinion that the sum is inadequate. I do not think Her Majesty's Government quite grasp the magnitude of the Exhibition, which is to be one of the most extraordinary that has ever been held, and on a far larger scale than the Paris Exhibition. Other nations of Europe have taken this large view, and have made large grants; and, so far as I can gather, Norway and other countries will exhibit specimens of their architecture and other things, which will strike the imagination of visitors, and enable the particular nation to be creditably represented. I am sure, now, the First Lord of the Treasury must be satisfied that the House of Commons take a larger view of the question than the Government have done, and I hope he will no longer hesitate about making the grant what it ought to be for such a nation as Great Britain. I would strongly urge the Government to abolish this very discreditable tax of 5s. per foot on the manufacturer. The Government of America give the space for nothing, and here are Her Majesty's Government endeavouring to make a profit out of that generosity. This is a humiliating position, and I can imagine the comments such a course will excite in America. Many of the Irish manufacturers are not in a position to pay this charge in addition to all the other expenses they will have to bear, and it is simply placing a prohibition on Irish exhibits. There cannot be the slightest doubt as to the necessity of Ireland having a separate exhibit; with that and a liberal grant of money Ireland will be able to avail herself of one of the greatest opportunities that ever arose for pushing Irish manufactures in America. Something has already been done in that way, and with substantial benefit to Ireland, especially with respect to woollen goods. If, therefore, Ireland is not suitably represented, it will not be a very satisfactory way of pushing a struggling trade in the United States. It would be better that Ireland should not be represented at all if she is not to have a separate section, and to be supported by a generous grant by Parliament. I hope, therefore, the Government will have no hesitation about removing this charge, which is a disgrace to themselves, and increasing the grant to what is only creditable to Great Britain. It should be done at once in order to enable the Royal Commission to form its plans on an adequate scale. The sooner the Commission knows that the funds at its disposal are going to be generous the better it will be for the character of the British and Irish exhibits.

I have had great experience from the year 1851 to the present time, both with regard to British exhibitions and foreign ones, and I am perfectly sure of this: that the money you propose to vote for this Exhibition is utterly insufficient for the credit of the nation. If you are to exhibit in the United States it is very important that you should make the Exhibition worthy of the industries of this great country. Formerly, on occasions when we have had to ask Parliament to aid foreign exhibitions, we have always commenced with a small sum and have been obliged to come to Parliament and ask for it to be increased. The present sum is not adequate to the trade between the United Kingdom and the United States. No doubt that will impress the mind of the Government so that the sum will be made adequate. When a larger sum is granted, I hope the Royal Commission, which I think should have been made more national, and not confined merely to the Society of Arts, should have the means of developing a special Irish section, to enable the manufacturers to exhibit their industries in a proper manner. On account of the poverty of the country that is a right and proper thing to do. The Irish Members have naturally expressed that opinion. The Central Committee will arrange where the exhibits of each country are to be arranged, but I think it would be an advantage if the Irish manufactures were shown alongside of the Scotch manufactures. Then there is no linen manufacture in the United States, and the Americans would be interested in seeing how the linen manufacture in Ireland has developed. I would point out, however, that to take away from all other like exhibits, say the magnificent engines or models of ships built at Belfast, would be to the detriment of Irish industries. But to have an absolutely separate Irish exhibit is almost impossible under the classification in force at exhibitions. I rose for the purpose of impressing on the Government that, having gone into the Exhibition, they should allow it to be done in such a liberal spirit that the industry of the United Kingdom will be properly represented in Chicago, and I am perfectly sure that a good exhibition would redound very much to the advancement of the trade of this country.

I cannot well understand the Government leaving the nomination to the Society of Arts. It is a body of which we Irish Members are ignorant. The President of the Commission is the Attorney General, who is a lawyer, and knows nothing about trade; and we Irish Members do not even know the names of the members of the Commission, who represent nobody but themselves. I do not think there is a single Nationalist amongst the number. I do not mention these matters to waste time, but because I think Irish industries should be represented on the Commission and that the British manufacturers should not monopolise it.

I should like to appeal to the Government to vote a larger sum for the Exhibition. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down probably does not know the amount of personal sacrifice the Attorney General has made in connection with the work of the Commission; he has rendered most excellent service, and many of us wonder where he finds the time. It is quite true that the Commission was nominated by the Society of Arts; but that Society conducted the whole of the work in connection with the Paris Exhibition, and made the most of their opportunities. In a great National Exhibition like this Great Britain ought to be well represented, for I can conceive no more important object lesson than to so provide for the representation of our industries that the Americans may see what the United Kingdom can produce, and the prices at which her products can be delivered. If the manufactures of England, Ireland, and Scotland were represented by good typical illustrations, and the prices marked in plain figures at what they could be delivered in America, the effect would be very valuable to our trade, and to the American people too. I think the right hon. Gentleman must feel that £25,000 is altogether inadequate for the purpose of making a fair show at Chicago of the products of the first manufacturing country in the world. I have been a member of several Royal Commissions, and I have scarcely ever known an exhibition where a charge has not been made for space. The country where the exhibition is held awards the space free, but then there are large expenses incurred in fitting it up and adapting it to exhibition purposes; the charge is for that, and not actually for the space the goods occupy. I hope the Government will see that the charge is as small as possible. It is very natural, especially in the United States, that Irish Members should desire that Irish goods should be well and prominently exhibited, but there is always classification at exhibitions. For instance, the woollen goods of France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, and other countries will be shown together, so that you could not have the Irish manufactures in one place. You must exhibit Irish textiles with the textiles of other countries, and you must show Irish woollens against the woollens of the world. But to provide that British and Irish exhibits should have fair comparison with those of other countries it is necessary that the Government should very considerably increase the grant.

There is one point I should like to make clear. The two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench appear to think that the World's Fair will be a comparison of industries all the world over rather than a National Exhibition. Is it not a fact that it will be very much split up into national sections? I understand the fundamental plan of the Exhibition is the exhibition of national industries altogether. If that be so it is expedient that each country, including Ireland, should have a place of its own. Then the Americans would have an opportunity of finding where the Irish industries are.

There is classification under both systems—as to subjects and as to nationalities. I can assure the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) that what he suggests with regard to Irish industries will be considered. I would like to point out that the Commission consist of 37 gentlemen, of whom something like 28 or 30 have had practical knowledge of one, two, three, or more exhibitions, and, without saying more for my colleagues than I desire to say, I will give the hon. Gentleman the list of names if he desires to see it. I am sure no Commission constituted ad hoc could be more representative.

I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will use his best endeavours to have the amount of the Vote increased.

I will use my best endeavours, but I am afraid it will not be of much avail.

No doubt the charge is a perfectly fair one, but if it is sufficient to prevent anyone from exhibiting, the Government should bear the expense, because I think nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of the complete representation of English and Irish manufactures.

I think after the general expression from both sides of the House, we are entitled to ask the First Lord of the Treasury for his views on the matter. The sum is altogether inadequate, and it is quite impossible to have a fair representation of English and Irish manufactures if we only spend a sum of £25,000. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will promise at least that the matter shall have the attention of the Government.

I regret to say that I cannot give a very definite answer to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, but I will note what he has said, and what has fallen from the right hon. Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair), who probably speaks on the subject of exhibitions with more authority than any other Member of this House. I cannot, however, say more than that I will bring the matter before my colleagues.

I should like the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Gorst) to give us some information on the subject of the lotteries, which I believe are carried on by some employés of the Inland Revenue Department.

This is a Vote for additional remuneration in connection with the collection of taxes.

I should like to ask for an explanation with regard to this Vote. It is practically an additional sum of £30,000 for collectors and assessors, because I see that £20,000 is to be taken out of special sub-heads of the Vote. I think we ought to have some information given to us.

In consequence of an Act passed last Session the collectors, assessors, clerks, &c., instead of being paid by poundage as in former years, are now paid fixed salaries. The poundage was not paid until the whole sum had been collected and returned to the Treasury, but the salaries are paid quarterly, consequently the money which under the old system would not have been paid until the next financial year, becomes payable in the present financial year. The hon. Member rightly says that the whole amount is £30,000, but it is not really additional remuneration, it is only a sum paid earlier as salary than it was formerly paid as poundage.

Then I suppose we shall pay no more as salary than we paid as poundage

No.

I think at the same time that it is very improper that money should be taken from various sub-heads. I daresay it is legal enough, but I trust the time is coming when it will not be allowed.

I regret that the Postmaster General should not be in his place when the Post Office Vote comes before the Committee, because I wish to call attention to several matters which can properly be discussed on this Vote. A few days ago I asked a question with respect to a most respectable official of the Dublin Post Office who committed suicide. The evidence at the inquest showed that this unfortunate gentleman had been harshly treated by his superior in the Department in some matter arising out of the discharge of his duties, and that he got into such a state of nervous tension that he unfortunately lost self-control and took away his own life. The case was a sad one, because the man left a widow and nine children totally unprovided for. I should like to have suggested to the Postmaster General that some provision should be made for them, but as the right hon. Gentleman is not here it is scarcely worth while to go on with the matter.

The right hon. Gentleman will be here directly. He did not know the Vote would be reached so soon; but he has been sent for.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that in the meantime we should have a recess?

I will take a note of all points pending the arrival of the right hon. Gentleman.

The jury added to their verdict a rider that the suicide was due to the harsh treatment of this official by his superiors. I should have thought that it was not the part of the Government to remain silent in the face of such a verdict, and I, as a Member of the House, am unwilling to remain in ignorance of the facts. I, therefore, ask that any correspondence which took place between this man Cleary and his superiors should be laid on the Table of the House. I think we ought to be in a position to judge as to the treatment the man received, and I ask, further, that the widow and orphans should not be left to ruin and beggary. The Department are under some responsibility in this matter, and it is no answer to say that there is no fund for the purpose. The Imperial Purse is open for this purpose, and this matter might very well be included in the Vote for miscellaneous and compassionate purposes, which we shall be asked to pass. I have also to complain that in the Belfast Post Office a system totally different from that in other post offices prevails—namely, that the nomination to appointments in that office is left purely in the discretion of the Postmaster of Belfast. The local postmaster is the master of the situation in the matter of appointments, and he exercises a kind of regal irresponsibility in so far that his nomination is necessary before a candidate can be examined. I see no reason why the ordinary rule of the Civil Service should not apply to this office, and I should like to hear the explanation of the Postmaster General on that matter. Then there is another matter which I wish to raise on this Vote, with respect to the appointment of a sub-postmaster at Ligoniel, near Belfast. The post became vacant, and the sub-postmaster was succeeded on the premises by a person named William Smyrl. The Belfast postmaster, of whom I have previously spoken, went down, saw the new tenant of the premises, arranged with him that the premises should be used as a post office, and undertook that, if Smyrl applied for the office of sub-postmaster, his application should be recommended. The new tenant accommodated the postmaster, and sent in an application, which was supported by nine-tenths of the inhabitants of the place, and at the end of two months the post was given to another man whose shop was a very small place. Another curious matter in connection with this case is that the memorial which was signed by the inhabitants did not reach Dublin, and I cannot help thinking that the whole matter was a job.

I am very sorry I was out of the House when this Vote was reached. I have been waiting for days for the Estimates, and just at the time I was busy and did not know that the question was before the House. With regard to the case of the Dublin Post Office official who committed suicide, it is quite true, as I said in answer to a question, that the jury appended to their verdict an expression of opinion that he had been harshly treated by his superiors. But, as I stated, I have most carefully inquired into this case, and I cannot think that the allegation of the jury was supported by any real evidence. The facts of the case are these. In the course of last year Cleary was censured for delay in carrying out certain orders of his superiors. He was cautioned and reprimanded, and there the matter ended. Some months afterwards he received promotion, which certainly would not have been the case had he not been a man of good character, and who had, on the whole, given satisfaction. It is quite true that he was not promoted to be assistant superintendent, because he was not thought strong enough, for all the superior posts in the Post Office must be filled by men with special qualifications. This fact appears to have preyed upon his mind. He was a man of nervous temperament, and had been under the treatment of the Post Office medical officer for nervous depression or exhaustion, so much so that he was advised to take a considerable period of rest from his duties. This, being a man with a large family, he did not like to do, and after having done his morning duties one day, he went home and destroyed himself. There is absolutely no ground for the allegation of harshness. The only occasion on which he was found fault with was on the occasion to which I have referred, and he was afterwards promoted. I see, therefore, no reason for the production of the correspondence, or for any imputation on the officials under whom he served—officials, I may say, with respect to whom I have ascertained that they are men of exceptional kindness of heart, and were not likely to treat anyone harshly.

Who are they?

The officials under whom this unfortunate man immediately served. Next, with respect to the appointments in the Belfast Post Office, the hon. Member will be surprised to hear that the same system is in operation in every post office in the country outside of the Metropolitan district, excluding Edinburgh and Dublin. I must confess it surprised me, but it has the advantage that it gives the postmasters an idea that they are responsible for the conduct of the office, and they are likely then to choose their subordinates well. The system, however, is the same as in all other provincial post offices, and I have no reason to believe that the selections made by the Belfast postmaster have given any ground for complaint. If, however, any case were reported to me, I should take pains to inquire fully into all the circumstances. With respect to the sub-postmaster at Ligoniel, I answered a question the other day when the question of the appointment came up; there was a choice between two men, and the reason why one was appointed was because the other had licensed premises. The other man's premises were more central, and I dare say, had there been no objection, he would have had the appointment.

I beg to thank the Postmaster General for having removed this post office from a public-house, as I think it is most undesirable that licensed premises should be used for any purpose of this kind. I hope the same policy will be pursued in other parts of Ireland. With respect to the Belfast Postmaster, who has been referred to, I should like to say that he is a most painstaking official, a man who is highly respected, and the value of whose public services is recognised.

I do not know the gentleman, and that is why I consider the public interest of the case in a more impartial way.

I do not know him in the sense that the hon. Member suggests. I know him as a public officer, and in that capacity I speak of him.

I desire that the office of this postmaster should be administered in an ordinary manner, and with all respect for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Fergusson) I think the inhabitants of Ligoniel were better judges of the requirements of the place than he is. This is another instance of the way in which the government of Ireland is conducted, not for the public interest, but for the benefit of some anonymous friends and supporters of the Government. With respect to the administration of the Belfast office, I can only say that the same system of appointment does not prevail in Dublin or in London, and Belfast is as large as Dublin, and quite as important to the North of Ireland. If the open system is good for London and Dublin, why should it not be extended to Belfast, where at present there is a feeling that the avenue to the Post Office Service is closed to all except a favoured few by the nomination of the postmaster? It is intolerable that a power of this kind should be placed in the hands of an irresponsible man; and unless I receive an assurance that Belfast will be placed on the same footing as Dublin, I shall move a reduction of the Vote. With respect to the case of Cleary, I cannot abandon my demand for the correspondence. The Postmaster General, with what he has said to the House, speaks only from his brief; he has been misinformed. He tells us what his officials tell him, and it is those officials who have been impeached. I submit also that the Government should make some allowance in this case in the Miscellaneous and Compassionate Vote which will come before us; and as the right hon. Gentleman has the Treasury officials now on either side of him, I trust he will use his influence in the matter. A man may be a nervous man, but apart from harsh treatment, his nervousness is no reason for his committing suicide; and the very fact that they knew him to be a nervous man is a reason why these kind-hearted officials, of whom the right hon. Gentleman has spoken, should have been more considerate. I say this, that the Irish Members here will not willingly consent to see the widow and orphans of that man, who spent his life in the service of the State, condemned to beggary and pauperism by the action of officials. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any compensation or grant is to be given, and to mark my sense of the importance of the matter I move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.

I must apologise for having omitted to answer the hon. Gentleman with regard to the question of compensation or of a benevolent grant. The fact is, that I did answer that the other day when a question was put to me on the subject. While feeling for the distress of this poor woman, as I think anybody must feel, there is really no case for asking the Treasury to make a compassionate allowance. This poor man was in a state of mind which no doubt justified the Coroner's jury in their verdict of "Suicide during temporary insanity"; but it is impossible under such circumstances to give a public grant to the widow. But I may repeat this: there were three of the children who were of sufficient age, and to whom employment was given in the Dublin Post Office at an aggregate wage of 37s. a week. The others are too young for such employment; but I am sure that when they come to such an age they will be similarly employed. That, I think, shows that there has not been indifference in this matter on the part of the Secretary at Dublin. The hon. Member has expressed disapproval of the system of nomination of persons to the charge of post offices in Belfast. Well, Sir, Belfast can hardly be treated differently from other towns in the Kingdom. Belfast might hardly be pleased if it were.

What about Dublin?

Metropolitan offices are, as I have formerly stated, treated differently; but Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow are places of equal importance with Belfast, and the system is the same in these towns. But I am not surprised that the system which has hitherto obtained has been criticised. I have considered whether a better system could be introduced; but it is evident that it cannot be introduced for Belfast alone, and a change so large, affecting the postal service all over the Kingdom, must not be lightly undertaken. As hon. Members are aware, I have had large affairs in the Post Office to consider since I assumed charge of it, and the Committee will hardly feel surprised, therefore, that I have not altered the system up to this time. But that it is not an altogether satisfactory system I am quite prepared to admit.

I am glad to hear, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman intends to investigate this system with a view to bringing about an improvement on a state of things which has been the source of innumerable questions in this House, and of much feeling in the country. On this point, therefore, we may perhaps be content, at present, to wait and see what the nature of the change is that may be proposed. But my immediate purpose in rising is to refer to the case of Mr. Cleary, which has been brought forward by my hon. Friend, if he will allow me to call him so, the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). It is, I would say, a case of the most glaring hardship. A Coroner's jury has pronounced on the matter; and I would ask—Is no respect to be paid to the public opinion manifested by their verdict? I respectfully say that the provision which the right hon. Gentleman has told us has been made for the children—the employment in the Post Office of the children of a man who sacrificed himself to his duty—is not sufficient recognition of the case. It is no answer to the question of my hon. Friend. Laying aside altogether the verdict of the Coroner's jury, the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself makes the case stronger even than it was put by the hon. Member for West Belfast. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this man was advised by the medical officer of the Department to take a holiday longer than was usual under the circumstances. He also said that the man did not try to take a longer holiday than he could do without pay.

I said without loss of pay. The Post Office is extremely indulgent in the case of sick leave, and gives a considerable proportion of pay—two-thirds, I think.

Well, at any rate this unfortunate man was advised to take a holiday longer than he was entitled to, and he came back to duty against the advice of the medical officer of the Department, fearing that that Department would deprive him of pay necessary to support the widow in whose behalf my hon. Friend makes that demand. I hold that, by reason of the opinion of their own medical officer, the Department are committed in this matter. The words, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman has used are the strongest support of the case made out by my hon. Friend. To enforce his demand or his request, if it may be so called, I have risen; and I hope he will persist in his Motion to reduce this Vote, and that he will receive the support of every man who has considered the question in the Division.

This reduction, Sir, has been moved on account of the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General to produce the correspondence, and on the ground also that the Government should give some allowance to the family of the man who committed suicide. Now, it appears to me that, after the finding of the Coroner's jury, unless you are going to do away with the law of Coroners' juries altogether, I cannot understand how any Minister should get up in this House and say that he will not believe in the opinion of such a jury. I trust, therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast will go to a Division as a protest. Then with regard to the Belfast postmaster, I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should refuse the correspondence. Surely there is no treason in it, or anything of that sort. If not, why should he not give us the correspondence? If the right hon. Gentleman does not promise that he will do so, I shall have much pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend.

Before this Vote is taken I should like to ask the Postmaster General for some explanation as to how far it is due to increase of the staff and how far to increase of wages?

The sum of £111,000 is required for salaries, wages, and allowances under various sub-heads, owing to the numerous divisions of the establishments which have been sanctioned by the Treasury since the original estimate was framed. The most important item is the addition to the postmen's wages, which amounted for the last financial year to about £65,000, and will amount to something over £90,000 in the coming financial year. There is a sum of £5,000 for conveyance of mails by road in England and Wales—new and extended mail-cart service; a sum of £2,000 for conveyance of mails by railway, owing to new agreements with railway companies, and a sum of £2,000 for the introduction of the new letter cards. In fact, by far the larger portion of the addition to the Postal Estimates is due to the increase of pay and allowances.

I wish to ask a question with regard to these letter cards. In the first place, they are sold to the public at ten for 1s. In every other country they sell at the price of the stamp. A question has been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as to the cost to the Government of these letter cards. I should like to know; because, in talking to those in the trade, I am told that these cards can be produced at ½d. per ten, so that the 1½d. is profit. I should like to know whether there was any tender taken by the Postmaster General or by the Inland Revenue Department when the contract was given to Messrs. De la Rue.

The Inland Revenue Department made this arrangement, of course, tentatively. It is a new manufacture; the original machinery for making it is somewhat expensive, and the amount of public support which these letter cards would receive was problematical. It has so greatly exceeded expectations that, as, probably, the hon. Member knows, the whole of the first manufacture supplied was sold out in ten days. I heard from a partner of the manufacturing firm last week that they would, after a short time, be able to extend their machinery and produce a much larger amount. At present they only produce about 40,000 a week. The contract was made on a calculation of the cost not only of the manufacture, but of distribution, and so forth. The price is liable to revision at every fresh order, and the success which has attended it will probably lead to a corsesponding reduction in the gross cost. At present I am informed by the Inland Revenue Department that the sum charged is not more than is required to cover expenses.

We have now an instance of how the business of the Government is conducted. This contract is given to Messrs. De La Rue, by which they receive 2d. for every ten cards which they deliver.