I beg to move the Instruction of which I have given Notice. I appear on behalf of the inhabitants of Tenbury, a small town on the River Teme, entirely dependent on agricultural industry, and whose interests are affected by the scheme of the Birmingham Corporation. The inhabitants have not the slightest idea of opposing the proposal of the Birmingham Corporation, and desire to act in a conciliatory spirit towards that Corporation. But, in a matter so closely affecting the well-being of their town, they feel they may justly ask Parliament to give them this protection. In the Bill there are provisions for an overflow conduit in Radnorshire and another at Burrington, for the purpose of relieving extra pressure. Now, it has been stated by the Town Clerk of Birmingham, to whom the people of Tenbury have addressed themselves, that the overflow at Burrington will not increase the volume of water at Tenbury; but it should be borne in mind that the overflow will probably occur during flood time, and situated as Tenbury is between two rivers, and on low ground, the people of Tenbury have grave cause for apprehension, seeing how seriously the town has suffered from floods. In 1886 they suffered very severely. At the bridge which unites the counties of Worcester and Shropshire the water rose five or six feet, and reached to five or six inches over the tops of the pews in the parish church. The force of the current was so strong that occupiers opened the doors and lower windows of the houses to prevent the whole fabrics being washed away by the flood. The damage on that occasion was about £15,000. With the recollection of such disasters the inhabitants of Tenbury are naturally anxious that nothing shall be done which may still further increase their danger; and so, I trust there will be no opposition to this Instruction being sent to the Committee to whom this Bill is to be referred. It is a concession such as has been granted to small towns on similar occasions. The people of Tenbury are anxious that the matter shall have due consideration from the Committee.

I desire, on behalf of the Corporation of Birmingham, to recognise the temperate way in which the hon. Baronet has introduced this Motion, and the conciliatory spirit which, as he says, animates the authorities and people of Tenbury. At the same time I am a little suprised that the Instruction has been moved at all. I should have thought—and I confess I did think—that an Instruction such as this of a mandatory character to a Hybrid Committee was out of Order. But if it is not out of Order it is quite unnecessary. The fears of the inhabitants of Tenbury are entirely chimerical and imaginary, according to the information furnished to me. The overflow of which the hon. Member speaks is a provision devised to provide against the possibility of an accident to any of the pipes that will convey the water to Birmingham. It will not be used in the ordinary time of flood, but will only be called into operation in case one of the pipes conveying the water were to burst. Even if that accident were to take place at the time of high flood in the neighbourhood of Tenbury, then, under no conceivable circumstances, not even if the whole of the five pipes were to burst simultaneously, would the water in the river be raised by a height of more than an inch or an inch and a half. From its low situation the town of Tenbury is subject to floods; and when the hon. Member mentions that in an exceptional disaster of this kind the water is increased by a depth of five or six feet, then even the addition of an inch and a half is not such a great danger that it is necessary in this way to provide against it. I say this much in order that it may carry some assurance to the minds of the people of Tenbury, who seem to have got it into their heads that really there would be some increase of danger. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the assurance, and will withdraw the Instruction. My objection is that the Motion is an attempt by the House of Commons to do that which a Committee has been appointed to do. To decide such questions evidence must be called. We cannot take merely the statement of the inhabitants, nor can I ask the House to accept my ex parte statement—such statements before acceptance must have confirmatory evidence. The House of Commons has taken the precaution to send this Bill to a Hybrid Committee, and therefore every interest will be fully considered. The people of Tenbury can put their fears before the Committee, and the Committee will have the evidence the Corporation can put forward, and surely it is ridiculous for the House to appoint a Committee, and then to proceed to do the work of that Committee. Surely it is absurd for the House, before the inquiry has commenced, to burden the Committee with a number of mandatory instructions? If this were a matter which the Committee without an Instruction would be unable to consider, it would be a different thing, but the inhabitants can present their case and evidence and the Committee will determine. There is no need of the Instruction, and to pass it would be to prejudice the inquiry, to determine the decision of the Committee before hearing the evidence. That would be quite contrary to precedent, and it is, I think, quite unnecessary.

The right hon. Gentleman recognises that it is out of no opposition to the Bill my hon. Friend has made his Motion. The inhabitants are bound to take such precautions as they can against the dangers to which this thriving town is subjected. But, no doubt, after hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend will think well to withdraw his Motion, especially as I learn, which I was not aware of earlier, that a Petition can be now entered by the Worcester County Council giving the Council a locus standi before the Committee. I have a large number of constituents interested in the welfare of Tenbury, and I must say I think my hon. Friend has done no more than his duty in calling attention to this matter. After the statement we have had I think my hon. Friend would be justified in withdrawing his Motion.

Speaking on behalf of my native place, I earnestly trust that this scheme may be carried to successful completion. I may remark, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has somewhat underestimated our difficulties when he says an inch and-a-half of water added to flood height is no great matter. I have seen the floods going down the main street of the town, where for two nights and a day the water was 5 ft. deep, and I am bound to say that an inch or two more would not have been a matter of indifference. An inch or two more would have brought down some of the best-built buildings in the town, while it has been computed that a burst pipe at Burrington Lock would cause an addition of one foot to the flood water. At Dorrington Rock, a short distance above the town and below Burrington Lock, the valley is about one field broad, and we have the greatest difficulty in dealing with these floods two or three times a year. The inhabitants of Tenbury, owing to the agricultural depression, are not in a position to present and support a Petition against a wealthy Corporation; but I hope the great City of Birmingham will be magnanimous and recognise the claims of the inhabitants of Tenbury.

I trust that the interests of the town of Tenbury and of the district may be represented before the Committee without that heavy expenditure the hon. Member seems to fear, and that the promoters of the Bill will recognise that the claims of Tenbury are in no way inimical to the proposals of the Corporation.

After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and feeling that the interests of the inhabitants of Tenbury may be left in this matter to be looked after by the County Council of Worcester, I beg to withdraw my Motion.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the accounts of the Bath Forum School, Bath, for the school year ending February, 1891, in which a balance of £217 5s. 9d. appears as transferred from the school income to a building account; whether, having regard to Article 90 of the Code, such an application of the accumulated surplus of school income is legal; and whether, seeing that a similar question was incidentally brought under the notice of the Committee on Public Accounts in 1887, and that the Report of the Committee contains no finding on the matter, he will take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the propriety of such expenditure under the Code?

The transaction to which the right hon. Gentleman refers appears from the accounts and correspondence with the managers not to have been merely a transfer of part of the income on the current account to a separate building account, but an application of a balance in hand to expenditure actually incurred in connection with the alteration of the buildings; and I think he will see that in the result of the investigation of the similar question by the Committee of Public Accounts in 1887 a concurrence of opinion between the Department, the auditors, and the Committee was reached that such an application of a balance was not improper. At any rate, the Committee carefully abstained from reporting against it, and in the absence of any opinion on their part hostile to the position I do not think it necessary to invoke the assistance of the Law Officers, of the Crown.

Am I to understand that the Committee having expressed no opinion, that the Department have no opinion on the general question? Does this not conflict with the article in the Code?

The evidence given for the Department by Mr. Cumin before the Public Accounts Committee shows how the matter stands. Mr. Cumin says (Question 808)—

"When you first get money, of course it is to be used for the maintenance; but supposing that it becomes a balance, then it is excluded from the income for the year, and it is excluded from the money that you can reckon for the grant. It becomes in fact a capital sum which is under a trust, and the trust is, that it is to be used for purposes of the school, and we say that when it becomes a balance, and when it is excluded from purposes of the grant, then it is properly used for the purpose of building a school, or for the enlarging of a school, or for any other school purposes."

(Q. 813.) Auditor General answers—

"He concurs with the understanding that the balance is not to be considered as part of the income."

The balance is not considered part of the income of the school for next year so as to enable the 17s. 6d. limit to be exceeded?

That is the understanding with the Auditor General.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the sentences passed by Sir Peter Edlin, at the Clerkenwell Sessions, on Saturday, 10th January, on three men, Lillington, Nicoll, and Brooks, for the offence of distributing bills outside the shop of a tradesman, named Haill, in the Harrow Road, calling upon the public not to deal with him because he refused to close at 5 o'clock on Thursday, as the rest of the shopkeepers did; if he is aware that Chief Justice Jeune decided in the High Court of Chancery, on Wednesday, 7th October, that the issue of a similar bill, and the distribution of it, was perfectly legitimate, and not an offence againt Common Law; if he is aware that the fines inflicted, the defendants being imprisoned until paid, were liquidated by public subscription; and, if, taking into consideration the difference in judicial opinion, he can see his way to inquire into the application of the Law of Conspiracy in this and similar cases?

The prisoners mentioned in the first paragraph of the question were convicted at Clerkenwell Sessions, not for the offence of distributing bills, but for unlawful assembly, obstructing the highway, and watching and besetting contrary to the Statute, and were fined in respect of the third offence. There was no count for conspiracy. I gather from a newspaper report that Mr. Justice Jeune did not decide that the issue of a bill, advocating the boycotting of a certain tradesman, and its distribution were perfectly legitimate and not an offence against the Common Law; but that the learned Judge refused an application for an injunction to restrain the issue and distribution of the bill because no cause of action had been made out. He reserved, however, the question of costs, pointing out that the whole matter would be more fully discussed at a later stage. I have no information as to the third paragraph of the question. The cases would have no bearing on the Law of Conspiracy.

How may one arrive, on a question like this, at a conclusion as to what is an unlawful assembly?

Does this not illustrate the doctrine of conspiracy that two or three men may not do collectively what may be done by one?

If hon. Members seek further information on the facts of the case I must ask them to give notice of their questions.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that, while feuars in Scotland are held to be entitled to deduct property tax on the annual feu duty in making payment to superiors, they are not allowed to deduct property tax in paying periodical duplicands or compositions in lieu of casualties; if he is aware that these periodical compositions in certain parts of Scotland amount to over 10 per cent. of the entire annual feu duties; and if he will state whether property tax is levied upon them; and, if so, why it is not collected in the ordinary way?

I will answer the hon. Member's question, but I must ask him not to cross-examine me upon the terms of my answer. Feuars are not entitled to retain tax from payments of periodical duplicands or compositions in lieu of casualties of superiority, because such are not "annual payments," and are in their nature capital payments. The superiors as the receivers of such casualties or periodical payments are charged with Income Tax thereon in conformity with the provisions of Section 60 of the Income Tax Act, 1842.

I will take occasion to call attention to this subject in the Budget discussions.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the allowances made to Royal Naval Volunteer Corps already exceed the £1,000 proposed; and, if so, whether the Admiralty will deal liberally in the matter of any further claims not yet considered?

No allowances have yet been granted to any corps of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, as the Committee have as yet only considered the claims of three out of the twelve corps, which require to be visited. As soon as the final Report of the Committee is received the Amiralty will be in a position to consider the compensation to be granted, which I have already stated will be done in a spirit of liberality.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has received a copy of a synopsis of information regarding the duties and remunerations of Procurators Fiscal in Scotland recently prepared by the County Councils of Forfar and Dumfries; whether it is correct, as therein stated, that there are many Acts of Parliament of which contraventions are prosecuted in the Sheriff Court in a considerable number of counties at the cost of Her Majesty's Exchequer, and in the Sheriff or Justice of the Peace Courts in as many other counties at the cost of county funds; whether any regulation defining the statutory offences that may be prosecuted at the cost of Exchequer and local funds respectively exists; and, if not, whether he will, by means of an instruction to Procurators Fiscal, or otherwise, take steps for so defining these offences; and whether he will lay a copy of any existing regulation, or of any regulation he may make, upon the Table of this House?

I have received a copy of the information referred to by the hon. Member, and I have no reason to doubt it may be taken as substantially correct. There is no existing regulation in regard to these prosecutions, but the subject is now receiving my consideration with the view of establishing a more uniform practice if that be possible. When I have disposed of the matter I shall be glad to inform the hon. Member of the result, but I cannot undertake that any regulation will be laid on the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has further considered the complaints brought before him last Session from the mining district round Airdrie, alleging that the provisions of Section 21 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, which requires that daily personal supervision shall be exercised either by the manager or by an under manager nominated in writing by the owner or agent of the mine, are in many cases habitually neglected; whether he has completed his investigation into these complaints; and what conclusion he has come to as to the further steps which it may be desirable to take?

In accordance with my undertaking to the hon. Gentleman last year, I went carefully into the requirements of Section 21 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, with reference to the collieries in the mining districts in question. In the result I instructed the Inspector to inform the proprietors that, in the absence of daily personal supervision by the manager, there must be a certificated under manager at each pit, and that it was essential that the requirements of the Statute as to daily personal supervision should be strictly observed.

I beg to ask the Secretary for State for the Home Department whether he can state for the years 1889 to 1891 inclusive the respective numbers in England and Wales of the verdicts of wilful murder found by Coronors' juries, the persons committed for trial, those condemned to death, those executed, and the sentences of death commuted?

In 1889 there were 167 verdicts of wilful murder found by Coroners' juries; 71 persons were committed for trial, 20 were condemned to death, 11 were executed, and in nine cases sentence of death was commuted. In 1890 there were 159 verdicts of wilful murder found by Coroners' juries, 86 persons were committed for trial, 24 were condemned to death, 15 were executed, and the sentence of death was commuted in nine cases. The Returns for the year 1891 are not yet complete.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that the people of Clare Island were not represented by a solicitor at all on the occasion of the adjournment of the case against them, being too poor to fee one; that the proceedings against the islanders were adjourned over five Court days, embracing a period of several months; that on the 7th December only one Magistrate attended, who fixed the hearing for the 16th, when the islanders were ready with a solicitor to defend the charge, but no Magistrate attending, were obliged to forfeit their fee of ten guineas to their solicitor; that fresh summonses were issued for the 4th January, but had to be again adjourned owing to an epidemic of scarlet fever among the islanders; that one of these summonses was served upon a young man upon his death-bed, two days before his death; and that when the case finally came on for hearing the defendants were undefended, and were obliged to walk 13 miles in the snow to Westport in a destitute condition; who is responsible for the non-attendance of the Magistrates on the 16th December; and whether compensation will be made to the islanders for the loss of their solicitor's fee and other expenses on that occasion in consequence of the default of the Crown officials?

I am informed that for 7th December only seven persons were summoned, the remaining persons against whom summonses were issued having evaded service. The charges against the seven persons could not be gone into that day, as one of the Resident Magistrates had been called away to attend the Sligo Winter Assizes. The seven cases were accordingly adjourned to 16th December, and at the same time the summonses against those who had evaded service were renewed for that date; but as it was subsequently found that the latter—i.e., the large majority of the cases—could not be entered upon that day as not being one fixed for the ordinary holding of Petty Sessions, though adjourned cases could be then heard, it was found necessary to defer the hearing of the cases to the 4th January. On that date the cases were, on the application of the solicitor for the defence, further adjourned to 8th February, on the ground stated in the question. No man appears to have been served with a summons upon his death bed. The Magistrates duly attended upon the 8th February, but the defendants did not appear. It being found that their absence was due to a storm, the Magistrates adjourned their cases to the 7th March, and finally disposed of them oh the 8th March at Westport, in the circumstances explained in reply to a previous question. They were in no sense destitute. I am not aware of the grounds on which the defendants were not represented on that occasion by a solicitor; but it is manifest they suffered in no way by the absence of one, as the Magistrates felt themselves able to deal leniently, and merely bound the defendants over to keep the peace, and in some instances dismissing the cases. The defendants, so far from considering themselves harshly treated, expressed their gratitude to the Court for the leniency shown to them. There is nothing in the case to suggest the adoption of the course proposed in the last paragraph.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first part of my question. He stated to the House that the adjournment to Westport for the 7th March took place on the application of the solicitor for the defendants, and for their convenience. May we not now take it for granted that the information on which the right hon. Gentleman made that statement was misleading? Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that the information upon other points is more reliable? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman at the same time, is it not an undoubted fact that this trumpery charge was kept hanging over the heads of these poor islanders for a period of more than three months, though they were always ready to meet the charge; that they were dragged from home to Court, that twice owing to default on the part of officials the cases could not be heard, and finally they were dragged to Westport on a wanton and useless journey? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that this harsh, this cruel adjournment from Lewisbing to Westport was simply because the Magistrates feared the scarlet fever epidemic?

It is quite impossible for me to answer a series of questions like this across the Table. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information given to me. I have gone carefully through the report of the Magistrate who was present. I do not think the adjournment to Westport was a cruel or harsh proceeding.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still maintain that it was at the application of the solicitor for the defendants that the adjournment to Westport took place?

I am not aware that I said that it was on the application of the solicitor to the defendants that the cases were adjourned to Westport. I stated, and I state again, that the Adjournment to 8th February was on the application of the solicitor to the defendants.

The right hon. Gentleman has not said who is responsible for the non-attendance of the Magistrate. I shall have to refer to the subject again.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the case that the Scotch Education Department authorised the opening by the School Board of Culross of a school at Oakley, without imposing any special conditions; whether the School Board was subsequently required to confine the teaching in that school to the second standard; whether this is consistent with the 36th section of the Education Act of 1872; and whether the Department will re-pay to the School Board the expense incurred in advertising for teachers, and paying the current salary of a teacher who was engaged under the original sanction of the Department, but could not be employed owing to the Department's change of mind?

The Scotch Education Department authorised the opening by the School Board of Culross of a school at Oakley on the condition that it was to be temporary, and that a satisfactory permanent scheme should be submitted before the close of the term of office of the School Board. Owing to the representations of the Carnoch School Board that the opening of this school, which is situated in their district, was assented to by them only on the understanding that it would be confined to children who had not passed the second standard, the Department has suggested that this restriction should be observed. I am not aware that this is inconsistent with the 36th section of the Education Act of 1872; but the Department's duty under the 30th section of that Act, and under the Code, is quite clear—namely, not to recognise for annual grants a school which is to provide for children for whose accommodation other and suitable provision is already made. The Department does not recognise any claim such as is put forward in the last paragraph of the question, nor are there any funds available for such a purpose; but they hope that nothing will prevent a fair compromise being arrived at.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why it is that cases listed at Ramelton, in County Donegal, five years ago, have not yet been heard by the Sub-Commissioners; and when the Sub-Commissioners will sit to dispose of the existing arrear in that district?

The Land Commissioners report that there are only 14 cases in the Union of Milford, County Donegal, which have already been listed for hearing at Ramelton, and which are still undisposed of. These cases were twice listed for hearing in the year 1890, but were adjourned by the Sub-Commission Court principally on the application of all parties concerned, and for non-compliance with orders of the Court. A sitting of a Sub-Commission for the Union has been arranged. It will probably be held during the month of June next. The list for hearing will include all outstanding cases lodged up to the end of the year 1891.

But there are cases standing untouched for the years 1887–88 and 1889, and I have the list of only one solicitor.

The information I have is that all the remaining cases are set down for hearing.

But how is it they have been standing for four or five years?

I have informed the hon. Member there are only 14 cases in the Union of Milford, and these were twice listed in 1890, but adjourned on application of all parties concerned, or for non-compliance with the orders of the Court.

I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to make further inquiry. Here I have a list of 19 cases for one solicitor in Ramelton alone.

If the hon. Member will give me the list I will cause inquiry to be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Governor of Stafford Prison is acting within his right in refusing permission to attend Divine Service within the prison to the alleged Anarchists now awaiting trial under his charge; whether it is customary in Her Majesty's prisons to keep in solitary confinement accused persons under remand or awaiting trial, with only half-an-hour's exercise per day allowed, and that not every day; whether the authorities of Stafford Prison are within their right in so keeping the alleged Anarchists; whether accused persons under remand or awaiting trial have a right to receive letters, subject to such letters being first read over by the prison authorities; and by what right the Governor of Stafford Gaol has kept such letters back from the alleged Anarchists, thereby seriously hampering their defence?

I am informed by the Governor of Stafford Gaol that the prisoners do not attend chapel because they stated that they did not care to go to Divine Service, and were of no religion, and because they ridiculed the service. Like all other prisoners, those awaiting trial are kept in separate cells, except when medical reasons forbid it. Prisoners awaiting trial have 40 minutes' exercise each day when the weather is fine. These prisoners are treated in conformity with the Prisons Act of 1865 and the rules made thereunder. No letters referring to their defence have been kept back from these prisoners. Two letters containing improper matter were kept back by the Governor in the exercise of that discretion with which he is intrusted by the Regulations in the Schedule to the Act of 1865.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as these men do not wish to attend Divine Service, and considering that such attendance is in many cases looked upon as merely a chance of getting out of the cell, they will be allowed in lieu of attending chapel to take exercise?

The Statute does not provide an alternative to attending Divine Service.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the treatment by the British Consul at New York of George Tinmouth, second engineer, August Walter, second mate, George Temple, Henrick Miller, Henry Bain, and Alfred Anderson of the ss. Godolphin, 96,653, of London; if he is aware that these men joined the Godolphin at South Shields on 9th January, 1891, their agreement being for twelve months, to terminate in the United Kingdom, and that on 12th January, 1892, the time of their agreement having expired in New York, the captain endeavoured to discharge them in New York without paying them compensation for the voyage home, and that on application by these men to the British Consul he said he would "wash his hands" of them, because they refused to take their money up to the time the ship arrived in New York; if his attention has been directed to a letter which appeared in the International Seamen's Gazette of last week from the British Consul at New York denying the statement of the men; and if anything can be done to recoup the men for the expense that they are put to in suing the owners of the ss. Godolphin for the balance of the wages, they not having arrived in the United Kingdom until 6th February?

I have been in communication with the Consul General at New York with regard to the case of the Godolphin, but I have not seen the letter in the International Seamen's Gazette to which the hon. Member refers. I understand that the master of the steamer did object to pay wages beyond the date of the discharge at New York, but as the agreement provided for discharge at a port in the United Kingdom, the Consul General decided that the men were entitled to additional wages for the probable time it would take them to reach home, and he reports distinctly that they were paid accordingly, but he does not state up to what date. If the seamen take proceedings to recover any amount to which they are advised they are still entitled, the question of their costs will no doubt be considered by the Court, but the Board of Trade have no power to recoup them the expenses they are put to in suing.

I have read the agreement, and I wish to ask whether, if the agreement expressly said that the men should be paid in the United Kingdom, the Consul was right in forcing them to accept payment in New York?

The agreement provided for a discharge in a port of the United Kingdom. The Consul decided there must be additional payment for the probable time occupied in reaching that port.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a copy of the wages accounts, and that that does not confirm the statement of the Consul that the men have been paid?

I have no reason to doubt the statement of the Consul.

I do not question the veracity of the Consul, but if the wages accounts do not show the payment, does not that indicate that the Consul was misinformed?

I do not know that it does.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the captain of the ss. Liscard, at Buenos Ayres, on 4th January, 1892, passed 30 cwt. of potatoes and other ship's stores, as cheese, ham, &c., over the side to another steamer, thereby depriving the crew of stores put on board for their use; that, during the homeward voyage, the crew were placed on an allowance of four potatoes per week per man; if he will inquire into the allegation of some of the crew as to the alleged behaviour of the chief mate; if he will inquire as to whether it is the case that the Liscard carried no weights for weighing the food to the crew; whether he will inquire into the whole circumstances connected with the summons taken out against the captain, mate, and boatswain, on their arrival at home; and whether he will inquire into the allegation that the chief engineer was instructed by the Board of Trade to remain in London pending an inquiry into the facts, and that, after his declaration had been made, it was officially intimated to him that the case had been abandoned, no cause being alleged for the same?

All the matters referred to in the question of the hon. Member with regard to the Liscard were brought to my notice by the Sailors' and Firemen's Union, and an investigation was ordered before the London Local Marine Board into the charges of misconduct against the master and mate. It was abandoned for want of sufficient evidence to substantiate the charges. It is not customary to inform witnesses of the reason for abandoning investigations, but the Sailors' and Firemen's Union were duly informed. I have been unable at present to obtain information about the weights, but further inquiries will be made on this point. I do not propose to make any further inquiry on the other points, as seamen have their remedy at law for assault and reduced allowance of provisions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at a meeting of the Mullingar Asylum Board, held on the 10th instant, the Governors gave the contract for publishing the advertisements of the asylum to the Westmeath Guardian at 3d. per line, although the proprietor of a newspaper with a very much larger circulation in the County Westmeath tendered to insert the advertisements for 1½d. per line; and whether the ratepayers of the county have any redress in this matter?

I am informed that the Governors of the Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum accepted the tender for advertisements of the newspaper mentioned as being the oldest established paper published in the neighbourhood. They rejected the tender of the other newspaper referred to, as it is not published in the County Westmeath, and has only recently been circulated in the district. The Governors appear to have acted in their discretion, as, under the terms of their advertisement inviting tenders, they were not bound to accept the lowest or any tender.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to the knowledge of the police that during the recent affrays between bailiffs and alleged poachers at Queenstown and other places on the Lee, the shots alleged to have been fired in the air by the bailiffs were so directed that the bullets struck certain houses in the immediate neighbourhood of Glenbrook, and that some of those bullets are now in the possession of persons who narrowly escaped being struck by them; and whether he will cause any further inquiry into the matter?

The Constabulary Authorities report that two bullets, believed to have been fired on the occasion in question, were found to have struck houses. The water bailiffs had already reported that they had fired in the air, and in self-defence, to frighten their assailants who had thrown stones at them. Steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of this state of things.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the propriety of recommending the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to review the cases of schools where it is shown that, owing to the epidemic of influenza, the severity of the late season, decrease of population or poverty, an average of 70 scholars is not obtainable (but where, nevertheless, the services of an assistant teacher is required), and with a view to render in such cases an average attendance of 50, sufficient to warrant the payment of an assistant teacher pending the settlement of a compulsory scheme to education?

As I stated in reply to the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) on 26th February, the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland invariably allow, in all cases in which the school attendance is reduced, owing to severe weather, prevalence of epidemic, or other exceptional cause, a reasonable time for the re-establishment of the normal average before proceeding to cancel the grant for an assistant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say how the guard of the Cork mail train became aware that the parcel recently found by him in a carriage at Limerick Junction contained dynamite; is it usual for railway servants to examine the contents of lost luggage; and, if not, what special circumstances led to the examination in this case; whether the arrest of Mr. Halligan without a warrant was according to the usual practice of the Royal Irish Constabulary; and was the arrest legal?

I have no official information on the subject of the first two paragraphs. The arrest was made without a warrant under the ordinary procedure in cases of emergency. The answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.

How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile this mode of procedure with that adopted some time since, when a man charged with manslaughter was not arrested for some days pending the issue of a warrant?

I do not see any connection with the question on the Paper, which I have answered according to the information I have received.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the report in the Irish Daily Independent, of the 19th instant, of the trial and conviction of four soldiers, belonging to the Munster Fusiliers, on a charge of assaulting and wounding, with their belts, several persons in College Green, Dublin; whether he is aware that, although the proper Military Officer was informed by the police of the arrests, charge, place, and time of trial, no officer attended to give evidence as to character as required by the magistrate; and whether it is usual for officers to attend Civil Courts under such circumstances; and, if so, why was a different course taken in this case?

This case was one in which the Civil power dealt in the ordinary way with a charge of assault against a soldier. The offence was committed on the night following St. Patrick's Day. It is usual for an officer to attend when a soldier is charged before a Civil Court, and this course would have been followed in this case, but the notice sent to the Commanding Officer did not reach him in time.

May I ask, is it the fact that the Commanding Officer, having attended a banquet at Dublin Castle on St. Patrick's Day, was not in a condition for duty on the following morning?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the destruction of nets belonging to the Lowestoft fishing vessel Afghan on the night of the 13th instant by an Ostend trawler, entailing a loss of £40 to the owner besides the loss of the night's fishing; and whether he will give orders that the cruisers on fishery protection duty be instructed to keep more on the fishing grounds for the future, and where depredations are likely to take place?

A Report was recently made to a cruiser on the fisheries that a Lowestoft fishing vessel, L.T. 110, had had her nets run into and cut by an Ostend trawler, whose name was not known. Two cruisers were on the fishing grounds at the time, and a constant and vigilant watch is kept; but with every precaution it is not possible to prevent an occasional act of depredation over such a large area as the North Sea. The Occurrence in question I understand took place a long distance from the shore.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an application which has recently been made to the Prescot Board of Guardians by the chemical workers of Widnes, who have been thrown out of work and become dependent on the workhouse, owing to the employment in their place of foreign paupers at their works; whether he is aware that these pauper immigrants are Poles, 80 per cent. of whom arrive in this country quite destitute, and who, by working for starvation wages, are displacing the natural working population of the locality; and whether, in view of the fact that much distress is caused thereby, and an additional burden is being placed upon the rates of the district, the Government will consider the recommendations of the Select Committee on Emigration and Immigration of 1889, especially the last clause of their Report, and take some steps to put a stop to the immigration of foreign paupers into this country?

I have been in communication with the clerk to the Guardians of the Prescot Union on the subject of the statements in the question. I learn that distress has existed among chemical workers at Widnes, but this is apparently due to the closing of a number of alkali works in the district. With respect to the immigration and employment of Poles, I am informed that the statement that these immigrants arrive in this country in a state of destitution is misleading. Generally speaking, they appear to be strong able-bodied men who are readily given employment at the works by reason of their fitness and willingness to perform the work allotted to them. The number of Poles employed in the various chemical works, it is stated, does not exceed 50, the majority of whom have been in this country for a number of years. Not one of the men who were relieved by the Guardians with a labour test could, when inquiry was made of them during the present week, say positively that his place had been taken by a foreigner. As regards the allegation as to starvation wages, on inquiry at one of the largest chemical works at Widnes, it was stated that the wages paid to the Poles were exactly the same as those paid to other workmen employed in the same manner, and that of the eleven Poles employed at the works, ten were receiving wages at the rate of 4s. per day, and one at the rate of 4s. 3d. It is further stated that not a single Pole is in receipt of relief from the Union, and so far as the experience of the Guardians and their officers goes, this class seldom or never apply for Poor Law relief. It does not appear to me that there is any sufficient reason at present for the adoption of such a course as is suggested in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the appeal re fair rent in the case of James Crangle, of Belturbet, County Cavan, which has been pending for two years, has not yet been disposed of, although the Commissioners have recently sat at Belturbet?

The Irish Land Commissioners report that there is no "appeal" outstanding on the books of the County of Cavan in which a tenant of the name mentioned is concerned; but that fair rent applications have been received from a tenant of that name. These cases appear on a list which is being prepared for the district of Belturbet.

having placed on the paper a Question, to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the cause of the delay in presenting the Report of the Board of Works in Ireland relating to the Lough Erne Drainage Scheme; and, whether, considering the great importance of the question to the people of the district, he will take steps to hasten the presentation of the Report?

, said the Report was delivered some days ago.

The question appears by mistake.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Legislative Council of the Viceroy will be able to discuss the Indian Budget of this year, or whether it will be precluded from doing so because no new legislation is proposed; and, how often since 1861 has discussion on the Budget taken place in the Council, and how often has it been prevented from taking place owing to the restrictions in the Indian Councils Act?

No new legislation is proposed in this year's Budget, which therefore cannot under the provisions of the India Councils Act of 1861 be discussed in the Legislative Council. During the 30 years of the existence of the Council, as at present constituted, the Budget has been discussed in 16 years, and has not been discussed in 14.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, with regard to the recent tragedy which ended fatally at Hadnesford, he will take steps to prevent in the future exhibitions of a like nature, more particularly with regard to so-called lion tamers entering cages containing wild and dangerous animals?

I have no power by law to interfere with wild beast shows or dangerous exhibitions.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, owing to the very great dissatisfaction that prevails respecting exhibitions of this kind, he will not advise the Government to take proper steps to alter the law.

I am not aware of any steps, proper or improper, the Government could take that would not be attended with difficulty.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the postmastership of Limerick is vacant; and, if so, whether the claims of the postmasters of Ireland to promotion will be considered in making the appointment, there being so many postmasterships at present vacant in England and Scotland?

It has just become officially vacant, and will be so announced immediately. Most certainly the claims of all Irish postmasters who apply for it will be considered entirely on the ground of their seniority and merit, with a primâ facie wish to prefer an Irishman for an Irish appointment.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the date of the Treasury Minute authorising the "scale" by which head postmasters' salaries are calculated; whether postmen, telegraphists, and clerks have recently had their "scales" of pay considerably improved, but that no alteration has been made in the mode of payment to postmasters; whether postmasters are the only class in the Post Office whose salaries and prospects depend upon circumstances over which they have no control—namely, the rise or decay of the towns they live in; and whether this state of things will be changed; if so, can he state how soon?

With the permission of the House I will answer this question. There is no Treasury Minute upon the subject. Postmasters are not paid upon a rising scale of salary, but according to the duties they perform. Their salaries are re-adjusted when necessary in accordance with the growth of business at their respective offices, and the consequent increase of their work and their staff; but it is not the practice to make a reduction of salary in cases in which the business, and therefore the work, has actually diminished. They are advanced to better posts according to their seniority and merit; and vacancies are notified in a weekly circular, so that those who desire to apply for them may do so, and their respective claims are carefully considered. I see no reason to alter this practice.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government would be willing to lease to a private firm of shipbuilders the unused docks and other premises at Haulbowline, Cork?

The expenditure which has been incurred in building and constructing the docks at Haulbowline was sanctioned on grounds of public policy, and it cannot now be diverted towards securing or promoting profits of private enterprise.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention to alter the rule that all Queen's Cadets and honorary Queen's Cadets have the first choice of joining the Indian Staff Corps before the next examination; and whether he can state why this advantage is given to Queen's Cadets and honorary Queen's Cadets?

There is no intention to alter the Rule. But I would point out that the advantage, though given to all Queen's Cadets, is not given to all honorary Queen's Cadets, but only to the five appointed by the Secretary of State in Council, who are sons of Indian officers. The advantage is given to these cadets in consideration of their fathers' services to the State.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the Treaty which is alleged to have been made between this country and the Jebus on 21st January of the present year; and whether he will inform the House what were the circumstances under which this Treaty was made?

The Treaty referred to will be found among the Papers, which, as I have already stated, will be laid before the House in due course. The circumstances leading up to the Treaty could not be conveniently stated within the limits of an answer, but the hon. Member will find full information in the Papers when published.

Can you say when the Papers will be pubished.

As soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a statement written by Mr. Thomas A. MacAwly, and published in the Western People newspaper of the 12th instant, in which he states that he and four other prisoners confined in Mountjoy Prison at the time of Mr. P. W. Nally's death in the same prison, asked to be examined before the Coroner's jury, and were refused by the Governor on the ground that being convicts they had forfeited (de puire) all civil rights; whether this action of the Mountjoy Prison authorities in this matter was authorised by the Prisons Board; and, will he afford any, and what, facilities for obtaining through other than official channels the evidence which those prisoners still confined in Mountjoy Prison were willing to give relating to the cause of Mr. Nally's death, before the Irish Prisons Estimates are taken in this House?

I have seen the extract from the statement referred to which the hon. Member has sent me, and I am having inquiry on its general subject made. With regard to the particular point mentioned in the question, the General Prisons Board report that it is not the case that the Governor refused to allow the convicts to be examined on the ground alleged. They were, on the contrary, informed that if the Coroner required their evidence they would be called. This was strictly in accordance with the course always followed in prisons.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in cases of disputed settlement where a child is removed from one union to another, it is in accordance with existing regulations that the transfer should take place without the Guardians of the latter union being informed of the religion of the child; and, if so, whether he will cause such amendment of the Rules and Orders as shall secure that the religion of every child removed is notified to the receiving union?

When a child is removed to its place of settlement the proceedings are under Statute and not under any Rules or Orders of the Local Government Board. The duty of the master of the workhouse or school as regards the entry in the Creed Register of the religious creed of a child is imposed by the 31 & 32 Vic, Cap. 122, Sec. 17. Under that enactment it is his duty to enter in the Register as the religious creed of the child the creed of the father or mother, according to the circumstances, so far as it is known to him or can be ascertained by reasonable inquiry. If, therefore, in the case of a child removed from one union to another the master of the workhouse is unable to obtain the necessary information as to the creed which should be entered in the Register without inquiry from the union from which the child has been received, I consider that it would be his duty to make such inquiry. If the hon. Member is aware of any case where he thinks that proper inquiry has not been made in this matter, I will give the case my attention on being informed of the facts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether all the saddles of the pattern "91" passed into the Service last year have been condemned; and, if so, can he state why they have been condemned; who is responsible for the pattern, and who for passing the saddles into the Service; and upon whom will the loss fall?

There is no saddle in the Service known as the "91" pattern. The latest is the "90" pattern. No saddles passed last year into the Service have been condemned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet ascertained the facts as to the constabulary of Donegal "free quota" and "extra;" and whether he will direct the discontinuance of the claim for "extra" men to the extent to which the "free quota" is short?

As questions have recently been asked by hon. Members as to the allocation of the Royal Irish Constabulary apparently arising out of Parliamentary Paper No. 33 of this Session, it may be convenient if I make a statement on the general procedure. The free quota for all Ireland consists of 10,006 men. It is re-distributed every three years under the Act passed in 1885. The procedure is, first, to divide the number between the aggregate of counties and of towns having separate police establishments, according to population. The total so ascertained as available for counties is first apportioned to individual counties according to population, and a like apportionment is made according to area. The mean of these results produces the ordinary free quota assignable to a county. The apportionment among towns is in the ratio of population, subject to variation as local circumstances, such as being a seaport, may require. An extra force is assigned to counties on the requisition of the Magistrates or by proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant. The free quota and the extra force combined are called the augmented force. Where vacancies in this augmented force exist they are apportioned between the free quota and the extra force in the manner indicated in the 14th section of 29 & 30 Vict. c. 103, which is represented by the following sum in proportion—namely, as the total establishment (:) average extra force (::) total vacancies in total establishment (:) vacancies in extra force. The vacancies so found to apply to the extra force are deducted before any charge is made to the county. With regard to the particular case of the County Donegal, its free quota consists of 300 men and its extra force of 20, to which number it has been reduced since 31st March, 1891, when the extra force stood at 30. It is not practicable to reduce the charge for the extra force by the number by which the free quota of a county is short. The recurring waste must be provided for by keeping recruits in training at the depôt, and it is evident that to keep the free quota of a county always at its full strength would necessitate an increase in the total 10,006 men to the extent of the number of recruits to be kept in training at the depôt, for which there would be no statutable authority.

How many are there now in Donegal, and how many are at the depôt in respect of Donegal?

There the difficulty arises, because I would point out to the hon. Member that the allocation of a free quota to a county is not really the allocation of so many men. It would be more correctly stated as so many parts of the whole force. Although 300 men are nominally assigned to the County of Donegal?—

By Statute?

No, not by Statute. There is a fresh disposition and distribution every three years.

Is the extra force included in the 10,006 men?

No.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury under what provision of "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891," the Treasury have made Rule 17 (1) of the Treasury Rules under the Act; whether he is aware that the effect of that Rule is to order the payment to the vendors of land of sums to which they would not have been entitled either under the Act of 1891 or under the previous Land Purchase Acts; and whether, inasmuch as there is no practicable way of testing in a Court of Law whether this Rule is ultra vires, he will consider the advisability of altering the Rule?

The Rule is made under Section 27 of the Land Act, 1891, for the purpose of carrying into effect the adjustments prescribed by Section 6 (4) and Section 15 (10). It has not the effect stated in the second paragraph, and the Lords of the Treasury see no reason for altering the Rule.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many of the fair rent appeals lodged on or before 1st June, 1891, and remaining undisposed of on the passing of "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891," have since been disposed of, and how many remain to be disposed of?

Will the hon. Gentleman postpone his question?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what has happened to the pieces of church plate which were discovered two years ago near Dolgelly; whether the Trustees of the British Museum have expressed their willingness to take charge of them; and why their offer has not been accepted?

The Solicitor to the Treasury has never been able to ascertain the whereabouts of the articles in question, which appear to have been now spirited away, if not stolen. In the circumstances, the Treasury is not prepared to incur any expense in proving the Crown's title.

Who was responsible for seeing that they were not spirited away?

If the hon. Member would like to see the correspondence I shall be happy to show it to him.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the officers, non-commissioned officers, and sappers of the Royal Engineers, employed on the Ordnance Survey, received in addition to their military pay their survey working pay during their attendance at drill and field operations on Southampton Common last season; and, if so, whether the same privilege will be afforded to the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Volunteer Corps employed on the Ordnance Survey attending camps under the mobilisation scheme?

The officers, non-commissioned officers, and sappers of the Royal Engineers received, in addition to their military pay, their survey working pay during their attendance at drill and at the short practical course of engineering which was carried out on Southampton Common last season, in conformity with the requirements of the War Office. I am very glad to know that some of the civil assistants employed on the survey enrol themselves as Volunteers, but the ordinary conditions of Volunteer service must apply in such cases, and I am afraid that the men cannot be allowed pay in respect of their attendance at camps under the mobilisation scheme.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the warders and other officers of the Chatham Prison have been called upon to move with their families and furniture into what are termed the old quarters, and that officers of Volunteers are to be quartered with the families of the said warders and officers during the Easter Review; whether some arrangement can be made to obviate this inconvenience; and whether, in view of the fact that the warders and officers of the prison, who are shortly to be removed to other establishments, have in some cases a considerable excess of furniture over one ton weight, such excess will be moved at the public expense, instead of limiting the "free" weight to one ton?

The Easter Review Volunteers will occupy certain vacant quarters in Chatham Prison, but they will not be quartered on the families of prison officials. The last part of the question should be addressed to the Home Department.

Will the Home Secretary answer the latter part of the question?

I have not seen the question until this moment, and am not in a position to give the hon. Member an answer.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain on what grounds a number of four figures, whether as portion of an address or otherwise, counts, and is charged for, as one word in a telegram, whereas an address given as 1A is charged for as two words; and whether he will consider the possibility of assimilating the charges in such cases?

The combination of a figure and a letter involves additional signalling and consequent cost. Formerly, every figure was charged for as a word, but along with the introduction of the sixpenny-rate five figures were allowed to be telegraphed at the charge for one word.

As so many anomalies have been swept away, will the right hon. Gentleman not let this one follow?

There must be some limit to the reductions, so as to keep the charge for telegraphing within the limits of the cost. I have made inquiries, and I find that the introduction of a figure requires that a certain signal shall be made before and after the figure, which requires to be charged for.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the Report of Sir Evelyn Wood on the Cavalry Manœuvres in 1890 that

"He concurs with the opinion expressed by nearly all Artillery Officers that the Horse Artillery 12-pounder gun is too heavy and too long, striking on banks when crossing ditches,"

and in view of the Reports on the Cavalry Manœuvres in India and at Home in 1891, made by the Inspectors General of Cavalry in India and in the United Kingdom to the same effect, the latter stating that "it was painful to see the fine teams struggling to drag them along," whether he will be so good as to say if he proposes to substitute guns more suitable for the service of Horse Artillery?

A light 12-pounder breech-loading gun for Horse Artillery accompanying Cavalry has been designed and is about to be tried.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the name and grade of the officer who it has been alleged ordered Private Thomas O'Grady to remove a shamrock from his cap on St. Patrick's Day, and whether this officer has been since reprimanded; and whether he is aware that it has frequently been customary for officers of high rank to wear large bunches of shamrock in their uniform on certain occasions, especially in trooping the colours on St. Patrick's Day in Dublin?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the 17th instant an officer of the 2nd Welsh Regiment sentenced Private Thomas O'Grady to 48 hours' punishment for refusing to take a shamrock from his undress cap when ordered to do so, although O'Grady was not on duty at the time; and can he state under what regulation this officer acted?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an officer of the 2nd Welsh Regiment, stationed at Aldershot, sentenced Private Thomas O'Grady to 48 hours' punishment for refusing to remove a shamrock from his cap, O'Grady not being on regimental or any other military duty at the time; and whe- ther this conduct of the officer was authorised by any of the Queen's Regulations?

In reply to the various questions on this subject, I do not think I can do better than read to the House the Report furnished by the officer commanding the battalion of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers in which Private O'Grady is serving—

"From the Officer Commanding 2nd Welsh Regiment to the Brigade Major, 2nd Brigade. Aldershot, 21st March, 1892. 10.15 p.m. Sir,—With reference to your Minute of this date, on Minute of Adjutant General, Aldershot, forwarding a copy of a telegram from Adjutant General, Horse Guards, calling for a Report on the subject of the accompanying paragraph extracted from the Daily News of Saturday last, I have the honour to report as follows:—On the morning of the 17th instant, a musketry fatigue party (markers) of 36 non-commissioned officers and men, of which number 2,980 Private Thomas Grady formed one, paraded at 6.55 on the barrack square, under Captain Tindal, for the purpose of proceeding to the Rifle Range at Ash. Captain Tindal states that while inspecting his party he observed a man with a bunch of green stuck in his glengarry cap, and not being aware that it was St. Patrick's Day, and that it was shamrock, gave an order to the senior non-commissioned officer to direct Private Grady to remove it. On being ordered to do so, Private Grady replied in a most insubordinate manner, "I won't do it," and on a second order from another non-commissioned officer in rear, again replied, "I won't do it." Captain Tindal thereupon ordered him to be made a prisoner for refusing to comply with the order. On being brought before me on this charge, I awarded him 48 hours' imprisonment, his lieutenant explaining to him that the punishment was not on account of wearing shamrock, but on account of his insubordinate refusal to comply with the order given. I attach a copy of Private Grady's Defaulter Sheet. I regret that I was out of barracks at the time your Minute arrived, and the Second in Command was not sufficiently acquainted with the details of the case to report fully upon it.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant (Signed) Barnet N. Anley, Colonel, Lieutenant-Colonel Commanding 2nd Battalion Welsh Regiment."

I think the House will agree that the punishment of this soldier was amply justified under the circumstances. I may add, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for North Galway, that officers of high rank may, on certain occasions, have worn shamrock on their uniforms, but His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief is not cognisant of the fact.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many men belonging to this regiment are Irishmen, and whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to recruit this regiment in Ireland?

I cannot say, but it is a Welsh regiment.

It consists mostly of Irishmen.

Are we to understand, apart from this particular case, that Irish soldiers are to be at liberty in the future to wear shamrock?

A soldier may wear whatever badge he chooses when off duty.

But may he wear the shamrock when on duty?

Consider how ridiculous it would be if soldiers of every nationality in the British Army chose to wear separate emblems.

Are not Irish soldiers in Welsh regiments compelled to wear the leek on St. David's Day?

They may wear any badge that is sanctioned by the Orders.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case in reference to Private O'Grady, that his punishment will not stand in the way of his future promotion.

I can give no assurance on that point. O'Grady was sent to prison for gross disobedience to orders.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will communicate with the School Board regarding the wearing of the shamrock, and prohibit school children from doing so.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that at the morning parade on St. Patrick's Day a number of the men of the Carlow Militia who were the shamrock in their caps were ordered by the sergeant major to "throw away those tufts of grass," and that several who replaced the shamrocks in their tunics were ordered to the guard room; and will he state by what authority the sergeant major acted in this way?

The officer commanding the troops at Carlow reports that on St. Patrick's Day he ordered some men who appeared on parade with shamrock in their caps to remove it while on parade. The only men ordered to the guard room that day were three, two for being drunk on parade, and one for being drunk in the town.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is any truth in the statement that the sergeant major ordered these men to "throw away these tufts of grass?"

There is nothing of that kind in the report I have received.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any Army Regulation against the wearing of the shamrock; and, if not, whether he will bring in a Bill to make the wearing of the shamrock illegal in the Army?

I am afraid I cannot say anything on that subject.

Does the Regulation against the wearing of the shamrock apply to the emblems of other nationalities, such as the rose and the thistle?

The Regulation against the wearing of the shamrock applies to everything of that kind.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the peculiar circumstances under which the Acts 1 Will. and Mary, c. 30, s. 1, and 5 Will. and Mary, c. 6, were passed, in the years 1688 and 1693, respectively, and the causes that led to the legislation embodied in those Acts and their amending Acts, he will consider the propriety of suspending the proceedings for the recovery of costs, in the case of the "Attorney General v. Morgan," until after the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties and Way-leaves have presented their final Report?

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that 60 men have been discharged from the Morgan Gold Mine lately, in cones- quence of the Directors of the Company being unable to treat the low grade ores of that mine at a profit; and whether in view of the fact that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has given notice that he will to-day bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the management of the Woods and Forests and Land Revenues of the Crown, he will postpone the sale of the property of the honourable Member for Merthyr until the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties have reported and he has decided what course should be adopted to finally settle such questions in the future?

I desire to make it clear to the House that there are two entirely distinct questions involved. One is the question of the amount of royalties to be charged on Gold Mines in Wales and the system under which they are charged; the other, the question of the payment of the costs given against Mr. Pritchard Morgan in the litigation between him and the Crown—litigation directed not against a particular system of royalties, but against the claim of the Crown to any property whatever in the output of gold. With regard to the first of these two questions, the hon. Member for East Bradford asks me a question of fact about the Morgan Mine. I have no information as to the number of men who have been discharged from the Morgan Mine, nor whether they have been discharged in consequence of the company being unable to treat the low grade ores of that mine at a profit. But I am informed that the ores which have been recently worked there are of a low grade, so low that if the sliding scale which has been offered had been accepted, the royalty charged would only have been 1–100th of the product. The questioners on this subject have ignored the fact that this very low royalty has been offered. However, if it is contended that the scale offered still impedes the working of the mines, I am anxious to find a modus vivendi between the Woods and Forests Department and the Mining Companies till the Royal Commission has reported, and I think I see my way to such a method. The royalties recovered are of small amount, and I trust that an arrangement can be made with regard to them. But what I am on no account prepared to do is to accept the principle of profit-sharing till I learn the views of the Royal Commission on this system. But this question of the amount of royalties to be charged and the system under which they are charged has absolutely no connection with the legal proceedings in which costs were given against the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil; and the Report of the Royal Commission, whatever it may be, cannot affect the question at issue in that case, in which the title of the public to any share in the output of gold was attacked. In the conclusion of his judgment, Mr. Justice North, after referring to the extremely liberal terms (as he considered) offered by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for Mr. Pritchard Morgan to accept, continued as follows:—

"This he has deliberately refused to do (that is to accept these terms), and has claimed and still claims the entire produce. In other words, the whole contest has arisen from the persistent endeavour of the defendant to prevent the application of part of the Public Revenue of the country to its legitimate purposes, and to divert it into the pockets of himself and his fellow-shareholders, and he says it is against public policy that this attempt should be resisted. The Attorney General has in this action been wholly right from the beginning, and would be entitled now, if he desired it, to an injunction as asked against the defendant. He has not thought it worth while to do so, as the defendant has, since the action was commenced, sold the Gwynfynydd Mine to a company, who have received a Crown licence to work, and are duly paying the royalty thereunder; but the defendant has persevered in his unfounded assertion of right, and has required that the action should be brought to trial in order to decide who should pay the costs of it; and, as I hold that he has been wrong throughout, I must adjudge that he do pay the plaintiff's costs of the action. It was said that the Crown ought not to have costs against the subject, but I do not see why not, nor why the Revenues of the country should bear the expense of the successful resistance to an attempt by the defendant to misappropriate them."

Against this decision the hon. Member appealed unsuccessfully, and Lord Justice Lindley said in his judgment—

"I regard this case as one in which the owner of a gold mine is seeking to strain the Act for the purpose of depriving the Crown of its well-known rights."

In the face of such judgments as these I do not feel that it would be right for the Government to withdraw their claim for costs, which would be tantamount to handing the hon. Member a cheque out of the Public Purse for a debt incurred in a suit so characterised by two Courts. But I observe that hon. Members do not ask me to forego the claim, but to postpone it. The hon. Member has himself repeatedly stated his wish for an execution, and has also repeatedly said that he made no appeal for the remission of costs. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil courts the martyrdom of an execution in his house; but I sympathise with hon. Members who desire to postpone his enjoyment of this coveted distinction. I should be willing to postpone the sale of the hon. Member's goods—announced for Saturday—if it were possible, not till the Report of the Royal Commission is published—for that Report cannot affect the case—but for such a reasonable time as may enable the friends of the hon. Member to consider whether different counsels may not prevail. But I am advised that if the Crown were to withdraw the writ now it would forfeit its claim to the costs altogether, and that the sale cannot be put off without the concurrence of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. If he would agree that if the Crown withdraws now it might enter again later on under the same writ, I am advised that the only risk incurred would be that of the goods being disposed of in the meantime—a consideration which I am prepared to leave out of account in the case of the hon. Member. But the matter is urgent. If any friend of the hon. Member who desires the postponement will communicate at once with my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury with such assurances from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil as are indispensable, I shall be most glad to instruct the Woods and Forests to postpone the sale.

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the judgment of Mr. Justice North. I would ask him if he has seen these observations:—"If the Crown has a a legal right and claim, I must give effect to it whatever the results are. Any remedy for the grievance alleged to arise wheresoever must be sought elsewhere."

Certainly. The words which the hon. Gentleman quotes show that Mr. Justice North considered the action ought not to have been brought, and that it was an action which he was obliged to condemn in strong language.

I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has read the judgment of Mr. Justice Fry?

I have seen the judgments of both learned Judges.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is a fact that the law is in this condition. It is not known in any part of the world that gold is obtained unless associated with tin and other metals, and I want to know if, as the law stands in this country, a stone containing part of tin and part of gold belongs to both metals?

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now arguing the whole question.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an application was made to the Woods and Forests Office by a person other than the freeholder for licence to work for gold on the Dolmelynllyn Estate, near Dolgelly, Merionethshire; whether a communication was made to the owner by the Woods and Forests Office, asking whether he, the freeholder, would accept a licence to work for gold; and, if not, that a licence would be granted to the applicants; whether, after certain correspondence, the owner of such land having declined to accept a licence upon the usual conditions of working, a licence was granted to him in which such working conditions were omitted, the result being that the lands of the Dolmelynllyn Estate, and the gold, the property of the Crown, are locked up for a period of 30 years, at a nominal fixed royalty to the Crown of £1 per annum only; and whether similar licences have been, or are likely to be, granted to other landowners in Wales or in Ireland?

Application was made by a person, other than the freeholder, for a licence to work for gold on portion of the Dolmelynllyn Estate, near Dolgelly, and the freeholder, who had previously been in communication with the Office of Woods on the subject of a lease, was thereupon written to, and he ultimately took a lease of the mines Royal within his ancient freehold, and the owner's urgent request that he should not be compelled to work for gold in it was acceded to. If he did work this mine he would work it on the ordinary scale of royalties. In this case the greater part of the land was in the nature of residential property. Similar leases or licences have been granted to some other landowners.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the Italian Customs Authorities charge duty on articles sent through the parcels post, addressed to passengers on board English Royal Mail ships calling at Naples and Brindisi, but who do not land at these ports; and whether he will make representations to the Italian Government on the subject.

Attention has not been specially called to the practice above referred to, but it is in the natural course of things that the Italian Custom Authorities should charge duty onsarticles sent by parcel post addressed to passengers on board English ships calling at Italian ports. Whether the persons to whom such parcels are addressed land or not is beside the question. Their intention could not always be known. Probably such parcels are called for at the post office, and brought on board by a ship's officer or the local agent of the Steamship Company. A dutiable parcel arriving in this country addressed to a passenger on board a ship calling at an English port would be treated in a similar way.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the Postal Union, as they open parcels having the stamp, whether they also open letters?

They open parcels and make them pay duty according to the rate of the Customs.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this further question, as this is a matter seriously affecting large numbers of officers on board ships trading in the Mediterranean and Adriatic whether he will make further inquiry. It is a standing grievance with them, and I want to know whether these articles will be liable to duty at the Italian ports if they are sent to Port Said?

Before entering into particulars like that I should require to separate that question from the other, and must ask for notice.

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me I will place the information at my disposal in his hands.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if the maximum amount which a County Council can borrow, under Clause 11 (2) of the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill, depends on the amount of the existing charges on the county rate; and, if so, whether he will, before the Committee stage of the Bill, lay upon the Table of the House a statement showing the maximum amount of loan capital which might be raised at the present time by the Council of each county in Great Britain under the provisions of the Bill, assuming such capital was borrowed for 50 years at 3⅛ per cent.; and if he will state the maximum amount which might be raised for every £1,000 of rateable value in the case of a county free from other debts?

It is not intended that the maximum amount which a County Council is to be allowed to borrow for the purposes of the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill should depend on the amount of the existing charges on the county rate. The limit is to be a penny rate in the pound, irrespective of any existing liabilities, and the clause can be easily amended to make this clear, if it is not so, by transposing the words "for the purposes of this Act." The maximum amount which may be raised for every £1,000 of rateable value is £104 14s. 2d., assuming that the term for which the loan is raised is 50 years at 3⅛ per cent.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how soon the figures of the population, in 1891, of each Poor Law parish in England and Wales are likely to be presented to Parliament by the Census Department.

I have made inquiry of the Registrar General, and I learn from him that he hopes that the volume containing the particulars as to the census which are referred to in the question will be published in the early part of next year.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what moneys were expended on the erection of new buildings at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, during the years 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, and 1891?

The money spent on the Small Arms Factory was:—In 1886–87, £25,711; in 1887–88, £15,308; in 1888–89, £4,017; in 1889–90, £1,689; in 1890–91, £1,655; in 1891–92 to 31st December, £1,300.

Do those figures include the machinery alterations.

I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the discharges of workmen cannot be carried out in the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, without discharging men with six, seven and eight years' service?

As far as possible reductions in the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, are made from those men who have the shortest term of continuous service; but some consideration must necessarily be also given to the quality of a man's service.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no more men will be discharged until the House of Commons has considered the matter?

No, Sir; I cannot hand over to the House of Commons the control of the War Office.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether men who have served seven years will have any provision made for them under the Superannuation Act?

Nothing can deprive them of the rights they have under that Act.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the number of the men employed in the machine gun department of the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, during the years 1888 and 1889; and what is the number of men employed in the same department at the present time?

The highest number of men employed in the machine gun department in the year 1888–89 was 120, in 1889–90 139, in 1890–91 95, in 1891–92 102, and the actual number now employed is 102.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the extra employment will be given in the machine gun department, or in what department is it to be given?

I hope and believe I shall be able to give some extra work in the machine gun department, but I have certainly not been encouraged by the way I have been pressed on the subject in the House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that evictions are about to be carried out upon Clare Island among the people lately prosecuted under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and who were last year preserved from starvation by public relief; and, if so, whether the forces of the Crown will be employed in carrying out those evictions?

The authorities are not aware of any evictions being about to be carried out on Clare Island, with the exception of one case, as to which the Sheriff has applied for police protection. The man referred to was not employed on relief works last year, nor was he one of those recently prosecuted.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether seizures are pending, because reliable information has reached me on that point.

No, Sir, I have no information on that point.

I beg to give notice that on some future occasion I will press the matter on the attention of the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State of War whether the Rev. R. F. M'Leod has, in consequence of having inadvertently written a letter to the Broad Arrow reflecting on the Chaplain General's treatment of old Army chaplains, been forced to resign his commission, and forfeit the privileges of eleven years' service; whether the Governor of Malta, in forwarding his resignation, strongly recommended that it should not be accepted, on the grounds of Mr. M'Leod's zeal and efficiency in the discharge of his duties; whether Mr. M'Leod has been refused an appeal for a Court Martial or Court of Inquiry to investigate his statement and offence; whether he is entitled to this as a matter of right; and, whether, under the circumstances, if not reinstated, a pension will be granted to Mr. M'Leod for his past services?

The Rev. Mr. M'Leod, Army chaplain, published a letter to the prejudice of discipline, making charges which he signally failed to substantiate. He was called upon to resign his commission; and in view of the offence committed, I cannot allow the withdrawal of his resignation. Having resigned, Mr. M'Leod is not entitled to a Court Martial, and his service is too short to entitle him to retired pay.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury in what item of what Vote in the Civil Service Estimates is provision made, or to be made, for compensation to Lieutenant Colonel Everett, Consul in Armenia, in lieu of the wounds pension awarded to him irregularly by the War Office?

It is proposed to present an additional Estimate for a lump sum to be accounted for under Sub-head M of the Vote for Diplomatic and Consular Services.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received several petitions from the inhabitants of Ferrybank praying for the establishment of a telegraph office; and whether, considering the large population of the district and the distance from the nearest telegraph office in Waterford, he will comply with the prayer of the petitioners?

Such an application was made in 1885; but the circumstances did not then justify a compliance with the request. A petition on the same subject was received on 18th January last, and as the reports show that the circumstances now justify it, I shall have pleasure in establishing a telegraph office at Ferrybank.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can inform the House how many senior telegraphists, first class and second class, at the Central Telegraph Office were absent on sick leave during the twelve months ending 31st October, 1891, distinguishing in each class the number absent one day only, the number absent two days but not more than six days, and the number absent seven days or more?

I could not to-day give such detailed information as the hon. Member sets out; but if he will be kind enough to repeat his question to-morrow I will endeavour to give him the information he desires.

On behalf of my hon. Friend Mr. Pickersgill (Bethnal Green, S.W.) I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that it is the intention of the Strand District Board of Works to erect a "destructor" on the Surrey side of the river near Waterloo Bridge, in close proximity to that known as the "City destructor," of the nuisance arising from which frequent complaints have been made; and whether he will take any steps to prevent this further dissemination of "sickly smelling steam and smoke"?

The Local Government Board have no information as to the intention of the Strand District Board of Works to erect a "destructor" on the Surrey side of the river near Waterloo Bridge. The matter is not one in which the Board have any jurisdiction. I may, at the same time, remind the hon. Member that a clause was introduced in the Public Health (London) Act of last Session, to provide a remedy in cases where premises are used by a Sanitary Authority for the treatment or disposal of house refuse in such a way as to be a nuisance, or dangerous, or injurious to health. In any such case, proceedings for insuring the abatement of the nuisance may be instituted by the County Council or any Sanitary Authority or person affected.