I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a cheque drawn upon the treasurer of a Friendly Society—whether a banker or not—and endorsed "not negotiable," is liable to be charged with Stamp Duty, or whether it would be properly exempted there from under the provisions of Section 15 of the Friendly Society's Act, 1875?

I may refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 21st March, when I gave the grounds upon which it is held that such a cheque is liable to be charged with Stamp Duty.

"Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether in that answer he referred to a cheque not so marked—does it equally apply to the case in my question?

I am informed that is so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Irish News of the 28th April, containing a report of a statement made by County Court Judge Neligan, Q.C., at Magherafelt Sessions on Wednesday last, to the effect that the state of the Courthouse there was "a shame and a scandal"; whether he is aware that His Honour felt obliged to adjourn the Court, to the great inconvenience of the public; that the same Judge has repeatedly called attention to the intolerable state of the Courthouse; and that the matter was brought before the Grand Jury of Derry at the last Assizes, but was opposed by the County Surveyor; and whether, considering the danger to the health of the Judge and the Bar and the inconvenience to the public, some steps will be taken to render this Courthouse fit for the sitting of a Court?

The subject-matter of this question is one over which the Executive Government have no control, this matter resting wholly with the Grand Jury. I have endeavoured to obtain some information on the matters of fact, but so far no Report has reached me.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that again on Friday the Judge referred to the objectionable smells and state of the Court as dangerous to health, and will he address a remonstrance to the Derry Grand Jury on the subject?

As I have said, we have no responsibility, power, or control in the matter, but I have endeavoured to gather some information as to matters of fact.

Unless something is done we must take the opinion of the House upon the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of Colonel Spaight, Government Inspector, containing most serious complaints as to the state of the workhouse at Larne, County Antrim; whether he is aware that, at the meeting of the Larne Board of Guardians on Wednesday last, Dr. Killen, the Medical Officer, said he agreed with most of what Colonel Spaight had complained of; whether he will state what these complaints are; and if, in the interest of the poor inmates, anything has since been done to remedy the causes of complaint?

The Report of the Local Government Inspector mentioned was generally of a satisfactory nature in regard to the Larne Workhouse. He suggested, however, an improvement in the sanitary arrangements, and also the making of some structural alterations, in both of which the Medical Officer concurred. The Board of Guardians have taken steps to carry out the sanitary proposals, and the Local Government Board are communicating with them in regard to the proposed structural alterations.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that the Central Office for the Registration of Title, under The Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, passed in August last, did not open for business until the 1st April, although the Act came into operation on the 1st January last; if he will explain the cause of this delay; whether he will state the number of vesting orders now awaiting registration, and if only one mapper has been provided who cannot well complete more than two or three maps per diem, notwithstanding the vast number of orders awaiting registration; and will the Treasury make arrangements to provide an extra staff until the accumulation has been disposed of?

I have been informed by the Registrar that the Office for the Registration of Title was opened on the 1st January, 1892, as required by the Act, but that he was not in a position to complete the registry of estates until about the 1st April, as he had not the means of making the maps required by the Act until then. The question of additional assistance for mapping purposes is how under the consideration of the Treasury. There are now 1,255 vesting orders awaiting registration. Only two of those cases are in the Registry Office. The remainder have not left the Land Commission. I sincerely hope that the necessary assistance will shortly be afforded to the Office, in order that this large number of applications may speedily be brought under the provisions of the Act.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department, if he will explain why, when Colonel Rippon recently vacated the post of chief paymaster at Alder shot, Lieutenant Colonel Whittington was appointed to it over the heads of twelve officers senior to himself in addition to nine others who had already been passed over for promotion, in view of the fact that, in January, 1888, the Accountant General transmitted to the Treasury a Report upon the accounts of the 5th Lancers, from which it appeared that the fraudulent deficiencies which had been discovered in them were partly attributable to the fact that Colonel (then Captain) Whittington, as paymaster of the regiment, exercised no control over the books or accounts, and that Sir Reginald Welby, in a letter of the 11th February, 1888, to the Financial Secretary of the War Office, stated that the frauds resulted from a combination of ignorance and indolence on the part of successive paymasters, including Colonel (then Major) Whittington, and added that the Lords of the Treasury thought Major Whittington deserving of grave censure, and regretted that the Secretary of State should not feel able to make him pecuniarily liable for any part of the loss?

Colonel Whittington was appointed to the Pay Department in 1878, and, owing to pressure arising from active, operations at the time, was at once placed in charge of the accounts of a regiment, which were in confusion, with scanty experience and insufficient help. The censure passed on him by the Treasury ten years later had reference to his trusting too much, in 1878, to a fraudulent clerk. During the 14 years which have elapsed' since then Colonel Whittington has shown himself to be a first-rate paymaster; he was specially recommended for promotion for his services in Egypt; was specially appointed to superintend the introduction of the new pay system at Aldershot, the largest pay charge in the Army; and his promotion was due to his capacity for special work, for which he was strongly recommended by the military authorities under whom he had served.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in the year 1891 there were two fatal cases of malignant small-pox in the King's Norton Union—namely, those of Henry Burnett and George Weake; that in the case of Henry Burnett no official record has been made, either on the certificate of death or by the Medical Officer, that he had been vaccinated and that this was proved by four large marks; and that in the case of George Weake the Medical Officer, in his annual Report, stated that it was a case of the most malignant kind, and that, as far as he could glean, there had been no proper vaccination, as no marks were visible; whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of George Weake's widow and two elder daughters that he had two large and remarkably deep marks of vaccination on his left arm, and also to the father's statement that he remembers his being vaccinated; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into both of these cases, with a view of having truthful official records of them entered?

I have received no information that there were two fatal cases of small-pox in the King's Norton Union during the year 1891. The only representations; that I have received on the subject are to the effect that there was one such case, which would appear to be that of George Weake. As regards this case, I have been informed during the present week that certain relatives of the deceased alleged that he bore marks of vaccination, and that the father of the man remembers his being vaccinated. On the other hand, the Medical Officer of Health in his annual Report, distinctly states that no vaccination marks were visible. It does not, however, appear to me that there is any sufficient ground for an inquiry with regard to these conflicting statements.

It is very important to have correct information of such cases. Will the right hon. Gentleman have further inquiries made, and also into the case of Henry Burnett?

I have no information as to the other case; but I presume what I have said of the one case, would apply to the other. I think it would be extremely difficult from any inquiry made now to ascertain the facts of the case in connection with people who are now dead. I do not see how it is possible to obtain correct information. But, even if it were possible, I do not think it is denied that persons who were vaccinated in their youth, and who have not been re-vaccinated in later life, are liable to attacks of small-pox.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the copies of the Post Office London Directory, which used to be supplied for the use of the public to local metropolitan offices, are not now so supplied, and would there be any objection to rescinding such recent Order, if any?

The Post Office London Directory is not an official publication, and it is not the practice to supply copies to post offices for the use of the public, or even copies to all post offices. Directories are, of course, supplied for official purposes where they are required, and when a Directory is available at the public counter without much inconvenience applicants are allowed to refer to it.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General under what circumstances the girl Palfrey, recently convicted at the Birmingham Quarter Sessions of conspiracy, and fined £10, was not proceeded against for the offence of divulging the contents of a telegram, of which she was admittedly also guilty; and what is the penalty attaching to that offence?

Among the charges on which the girl Palfrey was indicted was one of divulging the contents of a telegram, but the essence of all the charges was that of conspiracy to defraud, and to this she pleaded guilty. After such plea, I am informed that it would have been an unusual course to proceed with other counts of the indictment based on precisely the same facts. All of these facts were fully disclosed to the Court. Moreover, the Judge himself suggested that it would be unnecessary to press the other counts. The divulging of the contents of a telegram, like conspiracy to defraud, is a misdemeanour, and the maximum penalty prescribed for it by Statute is twelve months' imprisonment with or without hard labour.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by what authority, on whose sworn information, and for what reason, the public meeting announced to be held at Ballyclough on 25th April was proclaimed and suppressed?

I am informed that the meeting referred to was not publicly announced, but the Police Authorities had reason to know that it was being arranged, and that its object was to denounce and intimidate certain persons who had taken evicted farms. They accordingly directed an information to be sworn, upon which the meeting was proclaimed.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can now state when the Sub-Commissioners will hold sittings at Newcastle West, Limerick County, to hear fair rent applications?

I have communicated with the Land Commission on the subject, and they inform me that it is not now in their power to fix a date for the meeting of the Sub-Commission, having regard to the claims of other districts.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will be able to reply, at an early date, to a Petition in October last from the second class telegraph staff in Edinburgh, praying that the first class, which has been reduced by twelve, may again be placed at the proportion of one in three, at which it has elsewhere stood since 1881?

The prayer of the Petition cannot be acceded to. The office in question was carefully revised last year. Substantial improvements were made, which benefited the whole staff; and the numbers of each class were adjusted not by proportion, but according to the duty to be performed.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the engine-room artificers of the Royal Sovereign are to be reduced in number from 18 to 12; whether the difference in numbers is to be made up by the promotion of chief stokers to the position of engine-room artificers; and whether experience shows that chief stokers so promoted are as efficient as engine-room artificers in keeping in working, and, in the event of a breakdown, in repairing, the various engines and machinery in ships of war?

The complement of engine-room artificers in the Royal Sovereign will be reduced from 18 to 12 as stated, and the difference made up by the substitution of six chief stokers for six engine-room artificers, as it is considered that these men, from their long experience, are better qualified for certain kinds of work such as water-tenders, than junior engine-room artificers. Chief stokers would not be so efficient for making good defects in the event of a breakdown of machinery as engine-room artificers; but it is not intended that they should be borne for such a purpose, the number of engine-room artificers now allowed being considered sufficient to meet all mechanical requirements.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the recent engine trial of the ironclad Royal Sovereign gave the estimated contract speed, under natural and forced draught, continuously or only collectively; whether the trial was in smooth water, and with or against the tide; if so, is it intended further to test and record the vessel's speed in rough weather, and against a head wind, for the purpose of ascertaining how long she can be navigated under forced draught without injury to the boilers or crew confined in the engine-room; and whether it is true that a slight leakage was observed during the four hours' trial in the tubes of two of the boilers?

There was no contract speed to be attained in the case of the Royal Sovereign. The contract was for the development of 9,000 h.p. for eight hours, and 13,000 h.p. for four hours. The actual development averaged 9,640 h.p. for eight hours, and 13,000 h.p. for four hours. The corresponding speeds realised were about 16¾ and 18 knots, as against estimated speeds of 16 and 17½ knots. The trial was in smooth water, with and against tide. Trials at sea are made as matters of course after ships are commissioned, but no trials under forced draught, such as those suggested, are contemplated. They are not required. The engine-room is never under air pressure. A slight leakage did occur, during the fourth hour only of the maximum test, and it was then found to be due to preventible causes.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when he anticipates having the Naval Prison at Lewes in a condition to receive the certificate of the Home Office; and whether he is aware that the absence of this certificate renders the imprisonment of the men sent to the Naval Prison illegal?

No such certificate from the Home Office is necessary, as the Admiralty have full powers under Statute to make their own regulations for the administration of Naval Prisons, including the appointment of Inspectors. In consequence, however, of the Visitors having questioned the size of the cells at Lewes Naval Prison, the Admiralty requested Sir Edmund Du Cane to inspect the Prison; and, acting on his, suggestions, steps are now being taken to bring the cells more into conformity with modern requirements.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the large importation of Chinese into Singapore, whence they are shipped to Java, Borneo, Sumatra, Queensland, and other places in the Eastern Archipelago, under contract as labourers, and that they have to work for the "agent" until the charges for their transport have been paid off; whether he is aware that last year 160,000 Chinese were thus imported into Singapore, of which number not 10,000 had the remotest chance of stopping on British territory, or where British law exists; and whether, considering the abuses to which the contract system is liable, the Government can see their way to put down this traffic and prevent Singapore from becoming a vast receiving and exporting centre for what differs little from the slave trade?

The Secretary of State is aware that a large number of Chinese immigrants come to Singapore, and that some, but only a small proportion of them, go on from Singapore to Java, Sumatra, and other places, under contracts of service by which they are bound to repay out of their earnings the cost of their passages. The Returns for last year have not been received, but it appears from the Returns for 1890 that the whole number of Chinese who arrived at Singapore was 127,936, of whom about 117,000 paid their own passages, and on landing were free to go where they pleased. I may add that in the same year 80,000 Chinese returned from the Straits Settlements to China viâ Hong Kong. A Commission has recently inquired into the subject in the colony, and the Secretary of State is expecting to receive the Governor's recommendations on the best means of preventing abuses which may arise from the system of contract emigration from China to and through Singapore.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is, approximately, the difference between the total value of the rations allowed annually to officers, seamen, and marines of the Fleet, and the amount actually served out; why is not the whole of this difference returned to the men; and can he state, approximately, the extra cost to the country that would be incurred for storage, freight, &c., if the whole ration was taken up?

The difference between the ration to which the seaman is entitled and that which he takes up is, approximately—value of total ration per man per diem, 9½d.; value of what he takes up, 6d.; paid as earnings per man per diem, 2½d. The difference of 1d., which amounts to about £45,000, is principally due to the difference between prices paid as savings and the actual cost of the article, which varies from year to year. The taking up of savings is purely optional on the part of the men, though it is very popular in the Service. It in not possible to estimate approximately the extra cost to the country that would be incurred for storage, freight, &c, if the whole ration was taken up. Probably the freight might be slightly increased, but, on the other hand, the country would gain by being able to calculate more closely the consumption which is now variable, owing to savings, and by reduction of clerical staff on board ship, the calculations consequent on the savings system occupying much time and giving much trouble.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the proceedings in the liquidation of the Bread Union (Limited) are subject to his cognisance, under Section 25 of the Companies (Winding-up) Act, or otherwise; and, if so, whether he can say if the result of a recent criminal prosecution of the promoters of the Company by the liquidator was a promise to pay £1,000 in cash and £4,000 in bills extending over eighteen months; whether the cost of this procedure amounted to £1,500 or what other sum; whether he can say how much of the fruits of the prosecution have been actually recovered for the benefit of creditors; whether the liquidator is contemplating or taking steps to prosecute civilly the directors or any of them; and whether it is the duty of the Inspector General in company liquidation, or of whom else, to restrain prosecutions by liquidators through their solicitors that are likely to result mainly in large solicitors' and other costs, but in little, if any, gain for creditors?

I am informed that the Bread Union (Limited) is being wound up voluntarily under the supervision of the Court. The proceedings are not within the cognisance of the Board of Trade under the 25th section of the Companies (Winding-up) Act. I am, therefore, unable to furnish the information asked for by the hon. Member. The Act of 1890 does not empower the Inspector General to exercise any control over the administrative action of liquidators in such cases.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it has come to his knowledge that nine Poor Law Guardians returned to the Medway Board were elected by forged election papers, and that 180 of such forgeries have been detected; that 68 of these were brought to the notice of the Returning Officer before the declaration of the poll, and by him admitted to be forgeries; whether he is aware that many of the votes so forged were in the names of ratepayers who were known to be dead or to have left the district; that these papers, to the number of 68, were returned as undelivered to the Returning Officer and by him locked in a safe, from which they were abstracted and forged, and presented; and whether, under all the circumstances, he proposes to institute an inquiry to test the legality of the election of the nine Guardians, and bring the forgers to justice?

The only communication which the Local Government Board have received on this subject is one from a solicitor who, on behalf of certain candidates who were defeated at the recent election of Guardians, applied to the Board to direct an inquiry, and alleged that the election was conducted in a loose and illegal fashion, resulting in a number of voting papers being purloined and at least 85 being forged. The Board have pointed out, in reply, that they are only empowered to decide questions as to the validity of elections of Guardians, where the right of any person to act as a Guardian is formally submitted to them for their determination under the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1842. The Board have stated what information they require for the purpose of such an appeal. If an appeal is received by the Board, and it should appear that there is ground for contention that votes have been lost to particular candidates, or allowed to other candidates, in consequence of irregularities in connection with the voting papers, and that the result of the election has been thereby affected, the Board, before arriving at a decision on the appeal, would, if there were any dispute as to the facts, direct a local inquiry by one of their Inspectors. As regards the suggestion in the question that an inquiry by the Board is necessary for the purpose of bringing the forgers of voting papers to justice, I must point out that the forging of a voting paper is a criminal offence, and that no action on the part of the Board is necessary to enable any person to institute criminal proceedings against any individual who is alleged to have been guilty of the offence.

Is it not in the power of the Local Government Board to make an inquiry?

I have stated under what conditions the Board consider it their duty to investigate such a case. If the Board were to examine on oath charges against persons for forgery of papers it would be contrary to the usual practice, and persons might afterwards be prosecuted for forgery alleged to have been committed, and their case would be prejudiced by the examination by the Local Government Board.

The Clerk of the Union might be examined as to how the papers left his custody: they could not have been taken without his knowledge.

If representation is made to the Board that primâ facie evidence exists as to the irregularity, then it will be for the Board to direct an inquiry, and then, no doubt, it will be desirable and necessary to examine the Clerk.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is usual for Prison Governors in Ireland to visit all prisoners under their control at regular intervals to hear their complaints, if any, with the view of having such complaints, if any, remedied as far as possible, consistent with the health, safe custody, and discipline of the prisoners; whether it is usual to make changes in the employment of prisoners from time to time at their own request, and as a reward for good conduct; whether there are any, and, if so, how many prisoners permanently employed, weather permitting, at outside work in Mountjoy Convict Prison; whether any of those prisoners have been so employed from two to five years; for what special reason has the Governor of Mountjoy refused to allow Thomas O'Leary, whose, conduct has been good, a change of employment from the shoemaking shop to outdoor work; and will he see that O'Leary's request is granted?

The reply I have received from the General Prisons Board in regard to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the question is in the affirmative. Of the prisoners at the present time employed in Mountjoy Prison at outdoor work, 14 have been so employed continuously for two years or upwards, but no promise of permanent employment at any particular form of labour is given to any convict. As regards the case of the particular convict mentioned, I notice that the hon. Member has changed the wording of the question. When I answered formerly the question was as to permanent change of employment. That request was refused, but it would not be correct to say that he had been refused change of employment.

; I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is taking any steps to prevent the recurrence of such an accident as recently happened at Hampstead Heath Station at that station and others at which there is a large holiday traffic?

I have not yet received the Inspector's Report on the Hampstead Heath accident, but I have been in communication with the Railway Company, and am informed that, although the plan has not been actually decided upon, such structural alterations will be made and increased means of access to the platforms provided before Whitsuntide, as will, it is hoped, together with other means taken by the Company, remove all risk of further misfortune. As regards other stations, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 28th ult. to the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham (Mr. John Ellis).

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Guardians of Donegal Union recently gave notice, by advertisement in the papers, of their intention to appoint a properly qualified person to the post of infirmary nurse in the workhouse at a salary of £20 per annum with rations and apartments; whether it is the fact that, notwithstanding this advertisement, the said Board appointed a person with no qualifications of training, nor testimonials of any kind, who did not even appear before them, rejecting the only other candidate who had a certificate of training from the Royal College of Surgeons, Belfast, and testimonials of character and efficiency as a nurse from clergy and laymen of all denominations; whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the matter; and whether any step will be taken to remedy this action of the Board?

The Local Government Board have already declined to approve of the appointment referred to, on the ground that the person elected had not the requisite experience. The Guardians have arranged for a new election to take place on the 14th inst.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the Killybegs Petty Sessions district, which is one of the most extensive in the County Donegal, stretching westward 23 miles and eastward 10 miles, there are at present only two magistrates, whereas a few years ago there were six magistrates; whether he is aware that much inconvenience is caused by the Bench being thus undermanned to the magistrates themselves and the inhabitants generally, more especially when either of the magistrates is absent from the Bench from illness or any other cause; whether he is aware that, although five-sixths of the population of this Petty Sessions district is Catholic, both the magistrates are Protestants, and that frequently no Petty Sessions can be held owing to their absence from the Bench; whether he is aware that some months ago an influentially signed memorial, approved of by both the magistrates who at present form the Petty Sessions Bench, the gentry of the locality and the Catholic and Protestant clergymen being among the signatories, was presented to the Duke of Abercorn, recommending the appointment of a gentleman residing at Killybegs to the magistracy, a request, however, which was refused by the Duke; and whether the Government will take any step to remedy this public inconvenience?

I am informed that there are three local magistrates belonging to the Killybegs district, two of whom give a good attendance at Petty Sessions and that they are also attended constantly by the Resident Magistrate. No complaints have been made to the Lord Chancellor as to the want of an additional magistrate in the district, while, as a matter of fact, there appears to have been only one occasion during the last eighteen months on which no Petty Sessions was held for want of the attendance of any magistrate. I have no information as to the memorial referred to in the question, or as to the grounds on which it was refused; but I am informed that the Lord Lieutenant of the county is always ready to consider the names of any properly qualified gentlemen that may be brought before him.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the third paragraph of the question. Is that true?

I do not know that it is the fact.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is no polling station for the districts of Glencolumbkille and Carrick, in the County Donegal, nearer 'than Killybegs, which is nine miles from Carrick, and 20 miles from Glencolumbkille; whether he is aware that there are upwards of 500 voters living further away from Killybegs than Carrick; and whether, having regard to the great hardship and inconvenience entailed on voters by being compelled to undertake so long a journey to record their votes without any public conveyance whatever, arrangements will be made for having polling stations in Carrick?

The polling stations for the County Donegal were fixed in 1885 in pursuance of the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act of that year. There is no power to consider the alteration of the existing districts, except on a resolution being passed by the Chairman of Quarter Sessions and Justices of the Peace having jurisdiction in the county, that such a course is necessary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the Chairman of Quarter Sessions? Is he aware that since County Councils have been established in England polling booths have been placed within three miles of every voter?

I am sure if the hon. Member will communicate with the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and point out to him the inconvenience likely to arise from the present arrangement the representation will receive attention.

The Chairman is Dr. Webb, the well-known Tory pamphleteer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the fact that no fewer than twelve temporary uncertificated clerks in the offices of the Irish Land Commission have been made permanent clerks without any examination; why were not the vacancies in the offices of the Irish Land Commission filled from the Lower Division of the Civil Service, and why were not those clerkships thrown open to public competition according to the practice adopted in filling up vacancies in clerkships in the High Court of Justice in Ireland; is there any precedent for this departure from the Civil Service Regulations, and what are the grounds for this breach of the usual practice in the filling up of such appointments; and will he have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the correspondence that has taken place on this subject between the Civil Service Commissioners and the Irish Land Commission?

Certain clerks in the Department of the Land Commission where, on the recent re-organisation of the Department, permanently appointed, they not holding certificates from the Civil Service Commissioners. I have dealt with the inquiries made in reference to this subject in my reply of 4th April. It would be contrary to practice to lay on the Table copies of correspondence between Departments on the subject of Departmental organisations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these twelve temporary clerks are near relatives, either of the Land Commissioners, or of the Judges, or of other Irish officials?

No, Sir, I have no knowledge of the relationship existing between the clerks and the Land Commissioners. I think it would be a very extraordinary proceeding to discharge men who had been doing the work, and who had become efficient in the discharge of it, and to bring in men from outside who had no experience of the duties.

I shall bring up this matter again on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in the Northern Whig of 30th April, from F. Adair, Secretary to the Belfast Master Butchers' Protection Association, stating that the meat of cattle slaughtered for pleuro-pneumonia was regularly sold for consumption in Belfast; whether he will inquire into the truth of this statement; and whether, if found correct, he will take the necessary steps to put a stop to this practice?

My attention has been called to the letter, which appears to have been written under a misapprehension, or to have referred to some other circumstances. I am informed that neither in the case of Belfast nor any other part of Ireland have animals been slaughtered and sold for food unless they were fit for consumption and so certified by the veterinary surgeons.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Sub-Commissioners who sat to hear land cases in Cavan last summer adjourned, leaving some 20 cases which had been listed unheard, saying that they would return in three weeks, but have not yet sat there since; whether he is aware that some cases in the district, which were entered four years ago, have not yet been heard; and whether the proper steps will be taken to have these cases disposed of?

From the Report I have received from the Irish Land Commissioners it appears that the cases referred to have been already listed for hearing before a Sub-Commission which will commence its sitting at Cavan on the 16th inst. The Chairman of the Sub-Commission which sat in Cavan last year reports that he made no such statement as that attributed to him in the Question.

I gave notice to ask the Secretary to the Treasury in how many cases the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland have, up to the present date, raised the rents of tenants whose lands are alleged to have been improved by the Lough Erne Drainage; what is the total amount of increase; what is the acreage of the land alleged to have been improved, and on which the rents have been increased; and how many of such tenants held under judicial tenancies? I now wish to postpone this question until Monday next. At the same time I would say that it has already been several times on the Paper, and that the Board of Works in Ireland have had time to furnish a reply to it.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department, whether any steps will be taken to remove the disability under which officers in the Army Medical Department suffer as regards precedence at mess; and whether such disability was always in existence, and when instituted?

The officers of the Army Medical Department suffer from no disability.

Has the long correspondence which has taken place on the subject in some medical journals been brought to the attention of the hon. Gentleman, and is he prepared to say that this grievance does not exist?

I have not seen the correspondence referred to by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Jeremiah Murphy, who was fined £5 and costs at the last Innishannon Petty Sessions, for alleged illegal fishing in Bandon River, near Harleys Bridge, was convicted and fined by a majority of one by the Magistrates at Innishannon Petty Sessions, Mr. Cronin, R.M., dissenting, and that it was proved that Murphy was looking after cattle at the time he was supposed to be fishing; and whether, under the circumstances of the case, the fine will be remitted?

I am informed that Murphy was fined as stated in the question; but it does not appear to be the case that the Resident Magistrate dissented from the judgment of the Court. If the defendant is of opinion that there are circumstances in his case which would warrant a reduction or remission of the fine, it is open to him to memorialise the Lord Lieutenant.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what number of tons of gold ore have been raised and treated in the Dolgelly district from the time the junior Member for Merthyr commenced operations up to the present time; what number of ounces of gold have been produced, and what is the total value of such gold, and the average value of gold produced per ton of ore; having regard to the fact that the cost of mining, tramming, and treating such ore, and extracting the gold therefrom, irrespective of wear and tear, depreciation of machinery, management, administration, and interest on capital, is stated by Dr. Le Neve Foster, in his Report to the Home Secretary for 1891, to be 8s. 5½d. per ton in the case of the Morgan Mine, and also having regard to the fact that large quantities of low grade ore exist in Wales and Ireland, and that the Government are not prepared to work the Royal mines on State account, will they grant to all persons desirous of working such Royal mines the same concessions, pending the Report of the Royal Commission, as those lately granted to the Morgan Gold Mine; whether he is prepared to reduce the royalties on gold obtained from private lands in Wales and Ireland to one per cent. on the product, and in the case of Crown lands to two per cent. on the product pending such Report; and whether, having regard to the fact that persons obtaining gold and silver in private lands in combination with copper, tin, iron, and lead are protected by the Acts of William and Mary, the Government are prepared to grant the same protection to owners of mines in private lands where gold is obtained in combination with zinc blende and other base metals?

The number of tons of gold ore which have been raised and treated in the Dolgelly district from the time the junior Member for Merthyr commenced operations up to the 16th October is 26,819 tons, the number of ounces of gold produced is 17,280, the total value of such gold is £58,643, and the average value per ton of ore is £2. 3s. 9d. Concessions similar to those lately granted to the Morgan Gold Mine are being granted in other cases where the circumstances are similar. Having regard to the fact that the right of pre-emption in regard to copper, tin, lead, and iron ore has never, so far as is known, been exercised and that no zinc blende mine has been claimed as a Royal mine, it appears to be unnecessary to consider the suggestion that the Acts of William and Mary should be extended to blende ore.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to apply the principle of reduction in all cases, or does he intend to preclude me from them?

That is a point which does not arise out of this question.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is a fact, as stated in the Mining Journal of the 16th inst., that the junior Member for Merthyr has requested that royalties on all gold and silver obtained from private lands in Wales and Ireland should be reduced to one per cent., as in the case of the Morgan Gold Mine, pending the Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties; whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, refused to reduce the royalties on any other lands than those occupied by the Morgan Gold Mine; whether, in consequence of the Chancellor's communication to the junior Member for Merthyr, that,

"So long as costs which are due from you remain unpaid, he is unable to enter upon the consideration with you of the question of the royalties to be paid to the Crown,"

My answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second paragraph, there are other lands besides those occupied by the Morgan Gold Mine upon which I have consented to reduce the royalties. With regard to the third paragraph, I have declined to deal with the hon. Member for Merthyr so long as he persists in his refusal to pay the State what is legally due from him. The hon. Member has requested me to proceed to recover the costs by levying an execution on his goods; but I understood that the feeling of the House was against gratifying the hon. Member in his desire for this sordid form of martyrdom. The position taken up by the hon. Member only prevents the Woods and Forests from dealing with him personally and with his personal affairs. It does not arrest the dealings of the Woods and Forests with other parties, and in these there is no delay. There is no reason, therefore, from that point of view, for selling up the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that gold has been found in a property, known as the Champion Mine (Moel-Isprey), near Dolgelly, in combination with zinc, and whether the persons who have discovered it are entitled to the same protection as they would if the gold had been in combination with copper or lead; and, if not, whether the Government are prepared to grant the same privileges to those working for gold and zinc in combination as has already been granted by the Acts of William and Mary to those who are obtaining gold in combination with copper or lead; and whether, having regard to the promising indications of gold which exist in several localities in Wales and Ireland, the Government will consider the advisability of having an informal survey made by practical geologists and experts in mining?

So far as can be ascertained there has been no working for blende at Moel Isprey for some months past. Some blende was obtained in 1890, but although it was believed to contain a little silver, it was treated and disposed of as blende ore and no claim was made by the Crown in respect of it. The Acts of William and Mary were not passed for the protection of those working for gold in combination with copper or lead, but for the protection of the owners of copper and lead mines when gold or silver was found to exist in the copper or lead ore obtained from their properties. Neither the owners of Moel Isprey nor the owners of any other property producing blende ore have expressed any anxiety that the Acts of William and Mary should be extended to blende ore, and there is no reason to suppose that any practical result would follow such an extension. Many practical geologists and mining experts, commencing with Sir Roderick Murchison, have at various times expressed their views on the indications of gold in Wales and Ireland, and there seems no justification for incurring the expense of a further informal survey.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether within the last 20 years the improvement of machinery has not been such that ore which at the time Sir R. Murchison expressed his opinion did not pay, would now be payable, especially with regard to the fact that the ore in the Morgan Mine was mined and treated for less than 8s. 6d. per ton?

I see no reason for a Government survey. Certain explorations are proceeding and certain results will follow; but there is no reason for the Government to take the matter in hand.

Am I to understand that I am the only victim, and that royalties are not to be reduced in my case simply because I will not pay costs in the way he desires?

My position is this—a business-like position to be taken up by any one in a position of trust—not to deal with the hon. Member, or—not to speak of the hon. Member personally—not to deal with parties who, after a Court of Law has awarded a debt against them, refuse to pay. It is impossible to deal with parties who say they will only pay their debts if they are sold up.

Is it a fact that the law has not been revised for 300 years, and that the Judges are not agreed as to the construction of the Acts of William and Mary?

Any hon. Member who has read the remarks of the Judges will see that I am perfectly justified in the action I have taken.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Queensland is about to re-open the traffic in Polynesian labour, which was prohibited two years ago in consequence of the horrible atrocities that disgraced it; whether he is aware that a Royal Commission investigated the whole matter in 1885, and reported that it was a traffic accompanied with every circumstance of deception and cruelty; that they reported that, in the case of the labour vessel Hopeful—

"The history of the cruise is one long record of deceit, cruel treachery, deliberate kidnapping, and cold-blooded murders. The number of human beings whose lives were sacrificed during the recruiting can never be accurately known";

Her Majesty's Government understand that the Queensland Legislature have passed a Bill for allowing the re-introduction of South Sea island labour to the colony; but no copy of the measure has yet been received. It is understood, however, that the Queensland Government are fully sensible of the necessity for stringent regulations for the protection of the labourers. The Commission to which the hon. Member refers did not investigate the whole subject of the traffic, but it embraced an inquiry into three voyages, including that of the Hopeful, in which labour was recruited from the Louisiade Group and other islands adjacent to New Guinea. The Queensland Government, after the Report of the Commission, took measures for returning to their homes the whole of the surviving labourers recruited on these voyages. The hon. Member will find Papers on these subjects in the Blue Books [C. 4,584 and C. 5,883]. The hon. Member will see that there were special features in connection with these voyages, upon which a general condemnation of Polynesian labour could not fairly be based. We believe that such a petition as that mentioned in the third paragraph of the question was made, but not on the grounds stated by the hon. Member. It was alleged that the evidence on which the prisoners were convicted was unsatisfactory and insufficient to establish their guilt. The men were released, but I am not aware that there was any intention to give them a public banquet. As regards paragraph four, I do not find any statement to this effect in the Report of the Commission; but there appears to have been an exceptional mortality among the labourers recruited by the particular ships I have referred to. The money wage may be as stated in the question, but it must be borne in mind that the expense of the Polynesian labourer includes food, clothing, and lodging, and the cost of the return voyage as well as of the voyage to the colony. It is believed that the population of the islands of the Pacific generally is diminishing; but there are other causes at work, and in the absence of authentic records it is not possible to say to what extent particular islands may have suffered a loss of population from recruiting. Her Majesty's Government will support the Queensland authorities in any measures they may take to surround the engagement and employment of these men with proper safeguards; and if due precautions are taken, it should be possible to regulate the traffic without the evils which the hon. Member anticipates.

In consequence of this very unsatisfactory reply, and in consequence of the Government sanction of what is practically a renewal of the slave trade, I give notice that I will call attention to this matter again.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what the reasons are which have induced Sir Samuel Griffiths to remove the prohibition against the introduction of Polynesian labour into the colony of Queensland; and whether, having regard to the kidnapping and crime inseparable from this traffic, and brought to light by a Royal Commission, he will take steps to induce the Premier to reconsider his determination?

The reasons assigned by Sir Samuel Griffiths are that there are not at present in Queensland a sufficient number of Europeans able and willing to do the necessary work, and that, in consequence, the sugar industry is suffering, and the productiveness of the lands of the colony will be diminished. I have answered the remainder of the question in my reply to the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith).

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken to provide labourers' cottages in the Inchigeela and Ballingeary districts of the Macroom Union; whether he is aware that at least 20 labourers cottages are wanted in these districts; and how many cottages have been built in these places?

I am informed that 291 labourers' cottages have already been built in the Macroom Union. The Guardians appear to contemplate the provision of eighteen cottages for the two Electoral Divisions named. Of these, two have been erected, while, as regards the remaining sixteen, the Local Government Board understand the necessary arbitration proceedings, prior to entering into possession of the lands, have been taken by the Guardians.

Have not several requests been made by the people of the district, who are very poor, that facilities should be given to the Guardians to acquire land upon which to build cottages?

I am not aware that there has been any difficulty on the part of the Guardians in this matter.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Exeter, as a Charity Commissioner, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence between the Charity Commissioners and the Governors of Christ's Hospital, with reference to presentations to sons of naval officers?

My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has asked me to state on his behalf that he has no correspondence upon the subject to lay on the Table.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the following extract from the Report of the Director of the National Gallery for the year 1891:—

"Meanwhile the collection has been and is being increased by the acquisition, through bequest as well as by purchase, of numerous pictures, for which absolutely no space exists on the walls nor could be provided even at the fatal cost of breaking up the present classification; the adapting of hanging screens as an alternative has had the unfortunate effect of crowding the galleries and impeding the circulation of visitors: it will be impossible to employ this expedient further without causing serious inconvenience";

Replying also to a similar question on this subject by Mr. Kenrick, said: The memorial of the Trustees of the National Gallery has received, and will continue to receive, the careful attention of Her Majesty's Government; and while we cannot agree that the want of space is at this moment as absolutely urgent as the Trustees insist that it is, we fully admit that the time will soon come when some addition must be made to the existing buildings. That subject will have to be considered—and I may say is now being considered—in connection with the future arrangements as to St. George's Barracks. Under these circumstances, I cannot add much to the answer I gave the hon. Member last year, except to say that the additional precautions against fire which I then promised have since been carried out.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that anything short of the total demolition of these barracks will remove the risk of fire from the National Gallery? I should also like to know whether the Gallery is only separated by a not particularly thick wall from that portion of the barracks which contains the canteen, the sergeants' mess, and the married couples' quarters?

I did not know that the married couples' quarters are particularly inflammable; but, as I have already informed the hon. Member, we have taken every possible precaution to protect the adjacent part of the National Gallery. I may also say that the future of the barracks is under consideration at the War Office.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has noticed a resolution of the Belfast United Trades' Council, adopted at a special meeting on the 2nd ultimo, declaring certain passages in the Lessons on Political Economy in the Fifth Book of the Irish Commissioners of National Education to be contrary to the fact and prejudicial to working men who are Trade Unionists; whether he has observed by the selection of extracts from the Fifth Book circulated by a Special Committee of the Belfast Trades' Council that the lessons in question contain a number of absurd or inaccurate propositions and statements, as, for instance, that if a law were made to fix the rent of land, the only effect would be that the landlord would no longer let his land, and whether this passage was brought years ago to the notice of the House of Commons; whether, at the instance of the London Trades' Council, passages of an analogous character were many years since struck out of the school books in use in England; and whether the Irish school books will now be revised, with a view to expunging propositions and statements which are manifestly absurd or grossly incorrect?

The Commissioners of National Education report that the Fifth Book is at present under revision, and that the Lessons on Political Economy will be revised.

If this revision is not properly carried out, I shall ask for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the fact that the establishment of a preparatory grade in the scheme of the intermediate examinations for the present year will considerably add to the already onerous duties of the superintendents at these examinations, it is the intention of the Intermediate Board to increase the remuneration paid to superintendents to £20, the amount given them for the first four years of the Board's existence?

I am informed that it is not proposed to make any alteration in the scale of remuneration.

Is it a fact that superintendents take only £15, out of which they are expected to pay their hotel bills and travelling expenses? I should also like to know whether, if the Board have plenty of money, they will not return to the earlier amount?

I should not prescribe to the Board how they should pay the superintendents. They must know better than anyone else what should be paid to those officials.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the difficulty that still exists in some places of obtaining the use of schoolrooms for public meetings, he will cause a copy of the unanimous Resolution of the House in favour of the right of public meeting in elementary schools to be circulated amongst school managers?

The object of the Resolution was not, as I understood it, to confer a general right of public meeting in any school-house, unfettered by any securities against misuse and irrespective of there being any other suitable buildings available, and I cannot, therefore, assent to the issue of the suggested Circular; but, judging from the number of letters I have received from persons who are alarmed at the possible effects of the Resolution, I do not think it stands in need of any further advertisement.

Notwithstanding the Resolution of the House and the fact that the Government are about to bring in a Bill on the subject, does the right hon. Gentleman know there have been a number of cases of refusal for the use of schoolrooms in various parts of the Kingdom?

If that is the fact, it only shows that there is a necessity for the introduction of a Bill on the subject.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department, whether Militia regiments quartered in barracks where there is no officers' messroom or mess accommodation, are entitled to the allowance in lieu of officers' mess accommodation prescribed in the Army Allowance Regulations, 1891; and, if not, whether he will be good enough to state the reason?

The Army Allowance Regulations do not apply to the Militia when disembodied. Officers of Militia receive an allowance of 4s. a day, under the Militia Regulations, to cover all mess expenses, including the hire of mess accommodation when it may happen that none is provided.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what is the amount of the yearly salary and allowances of the Financial Member of the Council of the Governor-General, of the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, and of the Governors of Madras and Bombay respectively; for what period of years do these officers hold their appointments, and under what Statute or Regulation; what are the amounts of the retiring allowances or pensions to which these officers are respectively entitled on vacating the said appointments; can more than one such allowance or pension be held by an officer who has held more than one of these or similar appointments in succession; and what is the shortest period of service in each of these appointments which qualifies an officer for such allowance or pension?

The Member of Council in charge of the Financial Department draws a salary of Rs.76,000, without allowances. The Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal receives Rs.100,000, with allowances of Rs.9,750. The Governors of Madras and Bombay receive Rs.120,000, with sumptuary and household establishment allowances of Rs.95,000 and Rs.93,000 respectively. All these officers are appointed for five years, but in very exceptional cases the term has been extended for one or two years. The Lieutenant-Governor is appointed by the Governor-General, subject to Her Majesty's approval under 21 & 22 Vic, c. 106, s. 29. The Governors of Madras and Bombay and Members of the Governor-General's Council are appointed by Her Majesty by Warrant under 21 & 22 Vic, c. 106, s. 29; 24 & 25 Vic, c. 67, s. 3; 32 & 33 Vic, c. 97, s. 8. There is no retiring allowance or pension attached to any of these offices. But if they are held by a member of the Indian Civil Service or an officer of the Army, he receives the ordinary annuity or pension under the Rules.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a Railway Company can, without infringing the conditions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act as to preferential rates, differentiate in the rates of carriage between different articles in the same class?

This is a question of law, upon which a general answer could not properly be given. It does not necessarily follow that because articles are in the same class they are "same or similar merchandise" within the meaning of Section 27 of the Act of 1888.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that David Freeman, of Kingston, South Devon, invalided from the Raleigh at the beginning of last year after seven years' service, in consequence of a complete breakdown of his health, was granted a pension of 6d. a day for twelve months, during which time he was constantly ill; whether, on his presenting himself, last February, at the Royal Naval Hospital, Stonehouse, for a renewal of his pension, he was told that such fellows as he ought to work, and was further informed that his small pension would be reduced; whether he is aware that Freeman died a fortnight ago, within two months of this deprivation of pension; and whether he will make inquiry into the circumstances of the case so as to prevent the possibility of the recurrence of such treatment?

The hon. Member seems to have been misinformed in regard to the circumstances. I have made particular inquiry into the case, and the facts are as follows: David Freeman, A.B., after having served in the Royal Navy for only five and a half years, showed last year symptoms of rapid consumption, and was accordingly invalided from the Service. His disease being in no way attributable to extraordinary exposure or exertion on service, he was granted a temporary pension from naval funds of 6½d. a day for 15 months, the maximum allowed by the Regulations. On the expiration of this period, his health not having improved, Freeman was granted an allowance of 6d. a day from Greenwich Hospital Funds, and he was in receipt of this special pension at the time of his death. It is very improbable that the medical officer made any such remark as that alleged, as it was on this officer's certificate, stating that Freeman was in indifferent health and almost unable to contribute to his own support, that assistance was given to him from the charitable funds of Greenwich Hospital.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether ships of war, fitted out at Sheerness Dockyard, are taken to Chatham for commission when ready for sea; whether this is in conformity with the practice of former years; whether complaints have reached him that this practice puts the town and trade of Sheerness at a great disadvantage; and whether he can arrange for a fair share of commissions to be given to Sheerness?

Under the complete scheme of mobilisation which has been recently introduced, the object of the changes made has been to collect and keep together in an efficient state the ships, men, and stores of the Reserve. In consequence, the ships fitted out at Sheerness, when passed out of the Dockyard hands, are placed in the Fleet Reserve at Chatham, where the depôts of men, stores, &c, are also placed, and where there are extensive basins and other appliances useful for the purpose of rapid commissioning. This arrangement has worked well and economically, and no departure from it would be now feasible, as it would permanently disturb the whole principle of rapid mobilisation. On the other hand, a new Gunnery School has been established at Sheerness, which will have the effect of increasing the number of men permanently maintained in the port, and, further, a large number of second class stokers are now stationed at the Naval Barracks there for training.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the cases of assault and alleged assault upon women in railway carriages, he will consider the advisability of taking such steps as may be necessary to secure that there shall be on all trains efficient communication with the guard or driver, and that such communication shall be made available from the interior of the carriages as is already the case on some English and many foreign railways?

As I have already stated, in reply to a question of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, efficient means of communication are now required by Statute to be provided in all passenger trains which travel more than twenty miles without stopping; and, as at present advised, I am not prepared to propose an extension of the law, though the matter will be carefully watched.

In the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman are the present arrangements efficient?

Yes, Sir; I think so.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is able to give the House any information with regard to the number of patents secured by Englishmen in the United States during the last five years, and also with regard to the number of patents in the same period that have been originally secured by Englishmen in the United States and afterwards taken out in the United Kingdom?

I understand that the number of patents issued by the United States Patent Office to citizens of the United Kingdom during the five years 1887 to 1891, was 3,394, but I have no means of furnishing the information asked for in the second part of the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many labourers cottages have teen built in the Millstreet Union; and whether, in the event of any schemes now being under consideration in this and other Unions in Ireland, the increased allotment of one acre can be given to the labourers?

The number of cottages built in the Millstreet Union is 108. It will not be practicable for Boards of Guardians to grant the increased allotment of land until the enabling Bill becomes law.

Could the new Act be adopted by the Guardians in regard to the schemes now in preparation?

If any steps were taken, or if the Privy Council had sanctioned the scheme, the new Act could be applied.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a proposal to purchase additional land at Knockboy, County Galway, for the purpose of planting trees, which has been brought under his attention, has resulted in the acquisition by the Congested Districts Board of any further land for re-afforestation; if so, what further area is at the disposal of the Board, and at what pace are the planting operations being carried out?

The Committee of the Congested Districts Board has been appointed to examine into and report upon the forestry operations at Knockboy. The question of purchasing additional land will not be taken into consideration until the Report of the Committee has been received.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to introduce a Bill under the General Pier and Harbour Act to confirm the Provisional Orders relative to the proposed harbours at Talmine, Skerray, and Portskerra, in the County of Sutherland?

I hope to introduce next week a Bill to confirm the Provisional Orders relative to the three piers in Sutherland. Delay has been caused by the omission of the promoters to comply with statutory requirements.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state whether any, and, if so, what, concessions have been made to the deputation from the Gibraltar Ratepayers' Association?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State to amend the Sanitary Order Amendment Order, Gibraltar, 1891, in the following manner:—

"That the civilian representatives on the Sanitary Board of Gibraltar shall be selected by the Governor from a panel presented by the Grand Jury, and that Clause 17 of the said Order, which gives extraordinary powers to the Governor in the case of special works, be repealed"?

I will answer both these questions at the same time. The Secretary of State has been anxious to meet as far as possible the wishes of the Gibraltar Ratepayers' Association; and if he can be assured that they will withdraw further opposition to the Order in Council, he will be prepared to make the concessions referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. With regard to the first of those concessions, it is of course to be understood that the amendment will not vacate the seats of the present members of the Board of Sanitary Commissioners.

Is that the only concession the Secretary for the Colonies can make?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Board of Customs, by their Order of 16th April, 1892, directed that certain examining officers—who, on the 9th March, 1892, asked the Board of Customs to transmit to the Lords of the Treasury certain Memorials addressed to their Lordships—

"be informed that they cannot comply with their request, that the Memorials may be forwarded by the Board to the Treasury, and they cannot allow any appeal to the Treasury";

The facts stated in the first paragraph are correct. The Board of Customs refused to forward the Memorials in question to the Treasury, since they regarded them as appealing against a decision which had been arrived at after the most exhaustive investigation by a Departmental Committee of Inquiry. It is open to the officials in question to forward their Memorials direct to the Treasury; but, as the Minute of 1866 states, it will rest with my Lords to consider whether the communication was one which should be addressed to them. The Board of Customs will have no objection to copies of the Memorial being given to the memorialists.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department, whether it is the case that the barrack accommodation in Edinburgh and Leith is very unsatisfactory, and that, in consequence, the Royal Artillery Depôt at Leith is to be moved to Montrose; and whether it is the intention of the Government to spend any of the money under the Barrack Act in increasing the Barracks at Edinburgh and Leith; and, if not, why they are not doing so?

The Royal Artillery Depôt at Leith is to be moved to Montrose in order to be in closer touch with the Militia, and not on account of the condition of the Barracks at Leith. The Barracks at Edinburgh are of an old type, but by intended re-appropriation after the removal of the Ordnance stores to another station, better accommodation will be obtained. Money obtained under the Barrack Act will not be expended on the Leith or Edinburgh Barracks, as it is more urgently required at other stations.

Is it intended to rebuild some part of the Barracks?

Are the Barracks at present insufficient in their accommodation?

There will be more accommodation when the Ordnance stores are removed.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has re-considered the difficulty experienced by Members of this House, and Her Majesty's subjects generally, in obtaining information as to the history and commissions of high class ships of Her Majesty's Navy; whether he can now give any hope that a Return will be furnished, giving a complete list of ships fit for active service, the dates at which they were ordered, reported ready, commissioned, paid out, and re-commissioned, together with the stations and services on which they have been employed; and whether, if such a Return is moved for, he will give it a favourable consideration?

I have had a Return prepared which the hon. Gentleman can have upon moving for it, though I do not think it adds much to information already available.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Government can grant a Return from the registers under Section 15 of The Allotment Act, 1887, showing the rent per acre of the allotments which have been let since the Allotments Act came into operation, or whether he can say what is the average rent paid per acre on the whole of these allotments?

(who replied) said: Neither the Local Government Board nor the Board of Agriculture has any information as to the rent per acre charged in respect of the several allotments which have been acquired under the Allotments Act, 1887. I am not, therefore, able to state what is the average rent paid for those allotments. I do not see that there would be any advantage in obtaining the Return suggested. If the hon. Member desires information as to any particular allotment, I shall be happy to endeavour to obtain it for him.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can give the result of the special inquiries he undertook to make as to the discharge of their duties by Mr. A. Park, Head Master of the Albion Schools, Ashton - under - Lyne, Mr. E. Barlow, Head Master of the Parochial Schools, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Mr. Alderman Rudyard, principal teacher of the National Schools, Staly-bridge; whether he can give any information as to the condition and efficiency of these schools, and as to the manner in which these gentlemen discharge their duties; and whether the conditions of the New Code have been, in all respects, satisfied?

I have received a special Report from the Inspector, in which he speaks in the highest terms of the efficiency of the schools in question, and on the ability and attention to duty displayed by the gentlemen whose conduct was impugned by the hon. Member for Northampton. The conditions of the New Code have in every respect been satisfied.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will be able to fix a day for the discussion of Lord Wantage's Committee's Report on the terms and conditions of Service in the Army?

Had my hon. Friend put this question yesterday, I should have said definitely that this discussion would take place without fail before Whitsuntide, and even now I should be prepared to find a day for the discussion; but I regret to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) is indisposed, and cannot I fear, for some weeks, be in his place in the House. I still hope, however, that he will be able to be here some day before Whitsuntide, and in that case I should fix the discussion in accordance with the original understanding. If, unfortunately, he cannot be here before Whitsuntide, I will choose the earliest possible day afterwards.

; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the female members of the Salvation Army who were imprisoned under the provisions of the Eastbourne Improvement Act, 1885, were required to wear prison clothes during their imprisonment?

In accordance with the 23rd Rule, 1st Schedule of the Prison Act of 1865, these prisoners were required to wear prison clothes.

Arising out of the question, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is now prepared either to introduce, or to assent to, legislation placing first-class misde-menants in this category.

No. Nothing has occurred to alter the answer I have previously made to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a question of urgent and public importance—namely, the restriction of trade and industry in respect to the unjustifiable refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal on equal terms, in regard to Crown Royalties, with persons engaged in the mining industry in this country.

The hon. Member is not in order. He has this evening got a notice down traversing the Second Reading of a Bill on the Orders of the Day to the effect

"That, in the opinion of this House, no legislation will be satisfactory that does not deal fully with the administration of the Mines Royal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

With the permission of the House I will withdraw the Motion.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman cannot do it.

Well, then, Mr. Speaker—

The hon. Gentleman is not in order.

As a personal matter, I submit that the language used by the right hon. Gentleman towards me was not such as was right in coming from a right hon. Gentleman occupying the position of one of the administrators of the affairs of this country; and upon that ground, with your permission, I will move the Adjournment of the House for a personal explanation.

The hon. Gentleman is not in order. He complains of an expression used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there is no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will render an explanation of the expression which has given the hon. Gentleman offence.

I understand that while I left the House for a moment the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil complained of some of the language used by me. I should be sorry to wound the feelings of any hon. Gentleman. I spoke of martyrdom, and I presume he does not object to the use of the word.

You have always been insolent to me ever since I have been a Member of this House.

Order, order!

I spoke of martyrdom. (Cries of "Sordid.") Does the hon. Member object to that word? I presume, then, that the word he objects to is "sordid." While I did not apply that term to the hon. Member personally, I thought that the whole proceedings connected with an execution, the selling of an hon. Gentleman's goods, had a kind of sordid aspect. As, however, I do not wish even to seem to apply the expression to the hon. Member I readily withdraw it.

Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give us any information with respect to next week, and when we may expect to go into Committee on the Small Holdings Bill?

My hope is, unless business to-day and to-morrow takes a most unsatisfactory turn, that we may on Monday continue and finish with the Committee stage of the Small Holdings Bill. The only possible exception I imagine to the continued discussion on that stage will be that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may desire the Budget discussion. I may say that I have received a private communication from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who is anxious that the Debate should not be taken before Thursday next, and I shall not, therefore, in any case, take it before that day.

I wish to make an inquiry partly as to order and partly in the interest of the convenience of the House. The House will observe that the name of the Attorney General appears in connection with the discharge of an Order on the Criminal Evidence Bill. The House has already gone into Committee on that Bill, and I wish to ask whether it is in accordance with usage, under those circumstances, that there should be a Motion to abolish the Committee stage of the Bill? Then as to the question of convenience. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will remember that last Tuesday he said the first business to-day would be the Committee on the Criminal Evidence Bill, or so we understood him. Upon that understanding Members have prepared their Amendments, and, coming down with the intention of proceeding with the Committee stage, find themselves confronted with a Motion to abolish the Committee stage of the Bill, by placing it before a Law Committee upstairs. I should like to know whether that is considered fair and convenient?

I understand the hon. Member makes two complaints against me. One is as to the answer I gave on Tuesday.

Not against you.

I, however, am responsible for the alteration, and, therefore, am the one who must reply. The answer I then made is clear in my recollection, although it had to be given at a great speed owing to the hour. I stated that the first Order would be the Criminal Evidence Bill, but I did not say the Committee stage. I understand, in addition to that, the hon. Member thinks I have not given sufficient notice, and he says that the Motion only appeared on the Paper this morning. That is undoubtedly true. I have thought, and still think, that a formal application of this kind of Notice is not required. The last desire I have is to force out any discussion, and, after the appeal made to me by the hon. Member, I shall be prepared to take the Motion as first Order tomorrow instead of to-day.

I wish to know whether it will be competent for any Member, upon this Motion being put, to give Notice to-day that on the Motion being put to-morrow he will move an Instruction?

Notice for an Instruction to a Standing Committee will not attach to any Order of the Day, but will be an independent Motion.

Then if the Bill were referred to a Standing Committee, it would be competent afterwards to move an Instruction to the Committee?

It would be perfectly in order.

On a point of order, and to prevent any misconception, do I understand your ruling to be that the Notice of Motion which is made by a Private Member would stand with Private Motions, and would come on with them, and would not come next in order to the Government Notice? I thought the hon. Gentleman gathered that he would have a right, if the Motion were carried, to move this Instruction. I understand your ruling to be that would not be so—that he would only have the privilege of a Private Member, and would have to ballot for his place.

I said a Motion for an Instruction would be an independent Motion, without precedence.

Then it will be merely a matter of chance, and the right of a Member to move an Instruction to a Committee of this House will be destroyed?

Notice will have to be given of the Instruction. The Motion will be subject to the ballot, I understand the hon. Member asked me as to a point of order.

I wish to know whether it is in order to move to discharge an Order in Committee upon a Bill the House has already gone into?

It is unusual, but no progress was actually made.

As it appears from the Notice Paper to-day, progress had actually been made with this Bill. The Chairman had reported Progress on the 4th April.

That is the technical expression. The Chairman of Committees must report something. He reports "Progress" although no progress may have been actually made—no progress, in the present case, was actually made.

There is a Notice of Motion standing in my name for to-night, as to the Financial Relations of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and I think I may persuade my right hon. Friend to stop the Business of the House at about eleven o'clock this evening. It would then be competent for any other hon. Member to bring on the Orders of the Day, and, if so, we might be able to get to the Motion. If it is impossible to bring it on before twelve o'clock, my right hon. Friend may suspend Government business at six o'clock to-morrow in order to take the Motion. My right hon. Friend says, however, there must be a distinct understanding that unless there is fair progress with business we shall not be able to stop.