As this Bill constitutes a new departure, perhaps the House will expect me to say a few words in explanation on moving the Second Reading. The House has imposed on the London County Council, and the London County Council alone, the obligation of introducing an annual Money Bill, and we considered that under the circumstances we might fairly ask Her Majesty's Government to take charge of the measure. Up to last year the Bill was introduced by the Government, but, the Government having declined to undertake the duty any longer, I now have to move the Second Reading. I have no desire to go back on the question which was debated at length last year, and merely mention it now in explanation. The powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works to borrow were derived from various Acts, which powers have passed to the London County Council, together with the powers conferred by the Local Government Act, 1888. The series of Acts relating to the finances of the Metropolitan Board of Works began in 1869, the Act of that year containing the original provisions authorising the issue of Metropolitan Consolidated Stock. Further Acts were passed in 1870, 1871, and 1875, and since 1875 Acts have been passed annually. Since that date it has been arranged that the actual power of raising money shall be limited year by year to the requirements of the year; and Bills conferring the Powers assumed to be needful have been introduced annually as Public Bills on the responsibility of the Trea- sury, and have been passed into law. The form of these Acts has differed almost every year, as experience from time to time has shown some alteration in the system of accounts to be desirable. In many of these Acts clauses have thus been introduced relating not only to money powers conferred on the Council or their predecessors during the particular year, but which have altered the general enactments in force under previous Acts. In the result there can be no doubt the series of Acts has reached an unsatisfactory condition, and the complications were made worse by the passing of the Local Government Act of 1888. That Act, while it purported to provide in general terms that the powers of borrowing and raising money should be exercised by the Council in accordance with the Acts relating to the Metropolitan Board of Works, introduced several alterations and contained sundry provisions with reference to the financial powers of the Council, which were inconsistent with the Acts of the Metropolitan Board. This state of things led to a good deal of criticism from time to time in both Houses of Parliament, it being justly observed that it was practically impossible for anybody to understand from the Bills as annually presented, and the current series of Acts, what powers the Council possessed, or how far those powers were being exercised in accordance with the law. Under these circumstances, it has been thought better to repeal the old Acts and place the law as it stands in a clear and intelligible form before Parliament. We do not wish to alter the law, but merely to place matters before the House in a way Members can understand, and this I hope has been done in a satisfactory manner; but of course we are ready to consider any suggestions that may be made in reference thereto. Passing now to the financial part of the Bill, the Bill confers borrowing powers on the London County Council to the the extent of £5,800,000. At the present moment the amount of Metropolitan Consolidated Stock outstanding is £28,811,000, against which the amount standing to the credit of the Consolidated Loans Fund is £11,802,000. There are, however, some other debts and liabilities imposed on the Council, transferred from the Metropolitan Board of Works, and in connection with arrangements made under Local Acts for the counties of Surrey and Middlesex, and the result is that the total liabilities of the London County Council amount to about £30,000,000, while, on the other hand, there are assets in the Consolidated Loan Fund to the amount of £13,000,000, the net liabilities being therefore £17,000,000. But although the Bill does sanction these large borrowing powers of the Council for the next eighteen months, the facts are not quite so serious as might, at first sight, appear. We are obliged to insert in the Bill the maximum amounts which may be required for each purpose. Of the total amount, the sum of £2,900,000 is a re-grant of amounts sanctioned in previous Acts, and, again, £2,200,000 is for loans to be made by the Council to other Metropolitan Authorities, £1,250,000 being new, and, of course, requiring the consent of Her Majesty's Government. The new borrowing powers created for the Council itself amount to £1,600,000. The principal amounts in the Bill are as follows:—Blackwall Tunnel, £750,000; Main Drainage, £600,000; various street improvements, £450,000; housing of the working classes, £420,000; expenditure in connection with lunatic asylums, £320,000; capital expenditure on parks under the control of the Council, £250,000; purchase of tramways, £200,000; for purposes of the Fire Brigade service, £100,000. These are the principal amounts, and I conclude the House will not wish me to go into details in reference to them, for they may be more conveniently discussed at a subsequent stage of the Bill. I do not know that there is any opposition to the Bill, and having stated briefly the circumstances under which the Bill has been introduced, I hope the House will now give it a Second Reading.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the iron ss. Emily was wrecked on Brigg's Reef, off Groomsport, County Down, in 1889, and that, in the event of a wreck taking place on the same shoal, the local committee, the coxswains, and crew of the Groomsport Lifeboat consider the wreck of the Emily would be a source of great danger to the lifeboat's crew, especially at night; and whether, notwithstanding the fact that the Commissioners of Irish Lights do not consider the wreck dangerous for the lifeboat, he will give directions to have it forthwith removed; and, if not, whether he will state the grounds on which the Commissioners arrived at their decision?

Under the Acts for the removal of wrecks in the way of lifeboat service the Board of Trade can only deal with recommendations made by a general Lighthouse Authority. In the case referred to by my hon. Friend no such recommendation has been made to me, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights inform me that after consideration of a Report made by their Inspector of Lights, who had previously made a careful examination of the position of the Emily, they were led to the opinion that the wreck did not constitute a danger to the lifeboat service, the lifeboat station being three-quarters of a mile from the wreck, and it being therefore questionable whether it could be considered a hindrance or an obstacle to the launching of the lifeboat. The Commissioners say further that Brigg's Reef is marked by a first-class conical buoy, moored one-third of a cable from its northern extremity; and having regard to the great extent to which the reef is embayed, they consider there is only a very remote probability of another vessel becoming stranded on the same rock.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will have further inquiry made and ascertain whether it is not a fact that the lifeboat crew could not go out to the relief of a vessel in distress at night on this reef in consequence of the extreme danger to the lifeboat from this wreck?

If that is a fact it should be brought before the Lighthouse Authorities. It is not my business to suggest expenditure in such matters—it is the duty of the Lighthouse Authorities.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Return, ordered on 15th February, of Intoxicating Liquors (Licences Refused) will be presented and distributed?

There is a reasonably good prospect that this voluminous Return will be presented before Parliament re-assembles after the Whitsuntide Recess.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to the knowledge of the Local Government Board that in the last election of Guardians for the Shillelagh Union, eight votes tendered for a candidate named Terence Byrne were rejected by the Returning Officer; that some of the votes were rejected on the ground that they were the votes of illiterate voters, although they were duly marked with the authority of the voter, and in his presence, and bore the signatures of witnesses; and whether, an view of the fact that Mr. Byrne's opponent in the election, Mr. Casey, was declared elected by a majority of two votes, and that Mr. Byrne claims that, if the votes which were disallowed by the Returning Officer were given him, he would have had a majority of legal votes, the Local Government Board will cause an independent inquiry to test the decision of the Returning Officer, and the claim of Mr. Byrne to have been duly elected?

The unsuccessful candidate for one of the divisions of the Union mentioned did forward a statement through his solicitor containing particulars of the votes claimed by him and objected to. The Local Government Board, after careful consideration of the explanations furnished by the Returning Officer, saw no reason to question the correctness of the return made by him for the division, and they therefore did not consider it necessary to put the division to the expense of a sworn inquiry in regard to the election.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. John M'Grath, formerly of the 1st Battalion 18th Royal Irish, who after serving twenty-one years and one hundred and ninety-four days, including the Russian and Indian Mutiny Campaigns, and receiving two good conduct badges, the Crimean medal with clasp for Sebastopol, and the Turkish medal, was discharged on the 25th April, 1876, on a pension of tenpence a day; and whether, having regard to the fact that M'Grath is now disabled by old age and want of employment from augmenting this small sum, and is disqualified for Chelsea Hospital by reason of his pension, and having regard to the effect of such cases in discouraging recruiting, means will be taken to give M'Grath some increase of pension in recognition of his long and gallant service?

John M'Grath since 1876 has been in receipt of the highest pension which could be awarded to him under the Royal Warrant. The possession of this does not disqualify him from admission to Chelsea or Kilmainham, and he would be almost certain to be admitted if he applied. I am afraid nothing can be done towards increasing the amount of the pension.

He may be admitted if he applies?

So far as I am aware, but of course it is a question for the Commissioners to decide.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is it true that at the last meeting of the Mallow Branch of the Irish National Federation the entrance door was watched by three policemen who took the names of members as they entered; and, if so, by whom was this directed, and will it be continued?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the house where the meeting was held was in a public street in Mallow, where it is customary for police to be on patrol duty. The patrol at the time referred to consisted of two men. They in no way interfered with the meeting.

Patrolling seems to indicate passing through the street. Why did the police consider it necessary to stand at the door?

I do not understand that the police did more than patrol duty.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that the police shall avoid giving annoyance in so doing?

I do not understand that in this instance any annoyance was given.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say what are the special duties of the Financial Secretary to the Post Office; by what officer of the Treasury or of the Post Office those duties have been carried on for the past five years during the lengthened and frequent absences of the present holder of the office; and whether the Treasury are satisfied as to the manner in which, during the period referred to, the functions pertaining to the office of Financial Secretary have been discharged?

The hon. Member will allow me to answer his question. The Financial Secretary to the Post Office is, as the title implies, the adviser of the Postmaster General on all financial questions. He is specially charged with the secretarial control of the Receiver and Accountant General's Department, and of the other account branches of the Post Office, including the Savings Bank. He is responsible for the preparation of the Estimates of both Revenue and Expenditure, and, as the "Accounting Officer" of the Department for the "Appropriation Accounts" rendered to the Comptroller and Auditor General. In the absence of the Financial Secretary, these duties were mainly undertaken by the Secretary to the Post Office, who had himself filled the office of Financial Secretary for the six years previous to the appointment of the present occupier of the post. The present Financial Secretary has only been absent from duty, except for his annual leave, for six months in the twelve years during which he has held the appointment—namely, two months in 1888 and four months in 1891–2. The latter period of leave, granted at my discretion, was highly desirable for the recovery of Mr. Turnor's health, and I have reason to believe that it has been effectual for that purpose. It may be added that during those twelve years the Financial Secretary has, generally speaking, undertaken the charge of the Department in the absence of the Secretary, whether on occasions of ordinary leave or of attendance at Postal Congresses abroad, some of the latter occasions being of a prolonged character. Since Mr. Turnor's accession to office the voted expenditure of the Postal and Telegraph Services has increased from £5,388,000 to £9,150,000, and the staff by 18,000. The Financial Secretary is the officer, not of the Treasury, but of the Postmaster General, and is responsible to him only for the proper discharge of his duties. It is believed that every Postmaster General who has preceded me during the period of Mr. Turnor's appointment has entertained a very high sense of the manner in which the important duties entrusted to him have been dis- charged. I must express my regret that the hon. Member has by his question given currency to an imputation against a very useful public servant, for which there is no justification.

I beg to say that in consequence of this answer I shall feel it my duty to refer to the subject in Committee on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will again inquire if the hall porters in the General Post Office, Dublin, are paid at the same overtime rate for Sunday duty as the postmen, from which class they were promoted; why in view of the fact that the Treasury Minute, dated August, 1891, fixed a time and a quarter rate for Sunday duty for all other officers, is a different rule enforced against the hall porters; and will he see that they are paid at the regulation rate?

The hall porters at Dublin are not paid at the same rate for Sunday duty as the postmen; their work is not similar, and a certain attendance on Sunday formed part of their engagement on weekly wages. The Treasury letter of 20th July, 1891, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, authorised extra payment for Sunday work to postmen only. There is no regulation for making a similar payment to hall porters.

Does the arrangement apply only to Dublin?

Hall porters in London are on the same footing—two hours' attendance on Sundays is part of their duty.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the refusal of a hotel keeper in Dunfermline to admit to his hotel on Sunday, 1st May, two cyclists who arrived there from Glasgow; and whether Procurators Fiscal have any jurisdiction in such cases; and, if so, will he instruct them to exercise it?

I have inquired into this matter, and find that two cyclists arrived on the day in question at the Royal Hotel, Dunfermline, during church hours, when the proprietor and his wife were absent, and that they were refused admission. In cases of breach of certificate in burghs it is the duty of the Procurator Fiscal of the burgh to proceed against the offender. In this instance the prosecutor did not consider that the refusal to admit these persons justified him in taking any proceedings. Any complaint against this decision should be laid before the Magistrates. It is not a matter in which I have any power to interfere.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the Press reports of an encounter between bailiffs and fishermen on the Shannon near Limerick, on the night of Sunday 8th instant, when two fishermen were seriously wounded by revolver shots alleged to have been fired by the chief bailiff and his assistants; whether any of the bailiffs have yet been placed under arrest, and whether the revolvers will be taken from these bailiffs, as was done in Cork recently; whether he is aware that the fishermen complain of the destruction of their nets, when fishing on their own waters, by the bailiffs' steam launch; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held at once into the conduct of the chief bailiff and the state of the Limerick fisheries, as has repeatedly been requested by the fishermen?

It appears that the Inspector of Bailiffs alleges that the shots were fired in self-defence and when his life was in danger. Legal proceedings, however, have been instituted in the matter, and the case will no doubt be fully investigated in a Court of Law.

Is it alleged that the fishermen carried revolvers? If not, how is it contended that the life of the bailiff was in danger?

Life may be endangered from weapons other than revolvers.

Does the right hon. Gentleman encourage the use of revolvers as a means of self-defence?

There is no desire to encourage the use of revolvers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, although the Factory and Workshops Act, 1891, came into operation on the 1st January last, the majority of factory proprietors and owners in London and the country are unaware of its existence; whether any steps will be taken, and when, to enforce the provision of means of escape in case of fire, as required by Section 7 of the Act (Clause 2); and whether, in view of the terrible loss of life through fire at Battersea, Fulham, Victoria, and this week at Scott's in the Haymarket, he will consider the advisability of making compulsory the providing of fire escapes of a simple yet safe nature at all hotels, restaurants, and other places where a large number of persons are employed?

I cannot accept the statement that the majority of factory proprietors are unaware of the existence of the Factory and Workshops Act of last year. Abstracts of the Act were forwarded to every known occupier of a factory in the United Kingdom. In addition to this, the attention of every occupier was specially called to the chief alterations in the law by a circular letter signed by the Chief Inspector, and this circular was sent with each abstract. I may assure my hon. Friend that every care is and will be taken to secure the observance by factory occupiers of the provisions of Section 7 of the recent Act. I have already twice this Session answered the particular suggestion made in the third paragraph of the question.

Is there any reason why a short amending Act should not be introduced? It is an important matter?

I have no further answer.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the precautions which he has taken to prevent "grogging" in the case of home-sale casks can be extended to spirit casks imported from abroad?

Casks of foreign spirits are treated under the "grogging" regulations in a similar manner to those containing British spirits. In the case of empty spirit casks imported from abroad, the wood of which may be saturated with spirits, steps are being taken to prevent loss to the Revenue or injury to the British spirit trade from the "grogging" of such casks. I am informed that the importation of empty spirit casks for the purpose of grogging does not prevail extensively at present.

I beg to ask the Lord. Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that the education grant earned last year by the public schools under the Rothesay School Board, having again amounted to more than half the expenditure upon them, the School Board has again resolved, rather than forego the surplus, to increase their expenditure by dividing the balance as a bonus among the teachers; whether he is aware that the higher class schools under the control of the same Board are carried on at a loss; and whether in view of the increased surplus anticipated by the Board for the current year, and the desire expressed by the Government to promote secondary education in Scotland, it could be arranged that the surplus grant earned by the public schools should be applied in reduction of the loss on the higher class schools, instead of being expended on bonuses devised for the avowed object of evading the restrictions imposed upon the payment of the grant?

I am not aware of anything peculiar in the financial position of the two schools under the Rothesay School Board, and from the balance sheets for both the schools for the year ending 31st March, 1891, it appears that in the case of one, the Parliamentary grant was very considerably less, and in the case of the other slightly less, than half the expenditure. The Scotch Education Department has not yet received the accounts of either of the schools under the Rothesay School Board for the school year just ended. I understand that these are the only schools under the management of the School Board, which has no higher class under its management. Section 20 of the Education Act of 1876, which applies to Scotland, provides that the income of schools sharing in the Parliamentary grant "shall be applied only for the purpose of public elementary schools."

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the large sums allowed under the Votes to the postmasters of some of the provincial head post offices for the purpose of providing assistance in addition to the ordinary established staff are placed at the absolute disposal of the postmasters of the respective offices to which such allowance is made; and what account is rendered or what check exercised over the expenditure of this money?

The sums placed at the disposal of the postmasters individually are not large, being very rarely as much as £100 a year, and generally a good deal less than that amount. An account of the disposal of the money is rendered by postmasters to the surveyors of their districts.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if, in view of the dan- gerous condition of part of the southern foreshore of the River Shannon at the King's Island, near Limerick, held by the Military Authorities and used by the soldiers stationed in Limerick as a bathing place, he will direct that land posts or stockades be erected to warn persons of the treacherous state of the locality; whether, in addition to other fatal accidents, two soldiers of the Black Watch Regiment were drowned last summer at this spot; and whether the Corporation of Limerick have represented to the War Office the particular danger mentioned?

Two soldiers of the Black Watch were drowned last June at King's Island, where the Corporation of Limerick have established a bathing place by paying a nominal rent to the War Office, and it would appear desirable for the Corporation to take precautionary steps for the prevention of accidents. There is no record in the War Office of other fatal accidents, or of the representation referred to in the question.

Would the Corporation be debarred from taking steps to prevent accidents by reason of the land being the property of the War Department?

The Corporation may set up notices warning persons of the danger.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a letter of 14th April last, addressed by the Assistant Secretary of the Local Government Board to the Chairman of the Lisburn Board of Guardians, from which it appears that the bread supplied to the poor people in the Workhouse was "sour and badly baked"; that the wards are not sufficiently heated; that there is no schoolmistress in the Workhouse; that the relieving officers do not visit and report monthly on the condition of orphan and deserted children boarded out; if the Clerk of the Union, who is nearly ninety years of age, and unfit to perform the duties of his office, should be retired; and whether he will state what steps have been taken to redress these grievances?

The Local Government Inspector called attention to the several matters referred to in the question, and his remarks were communicated to the Guardians on the 14th ultimo, and they, at a subsequent meeting, explained for the information of the Local Government Board that the quality of the bread now supplied to the Workhouse has improved; that the matter of the heating of the several wards properly has been attended to; that there are only a few girls in the school, and the Guardians are of opinion that they are properly cared for and attended, to; and that the relieving officers do visit and report on the condition of the orphan and deserted children; and further that the duties of the Clerk, who has a competent assistant, are discharged to the entire satisfaction of the Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many fair rent applications, and also the number of applications under the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act, from County Armagh still remain undisposed of; and if he can mention the date and place fixed for the next sitting of the Sub-Commission in the County Armagh?

The Land Commissioners report that there are at present three hundred and sixty-eight applications to fix fair rents undisposed of from the County of Armagh, twenty-eight of which are applications under the Redemption of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891. A Sub-Commission will, it is expected, commence its sittings in the Town of Armagh to hear cases from the Union of Armagh in July next, and will take up the hearing of cases from other Unions in their turn.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Messrs. Haynes and Co. have a contract for the War Office for mess-tins (1811); whether they are paying the men employed on the contract the recognised rate of wages prevailing in the trade for this work; and whether he will inquire into the matter?

The War Office has a contract with Messrs. Haynes for mess-tins, but no complaint of any kind has been received from their workpeople. When the firm tendered in November last they stated that the mess-tins would be made on the sectional system, for which there is not an accepted rate of wages; but they pledged themselves that their men took more money weekly by 10 to 15 per cent. than was earned by men making the same articles elsewhere, and they reported further that their men were perfectly satisfied. The Secretary of State does not consider that further inquiry is necessary.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what was the date of that Report?

The letter is dated November last.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Returns required by Section 33 of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, will be laid upon the Table and distributed?

These Returns are nearly ready, and I hope they will be presented in the course of a few days.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are six months beyond statutory date?

I do not think that is so.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to present the Returns before the Vote on Account is taken?

I am not able to enter into any pledge on the subject.

I shall object to proceeding with the Vote on Account in the absence of these Returns.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he is aware that in the case of the "Queen v. Montagu," three medical men were summoned as witnesses who were ignorant of the entire circumstances of the case, unless by report; whether when one of them was put into the witness-box, the Judge would not allow him to be examined, and asked why he had been brought there; and if he can explain why these men were paid five guineas per day expenses, while the doctors brought from Coleraine, whose evidence was admissible, only received two guineas per day?

It is a fact that three medical gentlemen were summoned to give evidence as experts. It is not the fact that the Judge asked why medical experts had been summoned as witnesses. He did remark that sufficient medical testimony had been given, and the evidence of the gentlemen referred to was not pressed. The three medical experts were gentlemen of eminence in their profession, and were paid special fees for a thorough examination of the whole case, and attending to give evidence at the trial. The fee appears to me to be a very moderate one.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that all the men employed on the Glenties portion of the line have been thrown out of employment, and that at the present time their families are very much in need of food; what is the amount of the contract for completing the line, and how much of that sum has been handed over to the contractors; and what additional time has been given to the contractors; and will they get a further extension if they ask it?

I am not aware of the circumstances alleged in the first paragraph. The amount of the contract, less rolling stock, is £98,335, and the amount paid to the contractors is £8,971. No extension of time has been asked for or contemplated.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is wise on the part of the Government—

The hon. Member must not discuss a matter of opinion.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the distance from Glencolumbkille to the nearest polling station (County Donegal), an order can be made to give the Glencolumbkille voters a station, inasmuch as it is likely to be a contested Division at the next Election?

The hon. Member is perhaps not aware that I answered a similar question on the 5th of this month, and my answer was to the effect that I have no power to consider alterations of existing districts except on resolutions passed by Chairmen of Quarter Sessions.

I put a sub-sequent question, in which I asked the right hon. Gentleman to communicate with the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, a supporter of his own.

And I recommended the hon. Member to communicate with the Chairman.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to visit the district? I think his predecessor went to Killibegs.

I should be very glad of the opportunity of visiting this very beautiful district.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many merchants or firms in Ireland, England, and Scotland are allowed to bottle spirits in bond?

The number of bonded warehouses in which the bottling of spirits is allowed is, in Ireland, forty-one; in England, one hundred and forty-four; in Scotland, one hundred and four; total, two hundred and eighty-nine. There is no record of the precise number of firms who avail themselves of the privileges granted to these warehouses.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a letter in the Daily News of the 10th instant, and signed, by Mr. H. Whorlow, regarding the case of Mr. Lewis Lyons, President of the International Tailors' Union, who is at present undergoing a sentence of six months' imprisonment on a conviction for libelling a firm of tailors, by describing them as "sweaters," in an article in Yiddish in a small trade publication entitled the Jewish Trade Unionist; and whether, considering that Lyons admitted the authorship of the article but was prevented from bringing forward his witnesses in justification because he had failed to give the notice required by law of such a plea, he will look into the statement of the case in the letter referred to with a view, if it is correct, of reducing the sentence?

I am informed by the learned Recorder that the defendant had been dismissed from the service of the prosecutor because his practices were not consistent with honesty; that he had several times applied unsuccessfully to be taken back into the prosecutor's employ, and afterwards published the libel when the prosecutor was a candidate at the recent election to the London County Council. The defendant having stated before the magistrate who committed him that he intended to call witnesses, the prosecutor's solicitors wrote to him on 29th March to inform him, as he was not legally represented, that it would be necessary for him to file a plea of justification if he wished to call witnesses. The Recorder, considering that this letter was sufficient notice to the defendant if he really wished to justify the libel, refused to postpone the trial. The prosecutor was called, and cross-examined by counsel for the defendant. He disproved the allegations in the libel. The learned Recorder informs me that he was satisfied that the libel was a personal attack and not an honest attempt to expose a sweater. I see no ground for interfering with the sentence.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Thompson, who was to have appeared as counsel for Mr. Lyons, denied that the prisoner knew anything about the procedure and the necessity of giving notice? I have seen a letter from him to that effect. If it is the case that owing to inability to understand a technical point the man failed to produce evidence, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

I cannot realise the condition of mind of either Mr. Thompson or Mr. Lyons if they failed to understand a distinct notice that a plea of justification must be filed if witnesses were to be called. They had twelve days before the trial in which to file the plea.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that Mr. Thompson denies having received the notification mentioned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds the meeting called by the Evicted Tenants' Association, to be held on the 1st May last at Inniscarra, was proclaimed by the Irish Government?

The meeting referred to was proclaimed, as the responsible authorities had reason to believe that it was being convened with the unlawful object of denouncing and intimidating the occupier of an evicted farm and of intimidating others from taking such farms.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government have any right to suppress a public meeting in Ireland without disclosing the information on which they acted?

In a previous answer I stated that the police had reason to suppose that this meeting would lead to a disturbance, and that it was on a sworn information suppressed, the same course being followed in this as in other cases.

What I particularly want to ask is, whether the Government have a right to prevent a public meeting from being held in Ireland, and refuse to disclose the information on which they act?

The Government accept the responsibility of their action. It is notorious what the character of the meeting was to be. I find in the report of certain proceedings connected with this meeting, that a letter was read from a gentleman whom the hon. Member will know—Mr. Michael Davitt. He apologised for his absence and said—

"I regret I am unable to attend a meeting announced to be held in support of evicted tenants and for denouncing landgrabbers. I wish you thorough success."

I shall move for the production of a copy of the sworn information, on the principle that the Government are not entitled to suppress a public meeting unless they are prepared to inform the House of the reasons on which they act.

Is it in the power of any policeman to obtain the suppression of a proposed meeting?

The Government cannot interfere with any meeting unless they have reason to believe it will be an illegal meeting.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a site for the erection of a labourer's cottage, on a farm adjoining the Curragh of Kildare, has been selected and approved of by the Naas Board of Guardians, and that the contractor employed by the Guardians for the building of the cottage has been unable to undertake the work, in consequence of the refusal of the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh to allow him access to the site; and whether, inasmuch as the only means of access is across a strip of waste land about nine yards in width between the public road and the farm, over which a right of way has always existed, he will state under what authority the Deputy Ranger is acting in closing up a right of way?

The right of way alleged has never existed. An attempt was made to assert such right of way by pulling down the Curragh boundary fence. The Deputy Ranger applied to the Court, and a perpetual injunction has been granted.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Metropolitan Police Regulations permit constables, while on special or ordinary duty at a polling station, to record their votes in vestry elections where the voting is open; whether two constables were reported to the Commissioner for recording their votes while on special duty at the recent vestry election at Walthamstow; and whether one of the two constables was removed to another station in consequence; and, if so, whether he will have him restored, and make such alterations in the Police Regulations as will prevent constables being punished for exercising the franchise?

The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. No police-constables were reported for recording their votes on the occasion referred to. A complaint was made by a private individual that two constables had voted whilst on duty, and he was informed that there was nothing in what was complained of to which exception would be taken. No constable was removed to another station in connection with this matter. This question is a mere repetition of a question which the hon. Member put to me on Monday last, and I must refer him to my reply on that occasion.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when it is probable that the Report of the Departmental Committee, appointed some months ago to inquire into the present position of the civil employees on the Ordnance Survey, will be laid upon the Table, or made known to the men?

I answered a similar question a few days ago. The Report in question will be laid on the Table, I hope, very shortly.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have altogether given up scientific experiments regarding the efficacy of inoculation as a preventive of pleuro-pneumonia; and, if so, on what grounds?

The subject-matter of this question was carefully considered by a Departmental Committee, and reported to Parliament on 10th July, 1888. The Committee, for the reasons detailed at length in that Report, did not recommend inoculation as a means of eradicating pleuropneumonia.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Government officials appointed under similar circumstances to the Privy Council Veterinary Inspectors, Ireland, are now entitled to superannuation allowances; and whether, if so, he is prepared to reconsider the unsatisfactory position of officials connected with so important a branch of the Public Service as the Veterinary Department, Ireland, with a view of redressing their grievances with respect to superannuation allowances, as set forth in a recent memorial presented to him?

The officials referred to were appointed on the understanding, and with the full knowledge, that they would not be entitled to receive any superannuation allowances. I do not feel myself in a position to propose a change in their conditions of service.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many Irish dispensary doctors are at present serving under the Poor Law Board in Ireland whose ages range from sixty-five to eighty-five years; and if there is any age, or any length of service, which entitles an Irish dispensary doctor to a retiring allowance?

The Local Government Board are not aware how many Poor Law Medical Officers in Ireland between the limits of age mentioned in the question are now serving. There is no age or length of service which entitles these officers to retiring allowance. The granting of these allowances is at the discretion of the Boards of Guardians, subject to the consent of the Local Government Board.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the names of the experts whose assistance was given by Her Majesty's Government to the British Directors of the Suez Canal Company, when the regulations for transport of petroleum in bulk through the Suez Canal were under the consideration of the Company; and if he can say whether the experts in question acquainted themselves, by personal observation, with the exceptional conditions and circumstances under which this traffic must, if permitted, be conducted?

The Inter-Departmental Committee which considered the regulations referred to was composed of Colonel Majendie (representing the Home Office), Sir Digby Murray (representing the Board of Trade), Captain Wharton (representing the Admiralty), Sir Rivers Wilson and Sir J. Stokes (two of the British Directors of the Suez Canal Company), and myself (representing the Foreign Office). The names of the first three gentlemen are, I think, a sufficient guarantee of the quality of the assistance given to the British Directors. The hon. Member is labouring under a misapprehension if he thinks that any power is vested in Her Majesty's Government to permit or forbid any particular class of traffic through the Suez Canal. Her Majesty's Government have no such power; nor has the Company.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the provisional regulations of the Suez Canal Company for the carriage of petroleum in bulk, as they affect the safety of the thousands of Her Majesty's troops annually passing through the Canal?

The question of the carriage of petroleum in bulk through the Suez Canal was considered by an Inter-Departmental Committee at the Foreign Office in December last, and additions to the proposed regulations were framed with the object of making the traffic as safe as possible. These proposals were submitted by the British directors to the Suez Canal Company, and have been in part included in the revised regulations. I am, however, informed that at present petroleum is not carried in bulk through the Canal.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to his knowledge that the fishermen of Ringsend, and other fishermen engaged in trawling off the Irish coast, have suffered very serious injury during the present season from the manner in which their nets are being driven into and torn by steam trawlers from the French and English ports; and whether he will take some steps to afford protection to the poor men engaged in this industry?

The Inspectors of the Irish Fisheries report that no complaints of the nature indicated in the question have been received by them.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it has been brought to his notice that, whereas the foot-and-mouth disease restrictions were removed on Thursday, the 14th April, the Railway Company refused to transport cattle from Skipton to Blackburn on the following Monday, on the ground that they had no knowledge that the restrictions had been removed?

I have no knowledge of the occurrence to which my noble Friend refers. An Order revoking the prohibition against the movement of animals out of Lancashire was issued on the 13th April and came into force on the following day. A copy of it was sent to the Lancashire Railway Companies on the day on which it was issued; but that Order did not affect the movement of cattle from Skipton, in Yorkshire, to Blackburn, in Lancashire, and I think there must have been some mistake on the part of some of the individuals concerned in the matter. I have made careful inquiry, and I cannot ascertain that there has been any failure on the part of the officers of the Board of Agriculture to notify with promptness the issue of the numerous Orders which it has recently been necessary to pass.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the Justices of the Licensing Sessions for the Borough of Kingston-on-Thames, held on the 2nd and 30th March last, when six magistrates sat as a Licencing Committee to hear applications for licences, and granted two full provisional licences, notwithstanding strong opposition on the part of the inhabitants of the respective localities in which the proposed licensed houses are to be situated; whether he is aware that the same Justices, with the addition of two others, immediately after such licences were granted, sat as a confirming authority, and, without hearing evidence, confirmed the decision of the Committee; and whether it is usual, or in accordance with the provisions of the Licensing Acts, that in boroughs where there are no Quarter Sessions the confirmation of a Committee decision should be made by the same Justices with only two additional Justices sitting with them and deciding the question, without evidence or argument, within a few minutes of the decision of the Committee, thus preventing the opportunity of an appeal to, or a rehearing by, another body of Justices?

I an informed by the Clerk to the Justices that the case referred to in the question was not one of new licences, but was a transfer of two old licences from quarters of the town where they are not required to sites in the outskirts where considerable building operations have been going on for years. The opposition was mainly from members of the Total Abstinence Society and from one publican. The petitions for and against the applications were in several instances signed by the same persons. The confirming Justices had all been present in Court, and had heard the original application. They constituted a majority of the whole Borough Bench, and were unanimous. I am not aware that there was any illegality in the proceedings.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been drawn to the report in the Times of the 13th instant of a case at the Thames Police Court, where a man complained that his son, who was only fourteen and a half years of age, had enlisted into a Fusilier regiment at Aldershot, stating that he had written to the Adjutant of the regiment, protesting against his son being detained against his parents' will, but had received no reply; whether he is aware that the magistrate directed the police to inquire into the case, and can he state what the result of that inquiry has been; and what steps does he intend to take in the matter?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Times of Friday, that a recruit, aged fourteen, has been enlisted by an Infantry battalion at Aldershot; and, if so, what explanation he can give of the case?

Application has been made for the discharge of Private Defries, of the 1st Battalion Scottish Rifles, who is stated by his father to be only fourteen and a half years of age, but who, after performing seven weeks drill in the Militia, enlisted last January, giving his age as eighteen years two months. The medical officer recorded his age as physically equivalent to eighteen, he being five feet four and five-eighths of an inch high, with a chest measurement of thirty-three inches, and weight of one hundred and twenty-six pounds, which are above the minimum of the British or any foreign army. If his age can be substantiated he will be discharged, but up to the present time the father has failed to substantiate his statement by a birth certificate.

Will steps be taken to ascertain what the age of this boy is?

I do not think it is necessary for the War Office to take any steps. It being shown that the recruit was physically equivalent to eighteen, I think the War Office can do no more.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, considering that Her Majesty's Government have accepted a Resolution declaring that legislation is needed to secure to the public the right of access to mountains and moorlands in Scotland, and that they now take exception to the provisions of the Access to? Mountains (Scotland) Bill, which has been brought in to give effect to that Resolution, they will state to the House what their objections are to that Bill, and subject to what Amendments they can assent to its passing, in order that its promoters may be able to determine whether, by accepting such Amendments, the passage of the Bill in the present Session of Parliament can be secured?

I have to inform the hon. Member that the Government intend to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject, though if it meets with opposition they cannot promise time for its discussion.

How soon may we expect it to be introduced?

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any assurance on that point.

Will it be introduced within the next month, or this Session?

I really cannot add anything to the reply I have already given to the right hon. Gentleman's question.

I must press the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. Will the Bill be introduced this Session?

My reply had reference to this Session.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the telegraphic statement which appeared in the Times of 13th May, that Governor Sir Henry Norman has given the Royal Assent to the Bill for removing the prohibition on the importation of Kanaka labour for employment on the sugar plantations in Queensland, is correct; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government has any further power to disallow this legislation?

As I have already stated, the Bill has been assented to by the Governor, and is therefore in operation. The power of disallowance still remains with the Queen. The Act as passed by the Legislature has not yet been received, but I may remind the House that the outrages referred to by the hon. Member in his former questions were all committed before 1885; and looking to the fact that the recruiting and employment of natives has been carried on under the existing regulations from 1885 to the end of 1890 without any abuses, and that, as appears from the telegram from Queensland, those regulations will be made still more stringent, and as the Colonial Government is firmly determined to prevent infringement of those regulations, there would not seem to be sufficient ground for advising so exceptional a course as disallowance. I may also remind the House that the High Commissioner's Court of the Western Pacific has, under the Pacific Islanders' Protection Acts, and the Orders in Council made under those Acts, and the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, jurisdiction to try and punish British subjects for offences committed against natives of the Western Pacific Islands in or within three miles of any of those islands or on board a British ship at sea.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow time for the House to see the provisions of this new Act before finally deciding to allow it?

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will say on what day this Government received from Queensland information that the Act was passed; and whether he will reconsider his determination, in view of the strong feeling existing in the country, not to telegraph for these new and stringent regulations which he has assured the House are inserted in the Act?

Mr. Speaker, in answer to these questions I have to say that the recruiting could not be stopped except by immediate disallowance of the Act; and, as I have stated, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to take that extreme step. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that by the Colonial Regulations, No. 50, every law which has received the Governor's assent, unless it contains a suspending clause, immediately, or from the time specified in the Act, becomes law. The Crown has power to disallow the law, and if it be exercised, the law ceases to operate from the date at which that disallowance is published. And that answers the second question, because if we were to telegraph for the regulations in force, we could not prevent recruiting without disallowing the Act.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know what these new and satisfactory regulations are? If so, will he lay them on the Table of the House?

I have only to say that all the information I am in possession of I have given to the House. The information contained in the telegram which I read on Friday—which was sent by the Government of Queensland to the Agent General of Queensland—contained an assurance that the Colonial Government had imposed most stringent restrictions, which would prevent any possible recurrence of those events which I, in common with every Member of this House, lament. I cannot see, in view of the explanation I have given, that we should be further advanced by adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member.

May I ask if the prerogative of the Crown cannot be held in suspense until the regulations are received, and the House knows what they are? How can the Government, without having seen them, tell that they are satisfactory?

I have endeavoured to make my meaning clear, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman has understood my answer. I read the 50th paragraph of the Colonial Regulations, showing that the recruiting could not be stopped except by immediate disallowance of the Act.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a question of which I have given him private notice, whether his attention has been directed to a telegram in the Times of the 14th instant, giving a statement of Mr. Playford, the Premier of South Australia, at Townsville, Queensland, to the effect that the Polynesian labourers imported from the South Sea Islands into Queensland were practically slaves?

In consequence of this paragraph in the Times of the 14th instant, the Agent General for Queensland telegraphed to his Government, and he has received the following reply, dated Brisbane, 16th May:—

"Playford arrived yesterday here. Denies emphatically that he stated anything of the kind mentioned. Never ashore in Queensland before yesterday."

What we desire is that the House shall have the opportunity of seeing what the present regulations, which have proved insufficient, are; and what the more stringent regulations are. Will the right hon. Gentleman telegraph and obtain that information?

As far as I know, the more stringent regulations are on their way home. The House would not be farther advanced if they possessed them. We have either to allow them to go on or disallow the Act in force.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as this Act has provoked considerable friction, the Government are prepared to disallow it?

I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman further; but, in answer to a question, the right hon. Gentleman said that still more stringent regulations would be issued on the Governor's return. Can he state what objection there would be to telegraph for these more stringent regulations?

I do not see that there is any objection to telegraph for them. But I am bound to say I do not think the position would be in the least altered thereby.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will lay upon the Table the Report in regard to Scotch Prisons, and whether the work performed by officers in English and Scotch convict prisons is exactly parallel, and that the salaries alone differ?

It is not intended to lay this Departmental Report on the Table, as it is not thought that such a course would be of public benefit. As there is in Scotland no separate convict prison service, the comparison suggested in the question is somewhat misleading. Though the work performed at Peterhead Prison is similar to that performed by officers in convict prisons in England, the hon. Member is correct in saying that the rates of pay differ.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that cattle disease exists in Spain and Portugal; and whether he can now withdraw the notice prohibiting the importation of cattle from those countries?

I do not know about Portugal, but I am satisfied that disease exists in Spain. The Order prohibiting the importation of live animals from Spain and Portugal took effect from 31st March last, and on 29th April I received information from Cadiz that foot-and-mouth disease had broken out in the district of San Roque. I have since been informed that the same disease has been discovered in other districts, and in Cadiz itself. I cannot consent, under any circumstances, to withdraw the Order in question so long as there is any danger of the importation of disease from the Continent; and what has occurred in the case both of Spain and of Holland proves, I think, conclusively that the danger was not over estimated by the Board of Agriculture.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the manner in which the brickwork is being executed at the new General Post Office; and whether, if the subject has not been brought under his notice, he will direct inquiries to be made, and be prepared to receive evidence from workmen who have been or who are employed upon the building?

My attention has not been specially called to the manner in which the brickwork is being executed at the new General Post Office, but since the hon. Member's question appeared on the Paper I have directed inquiries to be made, and shall be glad to receive any information which the hon. Member can give me on the subject.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland how many new licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors were granted in the County Donegal at the annual Licensing Sessions held in October last; how many have since been granted; and if in this county large sums of public money have recently and are now being spent, owing to the strong representations made that the in habitants were in great destitution, and that famine was imminent?

I am informed that twenty-two new licences were granted at the annual Licensing Sessions held in County Donegal in October last, and that one new licence has since been granted. I have also to say that considerable sums of public money have recently been spent in relief of destitution in the county.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the grant of five thousand pounds towards the improvement of the breed of horses in Ireland, whether the amount was devoted towards the improvement of the breed of horses only; and whether he will advise the Royal Dublin Society to cause at least one of the stallions selected for County Down to visit some of the towns in South Down, in order that the farmers of that division may derive some benefit from the grant?

The annual grant of five thousand pounds is devoted to the improvement of the breed of cattle as well as horses, in accordance with the provisions of the Probate Duties Act. The Royal Dublin Society allocates three thousand two hundred pounds to horses, and one thousand eight hundred pounds to cattle. Under the provisions of the scheme in operation, this year the owners of stallions determine the places at which they shall serve.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the distribution has anything to do with politics?

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman should even suggest anything of the kind. I am quite sure that nobody who knows the way in which the Royal Dublin Society discharges its duties would think that.

Is it not a fact that the Royal Dublin Society do assign horses to different parts of the country and not merely to those places from which applications are made?

I understand that the Royal Dublin Society invites offers of horses from owners, and of course they accept what good offers are made. If applications are made from other districts and the horses are found to be satisfactory, of course the Royal Dublin Society will give to the districts from which the applications are made the same advantages as other places.

I beg to ask the right hon. Member for Oxford University, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, whether he has now made inquiries and seen a letter, signed E. David, Williams, and David, who describe themselves as receivers of tithe for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England at Llandaff, for the Parish of Llanthew, Brecon; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the Rule of the Commissioners, that separate receipts are to be given whenever required, is adhered to by all their agents?

In answer to a question from the hon. Member on 31st March, I stated that the receivers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been directed by them to give every facility to landowners by furnishing as many separate receipts in respect of each tithe rent-charge as might be required; but I promised the hon. Member, if he would furnish particulars of any case such as was suggested in his question, the matter should be investigated. The hon. Member has since furnished me with a copy of the letter referred to in his present question, in which Messrs. David, Williams and David, while applying for payment of tithe rent-charge due to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and describing themselves as receivers, declined to furnish separate receipts for each tenant. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have investigated the matter, and regret to find that such a letter should have been written, which was entirely contrary to their instructions and unknown to their receivers. The writers of the letter, Messrs. David, Williams, and David, are a local firm of surveyors at Cardiff, who have been employed by Messrs. Clutton, but they are not nominated or appointed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or authorised by them to act on their behalf. Messrs. Clutton are the receivers of the Commissioners for that district, and the Commissioners hold them accountable for all acts of persons employed by them. The attention of Messrs. Clutton has been specially called to the circumstances of this case, and orders have been issued which will ensure that the rule of the Commissioners, that separate receipts are to be given whenever required, shall be adhered to by all their agents.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will this Session re-introduce the Deaf and Dumb Children Education Bill; and whether, in view of the fact that dumb children can be taught to speak, he will change the title of the Bill, so as not to perpetuate the notion that deaf children are necessarily dumb?

The hon. Member's knowledge of the Bill does not appear to extend so far as its title, or he would be aware that for the last two Sessions it has been described as the Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf) Bill. I believe it is the intention of the Lord President to introduce the Bill in another place at an early date, if there is a probability of time being found to pass it through the House of Commons.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at what date the case of the convict Kinsella, at present confined in Maryborough Prison, was last re-considered; and whether, in view of the fact that the man is in bad health, and has already suffered ten years' penal servitude for assault, and that the man assaulted has long since recovered from his injuries and received £150 compensation, the Lord Lieutenant will again consider Kinsella's case with a view to exercising the prerogative of mercy in his favour?

The case of the convict referred to was last considered in October, 1890, by the Lords Justices, acting for the present Viceroy. If the convict is of opinion that there are any circumstances he would wish to have brought before the Lord Lieutenant, it is, of course, open to him to submit a further memorial.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what check is kept on the ball ammunition served out to soldiers at Aldershot and elsewhere, whether it is true, as stated at the late inquest of a soldier at Aldershot, that two hundred rounds were in possession of one soldier; and if in future greater supervision will be exercised in serving out ball cartridges?

Officers commanding companies are held responsible that men to whom ball cartridge is issued account for it all either by producing empty cartridge cases or unfired cartridges. Inquiries are being made at Aldershot as to the alleged possession by one soldier of two hundred ball cartridges, but at present nothing is known to justify such a statement. The attention of General Officers commanding will be called to the necessity of careful supervision in all cases of issue of ball cartridges; but it is feared that nothing will prevent the occasional secretion of a cartridge.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Madras Government has been frequently drawn of late by the public Press, by memorials from the missionaries, and particularly in a Report from Mr. Tremenheere, Collector of Chingleput, to the condition of the pariah population in Southern India; whether Mr. Tremenheere's Report will be published; and whether the Secretary of State will urge the Madras Government to take immediate steps, by legislation or otherwise, to remove the grievances and ameliorate the condition of this class?

(1) The attention of the Government of Madras has been called to the subject by a Despatch from the Secretary of State of the 23rd July last, as well as in the manner described by the hon. Member. (2) The Secretary of State has not yet received the reply of the Government of Madras or the particular Report mentioned by the hon. Member. It is impossible to say at present what Papers will be presented. (3) Both the Secretary of State and the Government of Madras are anxious to do all that is practicable to improve the condition of the pariahs. The subject is under the consideration of the Government of Madras, and the Secretary of State has telegraphed to inquire when their reply to his Despatch may be expected.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state what action the Government intend to take on the Report of the Committee upon the Greenwich Hospital Pensions?

The evidence given before the Committee has not yet been published, and there has, therefore, been no opportunity of considering the reasons which influenced the Committee in arriving at the decisions given in their Report. The Go- vernment will, however, take the subject into consideration as soon as possible; and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will repeat his question after the publication of the evidence, I hope then to be able to announce the action we propose to take in the matter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the case that instructions have been issued to the Royal Sovereign not to fire her 67-ton guns right ahead?

No such instructions as those suggested have been given. The gunnery trials that took place in the Trafalgar at the time she was commissioned were conclusive as to the power of the deck structure to withstand the concussion of firing the 67-ton guns fore and aft; and as the decks of the Royal Sovereign have been pillared and supported to even a greater extent, no useful object would have been served in carrying out similar trials in her case. The recent gunnery trials were made primarily to test the gun mountings and appliances for loading and working the guns, and as a matter of convenience the guns were fired nearly abeam.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has ever had under his own personal consideration the case of Lieutenant Colonel Maguire, late of the 60th Rifles, with reference to his claim for "compensation for loss of good service pay, pension, &c"?

Yes, Sir. The case has been repeatedly considered since 1866, and the Secretary of State personally decided five years ago that Lieutenant Colonel Maguire had no claim. It is not a case connected with the abolition of purchase.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution of the Clare Castle Harbour Trustees, passed on the 26th January last, with reference to the obstruction caused in the River Fergus by the stones and mud washed into the bed of the river from the broken slob lands embankment; whether he is aware of the danger to navigation caused thereby; and whether he will have steps taken to remove the present obstruction and to prevent a recurrence? Before the right hon. Gentleman answers I should like to ask him whether since this Notice has been placed on the Paper his attention has not been again directed to the dangerous condition of the River Fergus; and also why it is that the complaints have never received the slightest attention? Frequent representations have been made by the Local Board Chairman on the 25th January, and the time when this Notice was placed on the Paper.

I am informed that, after a very careful examination of the River Fergus by the engineer of the Board of Works, no such obstruction as that described has been found to exist.

May I be permitted to read the communication sent to the right hon. Gentleman by the Secretary of the Clare Castle Harbour Commissioners last Friday?

I think it would be more satisfactory if the hon. Member would put down a further question.

I will do so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed that three hundred and twenty eviction notices were filed in the County of Mayo alone during the last three months; whether he has inquired into the cause of this increase of eviction notices in that county; upon how many and what estates does Mr. Ruttledge, Sub-Sheriff of the County of Mayo, act as land agent; and, in view of the fact that the Sub-Sheriff, who is the nominee of the High Sheriff, is directly responsible to the Crown, by whom he is appointed, will the Government intimate to the High Sheriff the undesirability, on grounds of public policy, of his delegate, the principal executive officer of the law in the county, fulfilling at the same time the functions of agent for the parties who are plaintiffs in actions of ejectment?

I am informed that the eviction notices referred to have been issued in respect of ejectment decrees obtained at the April, June, and September Sessions of 1891, some of which were accordingly about to run out of date. It must not be supposed that evictions will necessarily follow on these notices. On the contrary, as a matter of fact, I am informed that settlements have already been made in a large portion of the cases, and further settlements will, no doubt, follow if the tenants are left free to act as they think best.

Is it not a fact that the mere receipt of one of these eviction notices deprives the tenant of every legal interest in his holding just as much as if he were on the roadside; and is it not a fact also that the number of eviction notices served, from whatever reason, within the past three months in County Mayo is greater than the number of eviction notices served in any similar period for the last ten years?

I do not know the statistics, but I understand that under the Act of 1887, when an amendment of the law was made, the act of serving a notice is held to be equivalent to taking possession. The hon. Member knows, however, that usually a period of time elapses between the serving of the notice and taking possession, and I have no doubt that in most of these cases settlements have been made.

I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that he has made no answer whatever to the two last paragraphs of the question.

I must apologise to the hon. Member for not having referred to them. He asks me upon how many and what estates does Mr. Ruttledge, Sub-Sheriff of Mayo, act as land agent. I have no means of ascertaining that unless I communicate with Mr. Ruttledge and ask him; I have no power of enforcing an answer to the question, and it would only be by his courtesy that I could possibly obtain the information. With reference to the last paragraph, I have previously expressed my own opinion upon the subject; but I have since learned from inquiries I have made that wherever Mr. Ruttledge, acting as agent, has found it necessary to take proceedings, in all those cases they were carried out by bailiffs and not by himself.

Inasmuch as the Sub-Sheriff is nominated by the High Sheriff, who is directly responsible to the Crown, I should like to ask if any remonstrance will be made with this Sub-Sheriff on the subject of acting in the double capacity of agent for the landlord and principal executive officer of the Crown?

The hon. Member knows very well that I have no power to interfere with the High Sheriff, and no remonstrance of mine would be of any value. The only result would be that the High Sheriff would ask me to appoint somebody else.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has so much power over the High Sheriffs in Ireland that he or his predecessor merely by a stroke of the pen removed from being High Sheriff of Waterford the hon. Member for Dublin County?

Order, order!

I shall deal with this question at the first opportunity on the Vote on Account.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has yet been arrived at as to the payment of the amount of the verdict and costs in the case of "Ryan v. The Guardians of the Cavan Union"; if so, what is the decision; if not, what is the reason for the delay; and whether he is aware that the loss caused to the Guardians in that case was entirely caused by their obedience to the order of the Inspector appointed by the Land Commission, under the Seed Potatoes Act, that they were bound to obey such order by the rules made under the Act, and that the Guardians of the Enniskillen Union, under similar circumstances, refused to obey the same rule, and escaped the loss which has fallen on the Cavan Guardians on account of their obedience to the law?

The Treasury cannot consider this question until the close of the collection of the seed rate. I am not aware of the circumstances alleged in the second paragraph of the question.

May I ask, as the right hon. Gentleman told me three months ago that this matter was under consideration, what has been the result of the consideration which has been going on; and what is the reason why the consideration must be postponed until the time he mentions?

I think I told him the reason.

Why should it not be considered earlier? I do not see any occasion for the delay. I shall put down a question for another day.

I beg 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 am informed that up to the present increased rents have only been settled for one-third of the district — namely, on seven hundred and fifty-nine holdings containing five thousand four hundred and two acres, the increased rents amounting to one thousand and seventy-eight pounds per annum; two hundred, and twenty-three of the holdings are held under judicial tenancies.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the bad effect on the peace of the district of those increases of rent, and the great difficulty in arriving at any final legal decision as to whether the Board of Works has power to raise judicial rents, he will use his influence to expedite the decision of the pending cases, in order that joint action may be taken by the tenants?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether, in a speech delivered by him at Brighton on the 9th instant, a brief account of which appeared in the Times on the 11th instant, he is correctly reported to have said, concerning a principle which has been adopted and acted upon by Her Majesty's Government, that he was glad the Arbitration Societies had not made it impossible to defend with the sword what the sword had won?

The words which the hon. Gentleman recites are not exactly those which I used; but, at the same time, they represent with approximate fidelity what I said. It will be obvious to this House that it must be many hundreds of years before the principles of the Society or the League, of which I understand the hon. Gentleman is the Secretary, can be successfully applied to the settlement of frontier disputes with turbulent hill tribes on the confines of our Indian Empire, and the opinion I expressed in the speech to which he has referred was one of purely personal satisfaction that I should not live long enough to see the time when an attempt will be made to settle these questions by the hon. Gentleman or the Society which he represents.

As the hon. Gentleman has admitted the substantial accuracy of the report, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury if he approves of the language which is calculated to discredit the method of peaceful adjustment of differences between nations that has been more than once adopted by the Government of this country and carried on successfully for settlement of international differences.

So far as I heard what passed between my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman who put the question originally, I gather that my hon. Friend expresses his dissent from the view that the principle of arbitration can be successfully applied between the frontier tribes in India and the Government of India. It appears to me that in expressing the limitation to which the principle of arbitration can be applied with any probability of success during the next few years, my hon. Friend did a service rather than a disservice to the cause, because nothing does more harm to any cause, however good it may be, than the ill-timed and intemperate advocacy of its friends.

What about the speech of Lord Salisbury?

Order, order!