I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will explain why Colour Sergeant Finn, of the 1st Volunteer Battalion, Cheshire Regiment, was discharged with a pension of sergeant instead of one of colour sergeant, after twenty-six years' service, in view of the facts that it is usual in such cases to give a colour sergeant's pension, and that Sergeant Wallace of the same battalion received a colour sergeant's pension?

The case of pensioner Finn has been referred back to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital for re-consideration, with the view to the amendment of the pension.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the lifeboat authorities at Groomsport, as well as the coxswain and crew of the lifeboat, are of opinion that the wreck of the iron ss. Emily, wrecked in 1889 off Groomsport, would be a source of great danger to the lifeboat, especially at night, were the services of the crew required to assist a vessel on Brigg's Reef; and whether, as the conical buoy placed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights to mark this wreck is useless as a warning at night, and the cost of clearing away the wreck would be small, he will give directions for its removal forthwith?

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave last week on the 16th instant to the hon. Baronet the Member for East Norfolk (Sir E. Birkbeck). I have no power to give any direction with respect to the wreck of the Emily, except upon a recommendation from the Commissioners of Irish Lights, and no such recommendation has been made to me.

Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to ask whether he is aware that his officer who made the inspection, or who ever supplied him with the information, ever went near the place; and also whether it is a fact that another steamer has since been wrecked upon the same spot?

The officer who made the inspection is not my officer, but the officer of the Commissioners of Irish Lights, and I know nothing about the later wreck to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I would really advise the hon. Gentleman to communicate with the Commissioners of Irish Lights on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman with his experience of Ireland explain how it is possible to overcome the vis inertiœ of these officers?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there would be any objection to state to the House the present state of the negotiations with Brazil as regards the preferential treatment accorded to the United States, and with the United States as regards the preferential treatment accorded to Brazil?

had notice of the following question: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, in consequence of a Treaty, ratified in April, 1891, between the respective Governments of the United States of America and Brazil, goods from the former country are admitted into the latter country duty free, while the same description of English goods are subject to a duty varying from fifteen to twenty-five per cent.; and whether any steps are being taken by the English Government to place the manufactures of this country upon the same favourable footing?

Perhaps the hon. Member for Hallamshire will permit me at the same time to answer his question. On the 19th February I answered a question of a similar character put by the hon. Member for North Manchester. I then informed him that communications had been made to the Government of Brazil, but that that Government had not been willing to enter into negotiations for a Commercial Treaty with this country; and I have nothing to add to that answer. With regard to the last sentence of the hon. Baronet's question, which only appeared on the Paper this morning, I have to say that no preferential treatment is being accorded by the United States to Brazil. No differential treatment is accorded to British goods as compared with Brazilian, and consequently no negotiations have been entered into on that subject.

Do I understand that Brazil is accorded no preferential treatment by the United States?

The position of the matter is this: that Brazil gives preferential treatment to the United States as compared with goods which go from this country to Brazil; and the United States gives no preferential treatment to Brazil as compared with goods that go from this country to the United States.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any applications have been made by the Railway Companies to postpone further the operation of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888; and whether, before taking into consideration such application, the Board of Trade will give the traders an opportunity of stating their case in opposition to such postponement?

I have received an application to postpone the operation of the London and South-Western Railway Rates Provisional Order Act until the 1st January next, at which time the schedules in the Provisional Orders now before Parliament will come into operation, and I have reason to believe that similar applications are likely to be made in the case of the other Railway Companies whose schedules were settled last year. It seems to me primâ facie desirable, for many reasons, that all the schedules should come into operation at the same time. But I shall be happy to receive and consider any representations which may be made to me on behalf of the traders against such a course.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the speech delivered by Lord Dufferin at the annual dinner of the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris, wherein His Excellency is reported to have said—

"In modern times a very proper prominence is given in entrance examinations to political and economic subjects. Every year the Secretaries of all our Embassies are required to produce an elaborate Commercial Report, a duty which, as I have been able to judge, is carried out with zeal and diligence. Every week in Foreign Embassies our attention is drawn by the Foreign Office to questions affecting English trade with other countries";

Lord Dufferin appears to have overlooked the change which has recently been made in the subjects of examination. They were adopted after very careful consideration as those best calculated to test the real qualifications of the candidates, and to afford as little room as possible for "cramming." There do not appear to be any sufficient reasons for making further change, but consideration will be given to the best means of encouraging the members of the Diplomatic Service to study such branches of Political Economy as would assist them in the preparation of their Commercial Reports.

Might it not be arranged that the examination in Political Economy should be placed on the same basis as the examination in International Law?

Yes, I think that would be a very desirable way of meeting the views of the hon. Gentleman and of many others who take an interest in this matter. It will require some careful consideration before it can be finally settled, and probably the Treasury will have to be consulted with regard to it; but it is in that direction the opportunity for examination will be afforded.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a letter from Admiral Erskine on the Polynesian labour traffic, which appeared in the Times of Saturday last, stating, as the result of three years' experience in command of the Australian Squadron, that—

"Even under the most stringent regulations wrongs and abuses occur in connection with the labour traffic, which invariably lead to bloodshed and accompanying complications and reprisals";

"It was declared that the natives of New Guinea should not be taken from their country and compelled, under arrangements and contracts which they cannot possibly understand, to labour continuously for three years on Queensland plantations,"

My attention has been drawn to the letter referred to by the hon. Member. It will be observed that the very valuable experiences of Admiral Erskine were confined to a period during which the irregularities connected with the labour traffic have been admitted. If the hon. Member will refer to page 210 of the Parliamentary Paper C, 5091–1, Vol. 2, he will see that—

"No deportation of natives is allowed either from one part of the territory to another, or to places beyond the territory, except under ordinances reserved for Her Majesty's assent and assented to by Her Majesty."

In connection with that answer, may I ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been drawn to a letter by Admiral Scott, the present commander of the Pacific, in which he expresses his regret at the proposal to introduce this labour traffic from that Colony into the country, no power being given for looking after the interests of the natives?

I think the Admiral is in error. I have already said that the natives cannot be sent from New Guinea to Queensland.

What I want to know is whether, as a matter of fact, it is true that numbers of black people are at this moment being recruited from New Guinea, and also whether Her Majesty's Government have informed themselves that Clause 78 of the new Act of the Queensland Legislature requires that an armed boat should accompany the recruiting parties to the various islands?

I was not aware that recruiting is now going on in New Guinea. In fact, I have said that it is not going on. I do not think that the second part of the question arises out of the question on the Paper. An armed boat is required to accompany the recruiting parties for the purpose of protection.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies question No. 11, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to modify it in the following manner: Whether he is aware that the Legislative Assembly of Melbourne passed a Resolution yesterday, without a dissentient voice, condemning the action of the Queensland Parliament in proposing to renew the importation of Kanaka labourers into the colony, and urging the Government to resort to all the means in their power to render the protest of the Legislative Assembly of Melbourne effective; and whether Her Majesty's Government will re-consider their intention of not disallowing the Act of the Queensland Legislature?

The attention of Her Majesty's Government has not been officially drawn to the notice referred to, and to the resolution which it would appear, from a telegram in this morning's Times, has been carried; but the hon. Member will see that the question raised by that resolution is one which, however important, must be settled by these great colonies among themselves without the intervention of Her Majesty's Government. It may also be observed that this resolution is not framed against native employment on humanitarian grounds, but is against all foreign labour, coolie or native.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in connection with that answer, whether the Australian Colonies possess any means of preventing Queensland from renewing this labour traffic except through the intervention of the Home Government?

Certainly not. I am sure the hon. Member will see that a resolution passed by the Victorian Parliament could not—although, of course, it would be treated with all respect — influence Her Majesty's Government in the direction of not assenting to a Bill passed in Queensland.

As this case involves, in the opinion of many, gross barbarities and a large quantity of bloodshed among these islanders, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this House or the Government has any power to veto—or has got any means of signifying their displeasure, should that be the pleasure of the House—this Act being put in force?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has in its possession the figures of the number of Polynesian Islanders landed in Queensland during each of the years 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889, and 1890; the percentage of deaths among the islanders working on the plantations during each of those years; and the numbers returned to the Islands during each of those years; and, in that case, will he state them to the House?

The numbers of those landed and returned are as follows:—Landed: 1886, 1,505; 1887, 1,988; 1888, 2,291; 1889, 2,039; 1890, 2,459. Returned: 1888, 1,292; 1889, 1,814; 1890, 1,373. We have no Return from the colony showing the percentage of mortality asked for by the hon. Member. The total number of deaths reported to the Polynesian Department for the years 1886–90 inclusive will be found at Page 54 of the Blue Book just presented. If more precise information is required, the necessary Return will be obtained from the colony.

I understand the Colonial Office have no information with respect to the mortality other than is in the Return circulated this morning?

That is so.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite aware that it is admitted that the figures are not wholly sufficient?

Those are the only Returns we have. If he wishes to have a further Return, I will speak to my noble Friend the Secretary of State.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the baskets used for Parcels Post and general Post Office work are now made and repaired on Government premises; and, if so, whether the work is done direct by Government employees or by private contractors on the Government premises; what is the, rate of wages paid by either, or both, Government and contractors; and is the rate up to the recognised standard rate paid by employers in the open market?

My right hon. Friend is absent on important public business, and he has asked me to answer this question, and to say that no new Parcel Post baskets are at present manufactured on Government premises in Great Britain, but a large number are repaired by workmen employed directly by the Department at its factory at Mount Pleasant, Clerkenwell. All the men, with two exceptions, receive fixed wages of sevenpence an hour, and they work fifty-four hours a week. They are kept in constant employment throughout the year, and have the advantage of a fortnight's holiday without loss of pay. The supply of baskets is divided between the Board of Works and the Post Office, according to sorts. The Office of Works purchases some from prisons, and also employs a contractor, who has been informed of the Resolution of the House of Commons. There are some also manufactured at certain Asylums for the Blind. In Ireland some of the baskets used by the Department are made and repaired at the Mountjoy Prison, and the Department pays certain fixed prices for this work.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government, considering the present favourable opportunity, will urge on the Egyptian Government the necessity of converting the Domain Loan into a Three-and-a-half per Cent. Stock similar to the Privilege Stock, thus effecting a saving of £75,000 per annum, and completing the financial programme of Egypt?

The Egyptian Government has most able financial advisers of its own, who have successfully carried out a very large scheme for the conversion of the Unified Debt. This was done of their own initiation and unaided by Her Majesty's Government. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government do not consider their intervention to be called for.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have received a memorial on behalf of Mary Morgan, aged fifty-seven, widow of Andrew Morgan, late coastguard in charge of Millisle Station, praying for pension or other assistance to enable her to support herself and two helpless children, now in a destitute condition; and whether, considering that Mrs. Morgan's claim has been supported by the Inspecting Commander of Donaghadee Coastguard Division and the Captain of H.M.S. Belleisle, and that Morgan entered the Navy in 1852, served at Sebastopol, and was awarded medals for bravery in battle, and for life saving and good conduct in the Coastguard Service, and would have been entitled under the Rules of the Service to a pension of £62 per annum and a good conduct gratuity of £20 had he lived six months longer, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty will favourably consider the claim of this woman, and grant her such remuneration as will enable her to support herself and her children without having recourse to the workhouse?

Mrs. Morgan's application for assistance has been considered by the Admiralty, but, so far as I know, no pension or gratuity can be granted out of Naval or Greenwich Hospital funds to her. The widows and children of seamen and marines are not entitled to receive any such assistance, unless the husband or father is killed on duty or dies from the direct effects of extraordinary exposure or exertion on service. The late Andrew Morgan's death was due to natural causes, and the Admiralty have so far been unable to accede to the widow's petition for direct assistance.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether attention will be paid to the claims of the Irish Post Office assistants who perform the general work of the General Post Office and are not recognised by the Department; whether, many have upwards of eight years' service, and do from ten to fourteen hours daily, and frequent night work; whether these assistants are engaged and dismissed by the Postmaster; and whether, under the circumstances, an inquiry will be made into the alleged grievances with a view to their redressal?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Assistants are employed by the Postmaster of the smaller post offices in Ireland in the same way as in England and Scotland, and are usually young persons in training for established appointments, which they often receive after a comparatively short period of service. In fact, it is a common complaint of Postmasters that, after having trained their assistants, they cannot retain them, as they so quickly obtain appointments elsewhere. There may be cases in which assistants have, for one reason or another, not obtained appointments—possibly have not desired or deserved them—and have remained in their original employment as long as stated; but it is not known that their hours are unduly long, and no complaint has been received on the subject. Assistants are often occupied partly in the post office and partly on the private business of the Postmaster, whose servants they are, and by whom their services are engaged and dispensed with. It is not thought that there are any general grievances of the kind alleged, but if any particular office can be specified in which hardship is believed to exist, inquiry will be made with a view to its removal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a memorial has been recently forwarded from the local post offices, signed by upwards of two hundred and forty of these Irish Post Office assistants, calling attention to these grievances? I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that this memorial has been sent forward and has been received by the Post Office, it will receive the consideration due to it and to these men?

No; I gather that my right hon. Friend knows nothing at all about that. But if any such memorial has been received no doubt it will be considered.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider whether it is possible to provide accommodation for overcoats, umbrellas, &c., for strangers under the Gallery and in the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery?

I have considered the matter very carefully, and consulted the authorities of the House on the subject, but I am sorry to say that there is really no place where provision could be made for such accommodation for strangers under the Gallery and in the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery. I should be very glad to provide such accommodation if I could, but really I have no means of doing so.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the mails for the north-west of Ireland are so long delayed at Dundalk; and why after their arrival at Enniskillen letters are so long in being delivered that it is impossible to reply by mid-day mail to the English correspondence?

My right hon. Friend the Postmaster General has asked me to state that he has not received the information which would enable him to answer the question, and that he will communicate with the hon. Member when he has received it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Bengal Board of Revenue, and very nearly all the divisional and district officers of Bengal, who have been consulted about the proposed Cadastral Survey of Behar, have reported in a sense adverse to it; whether protests against the undertaking have been received by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal from all the leading Native Associations of the Province, including the Association representing the occupying tenants as well as that representing the landholders; whether the recorded opinions of the Board of Revenue, of Mr. Secretary Cotton, of Mr. Halliday, and of the other leading officials of Bengal, together with the memorials of the various Native Associations of the Province, will be considered by the Secretary of State before finally sanctioning the survey; and whether copies of those opinions and memorials will be laid upon the Table of the House?

The Secretary of State has seen the Reports of the Board of Revenue and other Bengal officers, some of which doubt the expediency of the survey. I stated the other day, in answer to a similar question, that representations against the survey had been received and publicly answered by the Government of Bengal. The Reports in question, with the exception of Mr. Cotton's, which has not been received, have been considered by the Secretary of State, and are included in the Return now being printed. Copies of the memorials of Local Bodies have not yet reached the Secretary of State, though he has seen mention of them in the newspapers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the actual salary of the Rai Radhika Prasanna Mukarji, Bahadur, formerly a Deputy Inspector of Schools in the subordinate education service of Bengal, who was promoted to be an Inspector of Schools in the superior or graded service for long and exceptionally meritorious work, was the ordinary salary of the grade to which he was promoted; will he state what is the amount of the annual yearly increment of salary in that grade, to which every European officer so appointed is entitled; what amount of annual yearly increment of salary was recommended by the Director of Public Instruction to be granted to the Rai Bahadur; what amount was actually sanctioned for him; and how much less has he received, in consequence of these orders, since his promotion, than what he would have received if he had been a European officer?

A European appointed by the Secretary of State as Inspector of Schools in the graded service receives Rs.500 a month, rising annually by Rs.50 a month to Rs.750. A native receives under the rules two-thirds of these amounts—namely, Rs.333, rising to Rs.500. The Rai Bahadur, a Deputy Inspector of Schools, was receiving Rs.460 a month when promoted, and he continued to draw that amount after promotion, with a special annual increase of Rs.10 a month for every year in the graded service. The recommendation of the Director General of Education was that natives promoted to the graded service, instead of coming under the two-thirds rule, should rise on the same scale as Europeans to the third grade, but should be ineligible for promotion to the second or first grades; but this plan was not adopted. The officer in question appears to be drawing Rs.570 a month. A European, appointed at the same time, would be drawing the maximum of Rs.750.

Arising out of that answer, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if the Secretary of State will take the opinion of the Local Authorities as to the advisability of granting this exceptionally meritorious officer the same terms as he would have obtained if he had been a European officer?

I shall be glad to answer that question if the hon. Gentleman gives notice of it.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of Post Office deposits in Ireland and the rate of interest allowed on same to the depositors; what is the amount of loans issued by the Board of Works in Ireland, and the rate of interest charged to public Boards in that country, on advances; and if he will state what is the average profit made by the Board of Works in advancing Irish money for Irish undertakings?

The amount of Post Office Savings Bank deposits in Ireland on 31st December, 1891, was £3,966,000. The rate of interest allowed on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank is two-and-a-half per cent. per annum; but the expenses of administration amount to about a half per cent.—making a total expense of about three per cent per annum. The deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank are invested in British Government Securities, and the rate of interest earned is barely more than sufficient to cover the three per cent. for interest and expenses. The amount of loans made by the Irish Board of Works and outstanding on 31st March, 1891, was £7,700,000 in round figures. The rates of interest charged on such loans range from three-and-an-eighth to five per cent.; but the average rate of interest actually received is less than three-and-a-quarter per cent. The loans made by the Board of Works are made out of the Local Loans Fund, which is Imperial, and not specially Irish. If the hon. Member wishes to have further information about the amount of profit or loss made on loans in Ireland, I will make further inquiries.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any further steps will be taken in Ireland to stamp out the disease of sheep scab; whether he is aware that this disease has been successfully overcome in Australia and New Zealand; and why more effective steps have not been taken in Ireland by the Veterinary Department to provide some remedy against this disease?

): I am not aware of any necessity for further steps in regard to the sheep scab in this question. Ample provisions are at present in force for dealing with the disease, if duly carried out by the Local Authorities and owners of sheep. These provisions render necessary an immediate notification of the existence of the disease, then a continuing report thereon by the local Veterinary Inspector, to be made both to the Local Authority and to the Veterinary Department. Owners are required to apply remedial treatment, and the Local Authorities have large powers to secure complete isolation of affected or suspected sheep. Numerous prosecutions have been instituted by the police at the instance of the Veterinary Department where owners have failed to report the existence of the disease. I have no official information as to whether the disease has been successfully dealt with in Australia and New Zealand.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received a communication from the President of the Agricultural Society dealing with the question, and whether in view of the fact that the disease has been successfully overcome in Australia and New Zealand, the remedy which has been found successful in those countries cannot be obtained and extended to Ireland for the benefit of the sheep dealers, notably in the Counties of Cork and Galway?

I am not aware that any information on the subject has been received, but if any information is received I shall be only too glad to communicate it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have inquiry made of the President of the Board of Agriculture, and find out what is the best remedy, and if possible place it at the disposal of the Veterinary Authorities in Ireland?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement which was made by Mr. J. H. P. Leresche, Stipendiary Magistrate, in the course of hearing a charge of assault at the County Police Court, Manchester, on Tuesday, the 10th inst.—

"The colliers of Pendlebury have for a long time past been notoriously devoid of moral sentiments, and have thought they can do just as they like";

I have called the attention of the learned Stipendiary Magistrate to this question, and he informs me that he did not at any time, either in so many words or in substance, use the language imputed to him; and that he has been frequently assured by those who were in Court at the time that the words were never used by him. It is not my intention to take any action in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is able to form any estimate as to what would be the probable effect on the Revenue of placing clubs where intoxicating liquors are consumed, in the matter of Licence Duty and Inhabited House Duty, on a footing similar to that now occupied by the premises of licence holders?

I am sorry I cannot form any estimate as to what would be the effect on the Revenue of placing clubs where intoxicating liquors are consumed on a footing similar to that now occupied by the premises of licence holders.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Papers with reference to the tariffs of the West Indian Colonies, which were promised on 17th March, will be distributed to Members?

The Paper had already been sent to press when a fire occurred at the printers', by which the type was destroyed. The type is being re-set, but I cannot yet say when it will be possible to distribute the Paper.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Papers with reference to the negotiations and disputes with the Jebus, which were promised on 24th March, will be distributed to Members?

It is proposed to give the Papers as soon as despatches reporting the recent occurrences have been received and considered by Her Majesty's Government. Until these Papers can be given the correspondence will necessarily be incomplete.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended that a battleship is to be stationed at Sheerness as tender to the new gunnery establishment at the Naval Barracks?

The question of fitting a ship for drill purposes in connection with the Gunnery School at Sheerness is now under consideration, and no definite decision has yet been arrived at. The ship so stationed at Sheerness would have a "care and maintenance crew" on board. The gunnery establishment would provide the staff necessary for training.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can state when the distribution of good conduct stripes or badges to meritorious postmen, which was promised by his predecessor last Session, will be made?

The distribution of good conduct stripes has been completed up to date both in London and most of the districts throughout the country. In one district, however—that of Nottingham—it is not quite finished.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has had under his consideration for some time past the position and scale of pay of Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors of Postmen in provincial offices; and whether he is able to state what decision has been arrived at?

The matter is not yet settled. It is still under the consideration of my right hon. Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman able to state whether it is likely to be decided before the Estimates come on?

I am afraid I can hardly tell that.

I will put another question.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if soldiers of regiments are compelled by the War Office Regulations to deal at any particular shop or stores designated by their commanding officers, or if they have the same freedom as other citizens in this respect?

A soldier is perfectly at liberty to resort to any available shop or market, unless the commanding officer for some special reason and to safeguard the interests of the men thinks it necessary to declare a particular house out of bounds.

I beg to ask the Secretary of the Home Department whether he has any intention to compel the Metropolitan constables to subscribe to a private retiring fund for Inspectors; and whether the present voluntary funds have the sanction of the Police Authorities?

There is no intention to compel the Metropolitan Police to subscribe to a private retiring fund for Inspectors. The present subscriptions are purely voluntary, and have the sanction of the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution of the Westport Board of Guardians, impressing upon him the importance of having the town of Louisburg, the nearest town to the best fishing grounds on the Mayo coast, connected by telegraph with the Irish and English markets, and urging him to use his influence with the Congested Districts Board to assist in supplying the necessary local guarantee to the Post Office; and whether, having regard to the extreme poverty of the Westport Union, and its inability to bear any additional local burden, he will make a representation to the Congested Districts Board upon the subject?

The Congested Districts Board have not so far adopted a scheme for the development of fisheries in the immediate neighbourhood of Louisburg. The question, therefore, of whether it would be expedient for them to give a guarantee to obtain a telegraphic extension to that place is not ripe for consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the fact that both the landlord and the evicted tenant of the lands of Tearnea, Parish of Ruan, County of Clare, are anxious to avail themselves of the 13th clause of the Land Purchase Act of last Session, but that their application has failed through expiry of time; is he aware that a police protection party has been maintained on the evicted farm at heavy expense to the Government and to the local ratepayers, and that the dispute has been the cause of considerable disturbance and ill-feeling in the district; and whether the Government will offer any opposition to a short Bill extending the 13th clause so as to meet such cases?

I have caused inquiry to be made into the case of the evicted tenant referred to by the hon. Member, and find the facts are as follows:—On the 27th July, 1885, the tenant, Robert O'Brien, referred to, was evicted from the lands of Tearnea for non-payment of rent. He owed some four years, amounting to £230. The farm after eviction was farmed by the landlord, Mr. P. A. Dwyer. In 1888 his caretaker, Patrick Hallinan, went to live on the farm under police protection, but on the 3rd May the protection was discontinued. Patrick Hallinan left and was without protection till 1st September, 1890, when he was fired at and seriously wounded by John Brodie and Patrick Hartigan, who were convicted on the 22nd December, 1890, and sentenced to twenty years' penal servitude. Robert O'Brien, the evicted tenant, was then arrested on the same charge, and on the 12th March, 1891, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for conspiracy to murder. I cannot think that this is a case in which the House would feel itself called upon to pass special legislation of the nature in question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the landlord agreed, if possible, to take advantage of the clause, but that it is impossible for him to do so, and that, in this case, it has been the cause of very considerable disturbances?

It is not in accordance with the information that came to me that it has been the cause of disturbances in the district. I do not see how the landlord and tenant could enter into negotiations, because the tenant is at present in prison. But I believe there have been some communications between the mother of the prisoner and the landlord, with a view to the mother taking the farm.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Persian Tobacco Corporation gives up all its property to the Persian Government in consideration of receiving £500,000 for the £350,000 alleged by the Corporation to have been spent by it; whether he can state in what that property consists; and whether any estimate has been submitted to Her Majesty's Government as to its actual value?

The Corporation is to hand over to the Persian Government its stock of tobacco, house property, furniture and machinery. These assets must be proved to the satisfaction of the Persian Government to have cost £139,000. The amount stated by the Company to have been expended in Persia on account of installation, travelling, salaries, rents, printing, telegrams and postage is £55,000. This is in addition to the Company's expenditure in London.

Then how does the right hon. Gentleman make up the difference between the amount that he stated and £350,000?

I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. It is not part and never has been any part of the duty of the Government to make up anything in the matter. The claim was made by the Corporation who asked for arbitration. The Persian Government were not prepared to enter into arbitration in this matter and preferred to make an arrangement with the Corporation. That arrangement was made, and that is the arrangement of which the hon. Gentleman complains, and as to which the Government acted as mediators between the two parties concerned.

Do I understand that when they acted as mediators between the two parties, the Government did not express the opinion that the amount of £500,000 was a fair and legitimate demand?

Yes, Sir, Her Majesty's Government expressed the opinion that they thought it was a fair demand to make. The Corporation had first of all demanded £650,000. The Persian Government did not feel themselves at liberty to meet that demand, and offered a lower sum. Eventually a compromise was arrived at for £500,000, a compromise which Her Majesty's Representative in all the circumstances of the case considered a fair amount.

I would ask the hon. Gentleman upon what data Her Majesty's Representative proceeded in stating that this was a fair and legitimate sum?

If the hon. Member will have a little patience and wait a few days until the Papers are produced, he will then see exactly the course which Her Majesty's Representative at Teheran took in this matter.

Does the hon. Gentleman guarantee that I shall have an opportunity before the end of the present Parliament of dealing with this question, if I do not raise it on the Vote on Account?

The duration of the present Parliament does not rest with me.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty will consider the case of the daughters of Naval Warrant Officers, with a view to their being considered eligible for compassionate allowances when left in distressing circumstances consequent upon the death of their parents, in like manner as provided for daughters of Commissioned Officers of same relative rank in the Navy and Army, seeing that the principle has been already conceded in the case of daughters of Warrant Officers who are killed in action, or whose death has been caused or hastened by exposure on duty, &c.; and whether existing regulations can be modified to meet their claims to be placed on a footing of equality in this respect with the daughters of other officers whose widows are entitled to pensions?

The alteration in the Army Regulations on this subject has been recently brought to the notice of the Admiralty, and the question of any Amendment in the existing Naval Regulations will be taken into consideration. Similarity of practice in the two Services may be desirable, but the conditions generally of Naval Service, so far as pensions and allowances are concerned, are more liberal than in the Military Service.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House what regulations were considered by the Inter-Departmental Committee at the Foreign Office in December last in relation to the proposed provisional regulations for the transport of bulk petroleum in the Suez Canal; what additions were framed by the said Committee with the object of safeguarding navigation, but only part of which were accepted by the Suez Canal Company; and to define the substance of such recommendations as were made by the Inter-Departmental Committee and which were declined by the Suez Canal Company?

It would be impossible to reply to the hon. Member's questions within the limits usually assigned to an answer. The several matters as to which the hon. Member inquires will appear clearly from the Papers which are being prepared.

Will these Papers be laid on the Table before Whitsuntide?

Yes, Sir; I hope before Whitsuntide.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in regard to the proposed authorisation of the passage of bulk petroleum through the Suez Canal, which in the opinion of English experts threatens the security and safety of navigation in the Canal, whether, in view of Article 8 of the Convention between Great Britain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, and Turkey, respecting the free navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal, signed at Constantinople 29th October, 1888, in which it is laid down that the agents in Egypt of the Signatory Powers of the present Treaty shall be charged to watch over its execution, in case of any event threatening the security or the free passage of the Canal, and that they shall inform the Khedival Government of the danger which they may have perceived, in order that that Government may take proper steps to ensure the protection and the free use of the Canal, Her Majesty's Government will instruct its agent in Egypt to call the attention of the Egyptian Government to the threatened dangers as aforesaid?

The only ground for interference, under the Convention referred to, by any of the Signatory Powers thereto, is the occurrence of—

"Any event threatening the security or the free passage of the Canal." By Article 1 "The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free, and open in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war without distinction of flag. Consequently the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal in time of war as in time of peace. The Canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade."

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what has been ascertained, and what the Government have done or directed to be done, with reference to the attack on the boy Loughran, at the Queen's Island Works, Belfast, detailed in his statement reported in the Belfast Irish News of Monday last?

I have made very careful inquiry into the matter of this question, and the simple facts are these. On Thursday night the boy Loughran, a boy Elliott, and some other boys were going home, and the boy Loughran, apparently, complained that Elliott had trodden on his foot. He then struck Elliott on the face; Elliott retorted and struck Loughran on the face; they had a fight, and Elliott got rather the worst of it. On the following morning during the breakfast hour Elliott went to Loughran and asked him what he meant by the action he had taken the night before, and proceeded at once to knock Loughran down. A ring was formed while the boys fought, and the two boys fought it out. Loughran got the worst of it. These are the material facts of the case. I do not think any importance attached to it beyond an ordinary fight between two boys of about fourteen years of age.

Is it the fact, as stated by Loughran, that some six weeks ago, long before this occurred, when he first went to the yard, he was threatened that if he dared to comeback to the yard after the holidays he would lose his life?

I am told that there is no truth whatever in that statement.

Is it the fact—("Order!" and "Oh!")—I can quite understand these cries after the speech of the Marquess of Salisbury—that Loughran on Friday and Saturday last gave to three members of the Belfast police force the names of his assailant Elliott and of several men, who according to Loughran also assaulted him; and have the police taken any steps to obtain information on oath?

I do not know anything about the police taking steps to obtain information on oath; I should say not. But I have taken every pains to inform myself, and have obtained reports from three distinct quarters which state the facts, and I have given the simple upshot of these reports to the House. The statement made by Loughran as to his having been assaulted by others than the boy Elliott, I believe, judging from the reports I have received, to be absolutely untrue. It is stated by several persons who were witnesses of what took place that nobody attacked Loughran except the boy Elliott, and both boys are between fourteen and fifteen years of age. I believe some Members of the House can remember the time when probably about that age they had a similar experience themselves, and when the result, as in this case, did not always come out on the one side. But I can assure the House that, as far as I can form a judgment from the reports, which I shall be happy to show to the hon. Member if he desires it, there is absolutely no importance to be attached to this beyond an ordinary boys' fight, which took place on two occasions. In one case the result was on the one side; in the other case it was on the other.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman—("Order!")—well, you will have it for the evening unless I am allowed to proceed—whether, if it is the fact, having regard to the circumstances of the second section of the Crimes Act in Ireland, that this poor boy has not only been beaten, but deprived of his means of living by being driven away from the yard by threats of violence, and by intimidation, the right hon. Gentleman will leave this question to be determined by Magistrates, or will the right hon. Gentleman constitute himself a Court of Law; and whether, if information on oath is laid, the ordinary course of the law will be followed?

If any information on oath is laid, of course it will, I presume, be the duty of somebody to take action upon it; but I doubt very much whether such a result will arise out of the circumstances. So far from there being any truth in the statement that the boy has been driven out of the works, it appears from the reports supplied to me that the foreman told the boy to go back to his work, and that he would take care—

He was afraid to go back.

Of course, he cannot compel the boy to go back to his work; but I do not think I can add anything to what I have said.

Do I go too far—("Order!")—one Gentleman on the other side is trying to distinguish him self in a very extraordinary manner. Do I go too far in asking for an assurance that if an information is laid on oath—the boy having told the police that he has been deprived of his living by intimidation—the ordinary course of the law will be followed, and that the decision in the matter will be left to the Courts, and not to the right hon. Gentleman?

Unquestionably the ordinary course of the law will be followed.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the regulation which forbids a card with a halfpenny stamp upon it being transmitted without excess payment by the recipient could be amended without loss to the Revenue?

It will be very difficult to distinguish between the cost of distribution and the profit realised on the sale, but the amount is not large.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the regulation which at present exists with reference to the single or double charge in telegrams upon all double words, such as "Herne Bay" and "Herne Hill," could be removed without inflicting injury or loss upon the department?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to include "Earl's Court" in his answer?

All such double names could not be charged as one word without a considerable loss of revenue.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why second class officers of Excise, though they perform duties identical with those of first class officers, are restricted to a salary with a maximum of £150, whilst first class officers go on to £250; and on what grounds the Board of Inland Revenue do not acknowledge the right of an assistant or second class officer of Excise, or anyone entering the service at present, to claim salary beyond the £150 limit?

There are broad general distinctions between the duties and responsibilities of second class officers of Excise and those of first class officers, and there is naturally a corresponding distinction between the salaries attaching to these classes. The conditions of the salaries are known to all persons entering the Service. There is no right in that or any other Service to any salary on a higher scale than that laid down in the Regulations.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the objections to a progressive salary for officers of Excise from the minimum of £115 to the maximum of £250; and whether an arrangement could be made whereby the salary of a second class officer would go on increasing until he was offered promotion to the rank of first class, the increment to cease in case of non-acceptance?

I have frequently stated that in the interests of good discipline and for the due organisation of the Service, it is absolutely necessary to maintain the principle of classification in the Excise Service. It would not be possible to adopt the arrangement which the hon. Member suggests in the latter part of his question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information as to the reported massacre of Bagandas in Uganda; and, if so, who were the instigators of the massacre; will he inquire whether their assailants were armed with quick-firing rifles; whether, as is stated, the perpetrators of the massacre were assisted by soldiers from Rampala, and equipped with a Maxim gun; and, whether steps will be taken to prevent the recurrence of such a massacre?

Perhaps the hon. Baronet will allow me to reply to this question. As I have already informed the House, no reliable information has been received from Captain Lugard since the date of the alleged massacre. From the known character and antecedents of that officer, it is impossible to believe that he was directly or indirectly a party to it. The next series of despatches from Uganda will probably contain a full account of the events which are supposed to have occurred about the end of January last.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return relating to the transfer of Richmond Prison to the War Office, and the sums expended on the prison by the Dublin Corporation?

I understand there is no objection to a Return asking the Dublin Corporation to state the sums expended by the Corporation on the site and buildings of the Richmond Prison, the date thereof, and the acreage covered by the prison and the grounds. This appears to have been what was promised by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Financial Secretary to the War Office. I do not think there is any connection between the expenditure on Mountjoy and Richmond Prisons, and the amount expended by the Dublin Corporation. But there is no desire to withhold any information which the hon. Member or the House may wish, but perhaps it would be more convenient to give that information if he would put a question as to the expenditure for the last three years or for any period of time he likes as to the expenditure on Mountjoy Prison. There is no objection to state what has been the expenditure, but we wish to keep separate the two questions, because the Irish Government could not admit that the expenditure on Mountjoy is in any way connected with the removal or change of prisons.

I will raise the question of the additional expenditure on Mountjoy on the Vote on Account, if that is a convenient way. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer that portion of the question which asks how much advantage the War Office or the Government estimate they have gained by getting a free barracks for their troops? And I may remind him that, while the Dublin Corporation maintain that the Government got a £100,000 property without any compensation, the Government hesitated, nay, absolutely refused, to give more than £10,000—I believe not so much as that—towards building a new Court House in Green Street.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I cannot discuss the case now, but the view of the Irish Government is that there is no connection between the two questions. The prison was handed over to the War Office in accordance, as the Irish Government believe, with the powers under the Statute, and under these circumstances the Dublin Corporation are not entitled to any compensation for any act done by the Irish Government in that case. I do not know what the War Office estimate is the profit they have made. Probably the hon. Member will put his question to the Financial Secretary to the War Office.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there have not been cases in England where, in similar circumstances, the War Authorities have given compensation to the amount of £15,000 or £16,000, and whether he sees no connection between how an Irish and an English Corporation should be treated, and no connection between the Government getting a £100,000 property, and then giving nothing for compensation, and refusing to give more, and even less, than £10,000 towards a new Court House?

I do not admit the correctness of the statements.

Can I have the information in the Return?

No. I cannot bring the Return in in any such form, because the Irish Government cannot admit that there is any connection between the two. The Irish Government is perfectly willing to give any information separately which the hon. Member may desire.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who I see is in his place, if he can give me any information as to the estimate of the value placed on the building by the Military Authorities, and how much more they are going to spend on it?

No estimate has been made by the War Department as to the value of the building. The building was handed over to the War Office under the Prisons Act, 1877, and I do not think that, in that case, either in England or in Ireland, a Corporation is entitled to compensation.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many more acres the War Office are going to add to this prison, and how much they are going to pay for those acres, and then we can get some idea of the value of it?

Order, order!

I will raise it on the Vote on Account.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Reverend Father Humphreys, of Tipperary, was accosted by Sergeant Fogarty at the gate of the Catholic Church on Saturday last, and that the constable produced a warrant against the reverend gentleman; was the warrant issued in connection with civil proceedings; and, if so, why were not the proceedings usual in civil cases adopted by the policeman on this occasion?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the facts are not as stated in the first paragraph, but that on Friday the Sergeant met the reverend Gentleman on the public road and asked him if he would pay the amount of the warrants issued against him for costs. The warrants were in the Sergeant's possession, but were not produced, as they were not demanded. The warrants were issued in connection with civil proceedings. No departure was made from the ordinary procedure in such cases.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is the duty of the Constabulary to execute warrants of this nature, or is it the duty of an officer of the Civil Court?

I can only say that the ordinary procedure was adopted in this case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the penalty of five shillings inflicted on parents for the non-attendance of their children at school has lost its force in consequence of the abolition of school fees, and that it does not repay the costs incurred by the authorities of a school in prosecuting an offender; and if he will endeavour to provide a remedy?

The abolition of school fees does not appear to me to have any bearing on the sufficiency of the five shillings, which is the limit of penalty, and costs, for breach of an attendance order. That sum was frequently insufficient to defray the costs actually incurred by a prosecuting School Board before the abolition of fees, and will be so still, but I do not think that these extra costs ought to be defrayed either by the parents of the defaulting child or by the ratepayers of the county or borough.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works why orange trees and some palms cannot be obtained from Kew Gardens and placed on the Terrace, as well as other shrubs, flowers, and plants suitable to the season? I also wish to ask whether he will include eucalyptus trees in the list?

I am afraid we have not got any orange trees or palm trees at Kew Gardens that could be spared for the purpose described by the hon. Member, even if it were desirable. I think there are very few seasons of the year in which the orange trees would not be subject to the southeastern winds, and I do not think they would be an appropriate addition to the Terrace.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that eucalyptus trees or orange trees may certainly be placed in the open in these countries from the end of the month of April to the end of the month of September: and whether, in view of the fact that it can be done, he will inquire from the authorities at Kew if some are not available in order to embellish a singularly deserted place?

I am afraid I can not agree with the hon. Member about that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, when the United States authorities decline to receive emigrants from various parts of Europe on the ground that they are pauper lunatics, the Atlantic Steamship Companies bring these persons back and turn them loose on the Liverpool docks; whether he is aware that the maintenance of these alien pauper lunatics costs the ratepayers of the Borough of Bootle £350 per annum; whether he is aware that other harbour towns are put to similar expense; and whether he will include provisions to remedy this grievance in the promised measure to prevent the immigration of pauper aliens?

I have no information, nor, I understand, have the Local Government Board as to the facts alleged in the question of my hon. and gallant Friend; but I have no reason to doubt their accuracy. I may add that the Government measure will apply to the grievance he refers to.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the fact that a fight took place in Londonderry Barracks on the 23rd inst., between the Derry Artillery Militia and the Lancashire Regiment, and that twenty of the former were injured, six of them seriously; and whether he can give the total number of men injured on both sides, and the cause of the quarrel?

The General Officer commanding the Belfast District has reported that the accounts of the disturbance have been grossly exaggerated. The disturbance lasted for about ten minutes; the injuries were slight, and no man is in hospital. The regiment marched out yesterday in good order. A Court of Inquiry has been held, but the report of the proceedings is not yet to hand.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that seventy people have been arrested; and does that bear out his answer that the injuries are of a slight character?

It is not according to the information we have received.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the origin of his Report?

I am afraid I cannot.

Then I must ask the Question again.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to a special Regulation of the Market Committee of Hyde, Manchester, passed to prevent the Fabian Society from holding meetings on the market ground; and if this is legal, as all other bodies are allowed to use this ground for meetings?

Before this question is answered, may I ask whether it is not a fact that no objection whatever can be offered to meetings of the Fabian Society on the Hyde Market Ground if the Society conform to the rules and regulations of the Town Council, and whether it is not the fact that all other bodies using the ground conform to the rules and regulations?