I have to oppose this Motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders, though I am afraid there are not many Members present whom I can hope to influence in opposition to the Motion. The Bill has been considered by the Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee, and if the Standing Orders are suspended now, and the Bill is carried through its stages now, it will not receive that attention which, under the peculiar circumstances, it ought to receive. The Bill is promoted by the Lancashire County Council, which has certain powers conferred upon it by the Rivers Pollution Act of 1876; but without any attempt to put those powers into execution, the Committee of the Council have introduced this Bill, which is of a very exceptional character. Of course, I cannot go through the evidence given before the Committee, which goes to show that the River Irwell does require relief from pollution. That something should be done to relieve the river from pollution there is no doubt; but the Rivers Pollution Act of 1876 gives the power to deal with it to the Local Authority under the authority of the Local Government Board. The Board is the impartial authority in the interest of the public, but this Bill seeks to get rid of this impartial tribunal in reference to these rivers, leaving the matter entirely with the County Council. The Local Government Board has reported on this Bill that it is of a very exceptional character in many respects, and that it proposes to put in force in this area to which it relates provisions altogether differing from those in operation in other parts of the country; that it proposes to confer powers of a very stringent character far in excess of the ordinary powers of County Councils and. Sanitary Authorities under the general law, and that it removes the safeguards Parliament has provided under the Rivers Pollution Act of 1876 in the interest of manufacturers and others, transferring the powers of the Board under that Act to a Joint Committee of the County Councils of Lancashire and Cheshire. The Police and Sanitary Regulations Committee, though they had this Report of the Local Government Board, yet have sanctioned this Bill; so far as I can see, the only reason they have for saying that this Act of 1876 is inefficient is that a long period has elapsed since 1876, but I scarcely think this is sufficient to alter the general law for a particular district. I wish to speak with the greatest respect of the judgment of the Committee, and I am sure the Chairman (Sir Francis S. Powell) acts on that Committee with the greatest impartiality, but I think he naturally is disposed to regard with favour the views of the County Council of Lancashire. Now it happens that we are asked to set aside the general law, and that hurriedly, in the absence of the President and Secretary of the Local Government Board and of the Chairman of Committees. So we have not a single representative of those who are specially entitled to speak on a matter of this kind. I do not know that anything is to be gained by pressing forward the Third Reading now, and. I ask the House not to suspend the Standing Orders, because I think Members should have due notice of what is proposed to be done. On a Motion for dealing with the Standing Orders, I cannot, of course, discuss the merits of the Bill, but I may say that my constituents are anxious that the river should be secured from pollution, but they wish that this should be done under the general law; and with the mitigating authority of the Local Government Board. They do not wish that legislation should be hurried through, and they fear that the incidence of the rating under the Bill will throw an undue proportion of the burden upon the occupiers. No doubt the hon. Baronet the Chairman of the Committee (Sir Francis S. Powell) will insist on the necessity of something being done, seeing that the river is in such a bad state; but while I assent to that, I am bound to say the feeling among my constituents is so strongly against this exceptional mode of dealing with the question that I shall, if I get a Member to tell with me, take the sense of the House on this Motion.

As Chairman of the Committee I may be allowed to say that I did not in Committee say that the Act of 1876 was to be condemned because it was passed sixteen years ago; but I did say that the defects in that Act were well known, and had been remedied partly by the passing of Local Acts and partly by the Public Health Act of 1890. The latter Act limits the restrictive features of the Act of 1876. It has been adopted by the authorities of various areas, including within their jurisdiction nearly 14,000,000 of people, among others, by the Corporation of Bury. More than that, there is a representative of the Corporation of Bury upon this Joint Committee, and to that extent the Corporation of Bury sanctioned the Bill. This fact was not without influence upon my mind when we came to a conclusion in favour of this Bill. My right hon. Friend has referred to the Report of the Local Government Board, and I think it is scarcely a proper use of those Reports to bring them thus before the House of Commons. Such a Report is not a mandate; these Reports are written for guidance and suggestion. They are often couched in strong language, and I have had on other occasions to soothe the susceptibilities of Members of the Committee who have taken exception to the departmental phraseology, which, I know, means far less than is said. It is the duty of the Committee to investigate all the circumstances of each case, including the suggestions in the Local Government Report; and this we did in the present instance. The Report says the Bill is of an exceptional character in many respects, and no doubt it is; but the whole circumstances are of an exceptional character, and require an exceptional remedy. The health of large populations is affected by the state or the river, which existing legislation has not been found effective to deal with. I sincerely hope the Bill will not be lost, for it is a matter of the greatest concern to Lancashire. It has the unanimous support of the County Council and of the Joint Committee, who have found the Rivers Pollution Act ineffective owing to its restrictions, and, indeed, that Act may be almost said to be a dead letter. It is the strong opinion of all having any local responsibility that the state of the river is dangerous both to the health and moral condition of the people near it, and that no time should be lost in dealing with the danger. The Bill does contemplate some diminution of the power of the Local Government Board, but the power it will confer on the County Authorities will, I believe, enable them to deal effectually with the evil, avoiding in this urgent condition of things long controversies with the Local Government Board. I am anxious not to occupy the time of the House, for time under present circumstances is precious. I am most anxious that this Bill should not be lost. I speak with a full sense of the urgent need of this legislation; I speak on behalf of the County Council, of the Joint Committee, and I am glad to speak on behalf of thousands—aye, of millions—of that working class whom I represent here, and whose lot I desire to ameliorate. I am quite sure that the Bill will be of the greatest benefit to the poorer populations, and that it will be regarded as a calamity if the Bill should be lost for this Session. I hope the House will, by a suspension of its Standing Orders, allow the Bill to pass its remaining stage, and it will, I believe, lead to a speedy removal of the evils under which the people have so long suffered.

It would be a matter of extreme regret if the Bill were lost. As we have been told, the County Councils of Cheshire and Lancashire, and the Corporation of Manchester, and many other important places are in favour of it. The condition of the rivers Mersey and Orwell is an absolute scandal, and the necessity for the Bill cannot be questioned, so that I hope it will be allowed to pass.

I should like to say a few words on the matter from a general point of view. I think it is most unfortunate that a Motion to suspend the Standing Orders should be brought forward in the way this has been brought forward. The House should never agree to any alteration of the general law of the land in favour of any particular district unless the strongest possible case is made out for it. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bury (Sir H. James), and think the people of Bury are entitled to some consideration in the matter. It cannot be said that the people of Bury are not anxious to do what is right, for the fact is proved by their having adopted the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1890. If exceptional treatment is to be dealt out, let it be done after full consideration, and I invite the House, not so much in the interests of the people of Bury as of the community at large, to hesitate before, in a hasty and ill-considered manner, they agree to the action of the Police and Sanitary Committee in setting aside the general law of the land in this case for the purpose of putting pressure on the people of Bury. I shall be pleased to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the Lobby as a protest against what I consider a hasty and ill-considered attempt to force the House to proceed in an unnecessary way in the case of Bury which would establish a dangerous precedent.

As I understood the arguments of the right hon. Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) they were in great part based on the fact that, owing to the existing system of rating, the Bill might press unfairly on a certain portion of the population. Even if it be so, as a Member of the Committee which sat on the Bill, I believe the evil is such a great one, that a question like the incidence of taxation in Bury is a small one in comparison. I have no connection with Lancashire, Cheshire, or any of the districts affected, and I say that if the House had heard the evidence it would recognise that the Bill is a necessity. It is no figure of speech, but a plain fact to say that the rivers of the district are open sewers. The population on the rivers' banks is increasing, and manufacturing works are proceeding rapidly, so that the evil is a growing one which must be dealt with. The Committee examined the matter carefully and impartially, and came to the conclusion that the existing law is inadequate to deal with it properly, and that in order to secure the health of the district the Bill is an absolute necessity. I hope the House will allow the Bill to pass.

I believe this Bill is a matter of urgent necessity for the district. I happen to have a certain interest in the Bill, as I believe my works send dye stuff into the river, and so far we may come under the Act. But, whatever inconvenience it may cause to us and other manufacturers, it is of urgent importance to Lancashire. The Manchester Ship Canal cannot be worked unless the Bill is passed. No attempt has been made to put an end to the pollution of the streams, and no hindrance ought to be put in the way of their improvement.

As another Member of the Committee I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) with considerable interest, and after doing so and hearing the speech of the hon. Baronet opposite, I have come to the absolute conclusion that nothing remains for the Members of the Committee but to stand by one another. I was unable to be in the Committee the last two days, but the evidence I did hear tended to show that the Manchester Ship Canal would be nothing less than an open sewer unless the Bill were passed. Evidence in support of that was given by the County Councils of Cheshire and Lancashire, and I shall, therefore, support the right hon. Baronet.

I wish to correct one point of fact. The hon. Baronet said that the representatives of the Bury Council before the Committee had agreed to the scheme. As a matter of fact, a very able representative, Mr. Maxwell, dissented from it.

After this rather decisive majority, I shall not pursue the matter further.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that, on the 22nd instant, when a battery of Royal Artillery were quartered in Newcastle West, two police constables, named M'Garry and Dougal, obtained and wore military uniforms for the purpose of obtaining drink at prohibited hours; and whether it was with the knowledge of the officers of the Royal Artillery that these uniforms were given to the police, or how did they get them?

On the day in question a battery of Artillery, practising at Glenbeigh, was billeted at Newcastle West, and the police station was used as a guard-room. Several constables are reported to have tried on the men's jackets; but none were seen to enter a public-house, and no report on the subject was made to the commanding officer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Constables M'Garry and Dougal, who on the 22nd instant at Newcastle West put on military uniforms belonging to the Royal Artillery for the purpose of inducing certain licensed victuallers to supply them with intoxicating drinks at prohibited hours, were acting in accordance with the rules of the police service in so disguising themselves without the authority of their officers; and, if not, whether any and what punishment will be inflicted? I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that M'Garry was twice fined for breach of the police rules?

No, I cannot say that I am aware of anything of the kind. I do not know anything about it. The constables, in disguising themselves in the manner referred to by the hon. Member, were not acting according to the rules of the police service. The whole proceeding appears to have been undertaken solely on their own responsibility. The constables have been warned against a repetition of the proceedings.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to the knowledge of the Lord Chancellor that Mr. Thomas Ferguson, J.P., of Banbridge, is one of the principals in the firm of Dixon, Ferguson, and Company, linen manufacturers, of Banbridge; whether he is aware that this firm compounded with their creditors, paying only twelve shillings in the pound; and whether, under these circumstances, he intends to continue Mr. Ferguson in the Commission of the Peace and vice-guardianship of the Poor; how long has Mr. Ferguson absented himself from Petty Sessions; and for what reason did he neglect his magisterial duties in Court while acting as Vice Guardian of the Poor Law Board?

I am informed that the reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph of the question is in the negative. It is not a fact that the firm mentioned compounded with their creditors, paying only twelve shillings in the pound. Mr. Ferguson does not appear to have attended Banbridge Petty Sessions for some time past, but he may have performed other magisterial act. The Banbridge Petty Sessions are well attended by the local Magistrates; and this gentleman is not a Vice Guardian of the Poor Law Board.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although this arrangement has been made, this gentleman continues to act as a Justice of the Peace, and whether the Lord Chancellor intends to take any action in the matter?

I have answered the question as it stands on the Paper. I do not know anything of the local circumstances; but I think, unless the act complained of was done in Court or in connection with the discharge of magisterial duties, the Lord Chancellor would not interfere.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state the full result of the inquiries into the case of the Rev. Edward Burdett Hawkshaw, the Chairman of the Ross Bench of Magistrates; whether Mr. Hawkshaw has been asked if it is or is not true that for a number of years he knowingly wore the hood of a Master of Arts in conducting the services of the church, although he knew that he was only a Bachelor of Arts, and what reply he made; whether Mr. Hawkshaw has also been asked if he continued this practice until he was obliged to take the degree of Master of Arts in order to qualify himself for the prebendal stall in Hereford Cathedral; and if in the first instance he accepted the offer of the stall without disclosing to the Bishop that he was only a Bachelor of Arts, and what reply he made; and whether, if no information has yet been received as to these allegations, further inquiries will at once be made?

I must refer the hon. Member to an answer I gave him on the 23rd of last month, to which I have nothing to add. The Lord Chancellor informs me that he has not made the particular inquiries suggested by the hon. Member, and he does not propose to make them; considering that they should, if made at all, be made through the Ordinary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion which he gave us on the 23rd of last month on the Fifteenth Canon is contrary to the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give any other instance in which a clergyman, who has for years practised such a deception, and has rendered himself liable to suspension, has been allowed to remain on a Bench of Magistrates?

If the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a different opinion from that which I have given as to the interpretation of the Fifteenth Canon, I have no doubt that he is right and that I am wrong. But the hon. Member goes on to ask whether, assuming certain things, I approve or do not approve of something. All I have to say is that it is no part of my duty as Home Secretary to express any opinion as to breaches of the Canon Law.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will ask the Lord Chancellor to express an opinion as to whether a man who has practised a gross deception for years is fit to be the Chairman of a County Bench of Magistrates.

Order, order!

Send him over to Ireland.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the postal authorities refused to erect receiving boxes in Gortmore and Campsie, Omagh, on the recommendation of the Omagh Town Commissioners, and on whose application they removed the receiving box from George's Street to High Street, which removal the Commissioners recommended only contingent on the erection of a new box at Gortmore; and why this box has been removed from George's Street to a position further from Gortmore than formerly?

According to the usual rule of the Department, the circumstances would not have justified the erection of additional letter boxes at Omagh, in the positions recommended by the Town Commissioners. The distance from existing receptacles is only about 120 (Campsie) and 220 (Gortmore) yards respectively, and the number of letters likely to be posted is very small. The pillar box in George's Street was inconveniently situated, and was, moreover, too small for the correspondence posted in it. It was, therefore, removed, and a larger box was placed in a prominent position in the High Street, only 25 yards from the original site.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the inequality that prevails as regards the hours of work, the rate of pay, and the annual leave of the warders in English and Irish Convict Prisons; whether the hours of duty in Irish prisons average 80 per week, and are fixed at the pleasure of the Governor of each prison; how many warders in Mountjoy Convict Prison asked for their annual leave in the year 1891, and how many obtained it; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of shortening the hours-of duty, and increasing the pay and the annual leave of the warders in Irish prisons, so as to put them on an equality in those respects with the warders in English prisons?

I daresay it is a fact that the hours of work and the rate of pay will not correspond in all respects in the English and Irish convict prisons. With regard to the annual leave, I am informed that a comparison of the rules shows that the leave is greater in Ireland than in England; and I am told that there is no case, where the circumstances have justified it, that leave has not been given. The hon. Member asks me how many warders have asked for and have-been granted annual leave in Mountjoy Convict Prison in 1891. I am told that there were fifty-two warders in Mountjoy Convict Prison who applied for annual leave in 1891. Of these forty-seven obtained leave, four obtained1 it when their turn on the rota arrived, and one was removed to another prison before leave was granted. So far as I can judge, there is nothing in the circumstances of the case to call for any alteration. Of course, the question of the hours of work and the rate of pay are questions upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have something to say. I am not aware that there is any real grievance in the matter. In fact the matter, I believe, has been already considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the matter was considered some time ago, and that certain recommendations were made some years ago which have not been carried out yet? I further wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any objection to allow warders in the convict prisons to come over from Ireland to give evidence before the Labour Commission; and whether he will give them a guarantee that they will not be punished by the Government when they go back for the evidence they may give?

No, Sir; I do not think that the labour performed by men in the position of warders in prisons in Ireland is a subject which should be brought before the Labour Commission.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is now the number of pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary receiving a lower pension than that to which they claim to be entitled by reason of the general adoption of the recommendations of the Commission of 1872, with respect to increase of the rates of pension payable to men at that time serving in the force; what is the annual amount involved in the claim of this particular class; whether they correctly represent that, whilst the recommendation in their regard as to pension has been disregarded, the recommendation as to pay had been acted upon during their continuance in the service; and whether their case will be re-considered?

Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat the question, as, owing to the number of circumstances to be inquired into, I am not prepared to answer it at present.

had notice of the following question: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has now decided on any course with reference to Government lighters discharging mud on the fishing-grounds off Sheerness; whether he will take steps to put an end to this wanton destruction of nets and gear; and whether he is aware that private and municipal barges are prohibited, under heavy penalties, from discharging on these fishing grounds, and that Dockyard lighters alone are privileged to create this nuisance?—The hon. and gallant Gentleman said: I have been informed that the First Lord of the Admiralty will not be present till after the Recess, and as the matter is urgent I beg to give notice that on the Navy Estimates I shall move a reduction of the Vote.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Coroner's jury at the inquest held at Atherton on Friday, 12th February, 1892, and the local medical doctor who attended Edward Sandiland before his death, stated that death was primarily due to inhaling the fumes of an exploded shot of roburite; is he aware that, when certain experiments were being made by the Lancashire colliery managers, who compose the Geological Society, into the safety or otherwise of roburite, at which Mr. H. Hall, Mines Inspector, was present, they came to the conclusion that in such experiments at the moment of explosion they had seen a "glare"; and if he can explain why Mr. Hall (Inspector) is now pressing the use of roburite on the colliery managers of Lancashire, in some cases against their wish and the wish of the miners, as, in their judgment, it entails not only a serious monetary loss, but is entirely unnecessary, and a serious injury to their health?

Yes, Sir, as I informed the hon. Member himself on the 29th of last April, I received a Report from Mr. Gerrard, the Inspector of the district concerned in this case, the effect of which I communicated to the House. The hon. Member only placed this question on the Paper last night, and I have had no opportunity of inquiring into the statements made in the second and third paragraphs of it. But I have no reason to believe that roburite, when used with the proper precautions to which I referred in my former answer, is injurious to health; and I know nothing which confirms the imputation made against Mr. Hall by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been and are being taken to provide labourers cottages and allotments for labourers in and around the village of Kill, County Kildare; whether the majority of houses occupied by labourers have been condemned by Sanitary Authorities for years past as unsanitary and incommodious; and whether he is aware that the main opposition to allotments and erection of such cottages proceeded from the local landowner; and, if so, whether steps will be immediately taken to provide the required plots and cottages?

The hon. Member has been good enough to put several questions down to-day on the subject of labourers cottages. I am sorry to say I have not had time to get answers to them. I need hardly say that these questions were only put down last night, and this morning I telegraphed over to the Local Government Board for the information; but I think with regard to most of these questions the Local Government Board will have to communicate with the Local Authorities.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell me what has been done about labourers cottages in Antrim?

I believe there is a question put to me on that subject.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the labourers in the Ballymena Union to the number of two hundred and fifty have presented a Petition with the view of getting some cottages built in that Union; and also whether he is aware that the labourers in Antrim complain that they are being treated by the various Unions in Antrim like dogs, as is stated in a document which I have in my hand, signed by the representatives of three hundred labourers in Antrim?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Committee appointed by the Board of Guardians of Ballymena Union to inquire into the representations made under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts from various Electoral Divisions in the Union recommended the erection of a number of new houses; that on the 21st May the Board of Guardians rejected the schemes recommended by the Committee for the Electoral Divisions of Ballyscullion, Ahoghill, Galgorm, Lisnagarron, and Port Glen one; whether the Board of Gruardians have adopted any scheme for any Electoral Division; and, if so, which Division; whether the Local Government Board has received copies of the representations made to the Ballymena Union, and the reasons of the Board of Guardians for not acting upon them; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction existing amongst the labourers at the action of the Board of Guardians, the Local Government Board will direct a local inquiry to be held and a Report to be made with respect to the correctness of the representations and the matters connected therewith?

It appears that the Guardians of Ballymena Union adopted on the 19th April their Committee's Report recommending the erection of twenty-eight cottages, but at their meeting on the 21st May last, for the purpose of making the necessary improvement scheme, a majority of the Guardians present rejected the proposal. The Local Government Board are, however, advised that it is imperative on the Guardians, when a resolution in favour of an improvement scheme has been passed, to proceed with the scheme and give effect to it. The Local Government Board are now addressing the Guardians to this effect.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps have been taken in the Mallow Union to carry out Scheme 6 under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; and, if not, for what reasons?

I am sorry I have not been able to get information with regard to this matter, and that I am, therefore, unable to answer the question.

I will put it down again for next Thursday.

I would prefer that it should be put down for Monday.

I have a number of other questions addressed to the Chief Secretary, and I want to know which ones he will answer.

I am not sure which questions the hon. Member wishes to have answered besides the questions which he has put about labourers cottages. Does he wish the question about the fisheries answered?

Yes, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether policemen in Ireland are now permitted to summarily arrest men charged by the police effecting the arrest with alleged poaching; and whether it is the duty of men in the Royal Irish Constabulary to act as river bailiffs of salmon fisheries?

I have applied to the Fishery Commissioners for information on this subject, and I have to say that under several Acts it is the duty of the police to act as river bailiffs in certain cases; and I believe they have power under certain Acts also to make arrests.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot have read my question. I wish to know whether it is the duty of the police to act as river bailiffs of salmon fisheries? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with regard to Bandon River particularly, certain District Inspectors have taken an important fishery; and the men under their command are being taken away from their duty to act as bailiffs for the protection of the salmon fishery of the district?

It is not the duty of the police to act as river bailiffs with reference to the protection of private interests; but it is their duty under certain Acts to act in certain cases as river bailiffs in defence of public and general interests.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will now advise the Government to make a grant for the purpose of executing the improvements necessary to render Rush Harbour, County of Dublin, a source of safety to the fishing boats which are in the habit of frequenting it, as well as to those boats owned by fishermen living in Rush; whether he is aware that at present the Rush boats are obliged to take refuge in Howth or Skerries during the months from November to May, over 100 fishermen being thus compelled to walk several miles to and from their boats each time they land during that period; and whether there is now any money left of the Sea Fisheries Fund of 1883 which might be applied to the purposes of Rush Harbour?

The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to answer this question. I have made enquiries, but I have not been able to verify the accuracy of the second paragraph. There are no funds available under the Fishery Piers Act of 1883 for the improvement of Rush Harbour; and my information leads me to conclude that, should funds become available, this is not the most pressing case which would demand the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin applied to the Chief Secretary and had a long correspondence with him on the subject when he was Secretary to the Treasury; and I think that the facts will be found to be—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the original estimate for the Greystones Harbour, County Wicklow, by the Engineer of the Board of Works, was £10,000; that, to make up this sum, the Piers and Harbours Commissioners, under the Act of 1883, 46 & 47 Vic. c. 26, made a free grant, out of the £250,000 granted by that Act, of 88,500, and that the balance was made up according to the Report of the Inspectors of Fisheries for 1890 by a contribution of £500, and a loan secured by the locality of £1,000; while, according to the Return to Parliament, dated 5th April, 1892, No. 153, the expenditure on this harbour was £17,870, and a further sum of £2,087, estimated to complete the works, making a total of nearly £20,000 instead of £10,000 as originally contemplated; and was this additional £10,000 given as a free grant out of the £250,000; and, if so, has it been made on the recommendation of the Piers and Harbours Commissioners, to whom the allocation of this £250,000 was entrusted by the Act of 1883, or were they consulted in the matter; and, if not, on whose authority has it been done?

The original sanction was for £10,000 — namely, £8,500 free grant, £1,000 loan, and £500 local contribution. An expenditure of £2,957 over the estimate was authorised by the Treasury on the 16th December, 1889. The erection of the north groyne, a separate work not at first contemplated, was authorised by the Treasury in August, 1890, at a cost of £7,000, from the balance of the Sea Fisheries Fund, with the concurrence of the Irish Government. The Piers and Harbours Commissioners ceased to exist under the Act 52 & 53 Vic. c. 71, so that the further expenditure was not incurred on their recommendation.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if it is a fact that the standard required for qualification as interpreter in the Russian language was raised in the recent examination without notice, and that, in consequence, no officer qualified; and having regard to the time and money spent by them in the study thereof, if the unsuccessful candidates will be allowed to present themselves again at the next Army language examination, and be afforded such facilities as are possible for local study?

No, Sir, the standard of qualification for Russian interpreters has not been raised. Unsuccessful candidates can present them- selves at any future examination. As regards facilities for local study, special leave of absence for six months is-allowed by the Queen's Regulations to officers qualifying for interpreters. The question of extension beyond this period has been referred to the Adjutant General for the consideration of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention, or the attention of the police, has been directed to the details given in the reports in the London and sporting papers of 31st May, of the prize fight for £2,000, between Jackson and Slavin on the previous day at the National Sporting Club; whether he is aware that the gloves which the combatants use in these fights are merely for the purpose of evading the law, and that in some respects the blows given by them are more severe and injurious than if they fought with bare fists, and whether he will give instructions to the police to put a stop to these fights, and to prosecute those who promote and attend them? Having regard to the answer given to the question which was asked yesterday on this subject, I shall only ask the second part of the question now.

I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave yesterday upon this subject, except that the police, as the Commissioner informs me, were not present on the occasion.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that Lord Lonsdale, who presided on this disgraceful occasion, was so ashamed of the whole proceeding, especially as to the number present, that he asked the representatives of the Press not to state the number of those who were present?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if, having regard to the difficulty of obtaining adequate charitable contributions at the present time owing to financial depression and the expenditure of over £1,000,000 upon the General Election, and the limited number of persons having a personal interest in Mauritius, the Government propose to seek a Parliamentary subvention towards the relief of the widespread ruin in the Colony caused by the recent hurricane?

I will answer this question on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has received from the Government of Mauritius a request that Her Majesty's Government would guarantee a loan of £600,000 for the purpose of meeting the wants and necessities created by the recent hurricane and providing funds for certain public works. Her Majesty's Government have taken this request into consideration without a moment's delay, and they have decided to ask Parliament to grant assistance in the manner asked by the Government of Mauritius. The decision of Her Majesty's Government will be communicated to the Government of the Colony without delay.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by which section of the Building Societies Act, or by which clause of the Treasury Regulations, is the Wishaw Building and Investment Society obliged, in order to obtain registration of a complete alteration of its rules, to change its name to the Wishaw Investment and Building Society?

There are no Treasury Regulations applicable to Building Societies. By Regulation 5 of the Secretary of State's Regulations "the Registrar before registering a new set of rules"—termed in the regulations a complete alteration—"shall ascertain that it is in conformity with the Building Societies Acts." By Section 44 of the Building Societies Act, 1874, and the Schedule of forms, the rules are not in conformity with the Acts unless the last words of the name are "Building Society."

I beg to ask the-Secretary to the Treasury whether he will have any objection to grant a Return of promotions from the second division of the Civil Service to Staff or other appointments in Ireland, giving the position to which appointed, the rate of salary attached thereto, the present salaries of the occupants, their years of service, and the rates of salary of the different grades opened up to them by their promotion from the second division?

I do not consider that such a Return would serve any useful purpose, or justify the labour which its preparation would involve.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will soon be in a position to state what steps, if any, will be taken to deal with the present very serious dearth of officers in the Volunteer Service?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given personal attention to this subject; and as he is now abroad and cannot be present, perhaps my hon. Friend will kindly put the question to him on his return.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is Captain Lugard, now reported to be in Uganda, a commissioned officer; is he under the orders of the Foreign Office, the War Department, or any other Government Department, or is he exclusively under the instructions of the East Africa Company; do his instructions from any Government Department permit him to levy offensive war, or do they confine him to purely defensive operations; and has he received any special instructions from the Foreign Office, or from any Government Department, as to his conduct towards the Catholic tribes or towards any Catholic missionaries who may be in Uganda?

Captain Lugard, D.S.O., is a Captain in the Norfolk Regiment, from which he is absent on leave granted by the Commander-in-Chief. He is exclusively under the instructions of the British East Africa Company, and has received no special instructions as to his conduct from any Government Department.

I now wish to ask whether Captain Lugard and Captain Williams held regular commissions from the East Africa Company; and, if so, whether the Company have power to grant military commissions?

This question may arise out of the answer I previously gave to the hon. and gallant Member; but I think he will see that it is a question upon which we should have to refer for information to the British East Africa Company. It would be impossible to answer the question until it appears in proper course upon the paper.

Has the Company power to grant commissions?

That again, I take it, is a matter of the construction of the Charter of the Company, and would require some consideration. I should not like to answer it offhand.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that in the proposed Provisional Regulations the Suez Canal Company restrict their authorisation for the passage of bulk petroleum steamers on the canal to vessels built under Lloyd's and Bureau Veritas Registers, thereby excluding all vessels built under the Registers of Austria and Hungary, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, the United States, and Norway, he will now see in this a locus standi for Her Majesty's Government to interfere and prevent force and effect being given to the Provisional Regulations, and whether the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed by the British Government called attention to this exclusion; and whether the attention of the Maritime Powers has been called to this alleged misuse of its charter by the Suez Canal Company?

The condition which the Suez Canal Company must observe is to treat the flags of all nations equally. If this condition is not satisfied by the Provisional Regulations, it would not be for Her Majesty's Government, but for the Government of the Power which considers its interests to be injured, to take such steps as may be necessary. The consideration of this question did not fall within the scope of the functions of the Inter-Departmental Committee.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the fact that the petition against the admission of petroleum tank steamers into the Suez Canal was signed by nearly all the English firms of shipowners, Her Majesty's Government, as representing the nation having four-fifths of the whole of the traffic through the canal, would be willing to use its influence, as by far the largest shareholder, to obtain the withdrawal of the provisional regulations recently issued by the Board of Directors of the Canal Company?

There has been no petition against the admission of petroleum tank steamers into the Suez Canal. The petitions presented to Her Majesty's Government have been against the regulations under which the passage of petroleum tank steamers is to be conducted. If the action suggested by the hon. Member were to be successful, and if the provisional regulations were withdrawn, petroleum tank steamers would claim to pass through the canal without any regulations whatever.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what post Major A. C. Talbot now occupies in Persia; what was the date of his appointment; whether he had previously served in any post on the Persian Gulf; what office he held in March, 1890; and whether there is any truth in the allegation that he made use of his official position in Persia to obtain a concession for the purchase and sale of tobacco in that country?

Major A. C. Talbot now occupies the post in Persia of Consul General for the Provinces of Fars and Khuzistan and for the coasts and islands of the Persian Gulf. He resides at Bushire. He was appointed in December, 1891. He had not previously served in any post in Persia or on the Persian Gulf. In March, 1890, he was Acting Consul General at Baghdad. There is no truth whatever in the allegation that he made use of his official position to obtain the concession referred to, which was granted a year and nine months before Major Talbot's appointment in Persia.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the hardship imposed upon officers of the Indian Army, and other officials of the Indian Government, by the payment of their furlough allowances in this country quarterly in arrear; and whether he will consider the advisability of substituting monthly for quarterly payments?

Yes, Sir, the subject has been for some time under consideration, and I hope to be in a position to announce the decision before long.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to the Indian Medical Record Calcutta, 1st April, 1892, page 129, second column, which contains the following extract from the Presidential Address of Deputy Surgeon General C. Sibthorpe, Indian Medical Service, to the Burma Branch of the British Medical Association:—

"Dr. Donelly says close on 6,000 (six thousand) persons passed through the General Hospital, native troops and followers—only 400 (four hundred) recovered to return to their duties in the field. The condition of their followers is described as being deplorable, and this was not always duo to malaria or actual disease, but was in a great measure produced by a want of food suitable for persons no longer in robust health";

The Secretary of State has not seen the paper referred to, but he will send a despatch on the subject to the Government of India.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether three men employed at the Pwllheli Post Office, and who had been in the Postal Service ten, three, and two years respectively, recently received notice of dismissal; whether they were dismissed in spite of the postmaster's remonstrances; whether they were well conducted and efficient employees; and what were the grounds of their dismissal?

The growth of business at the office in question rendered it expedient to place it on a more regular footing; that is to say, that most of the persons employed should be salaried by the Department, instead of the postmistress receiving a large allowance to expend on assistance at her discretion. Nothing is known in the Department to the effect of the second, third, and fourth paragraphs; on the contrary, it was understood that the assistants had been frequently changed; but inquiry will be made.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state when an official reply will be given to the Petition of the supervisors, officers, and assistants, of the Inland Revenue, which was forwarded to the Board of Inland Revenue for transmission to the Treasury on 27th May, 1891?

I hope it may be possible to send an official reply at no distant date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board refused to grant a sworn inquiry asked for by Mr. Terence Byrne, a candidate at the last election of Guardians at the Shillelagh Union, into the conduct of that election, on the ground that the Board considered the explanations of the Returning Officer satisfactory; whether he is aware that Mr. Byrne made certain charges against the Returning Officer of having disallowed eight votes duly recorded for him, and allowed certain other votes which he alleges were illegal for his opponent, Mr. Casey, who was declared elected by a majority of two votes, and that Mr. Byrne charges the Returning Officer with having acted as a partisan of Mr. Casey, and states his willingness to support his charges and allegations on oath if the inquiry is granted; whether, under these circumstances, he will recommend the Board to re-consider their decision, and grant a sworn inquiry as in the case of Cork, where, as in this case, forgery and other malpractices are alleged; and whether he is aware that since the refusal of the Board to grant the inquiry, Mr. Byrne, the defeated candidate, has sent to the Local Government Board a sworn delaration in support of his charges, and that Mr. Thomas Kingston, whose votes were disallowed by the Returning Officer on the ground that they were signed with his mark, and which, if allowed, would have given Mr. Byrne a majority of legal votes, has also forwarded to the Board a sworn declaration that he could not write, and that his votes were filled for Mr. Byrne by his authority, and his mark attached to each?

I am not able to answer the question, and I should be glad if the hon. Member would put down the question for another day.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the decision in the case of "Lyons v. Champey" by the Court of Appeal in Ireland in November, 1889, where the headnote prefixed to the Report of the case says that "the town clerk may and should insert the successive premises in his list"; and whether, if so, he will now re-consider his determination to give no directions to the clerks of Unions to obey the law as laid down by the Court of Appeal?

I have referred to the authorised Report of the case mentioned by the hon. Member in his question, and I find that he has been entirely misinformed. There is no such headnote as he speaks of.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. C. J. Kenealy, newspaper editor, of Kilkenny City, has applied for and obtained special police protection; what was the date of Mr. Kenealy's application, and the grounds upon which he sought police protection; and whether the cost, or any portion of it, is to be borne by the ratepayers of Kilkenny?

I do not feel that I should be justified in giving details of the applications made from time to time.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have yet decided to extend the scheduled area of Dublin, so as to allow the Dublin cowkeepers to send their stock to grass; and, if not, whether the Government are prepared to compensate them for their losses from not being allowed to use the grass for which they have paid in advance before this Order was made, and the additional cost of having to feed their stock at greater cost within doors; and whether the Government have considered the advisability, both in the interest of the public health of Dublin and of the cattle trade, of having all dairy cattle removed outside the city and giving compensation to the cow-keepers?

The Government have decided that it will not be possible to extend the scheduled area of Dublin so as to allow the Dublin cowkeepers to send their stock out to graze in the manner suggested. There have been continuous outbreaks within the scheduled district, and I am sorry to say that even within the area in which there is grazing within the scheduled district we have had several serious outbreaks which are evidently due to the fact that the cows have been allowed to be sent into that district. So far as I am advised, it is absolutely necessary to endeavour to restrict the area as much as possible. We are taking every precaution possible to stamp out the disease, and I did hope that we were making some progress. I have heard, I regret to say, of another outbreak in the district of Belfast, near to Lisburn; we have had several outbreaks within the scheduled area, and at present it would be quite impossible for the Government to relax the Orders. They must rather be enforced even more stringently with the view to trying to stamp out the disease in Ireland.

Is this outbreak of an infectious or noninfectious description; and has the right hon. Gentleman only got to assist him the veterinary authorities of Dublin Castle, who are two young gentlemen?

I think the hon. Gentleman is extremely unfair to the medical officers at Dublin Castle. I have the greatest confidence in their ability and judgment — they have devoted themselves to their task, as I can state of my own personal knowledge, with the most assiduous attention. Not only have they worked on lines laid down by themselves, but we have been in constant communication with the Board of Agriculture, who have most willingly placed at our disposal all the information and assistance they could give us; and I am certain that nothing has been left undone by the Irish Office. So far, therefore, from receiving blame in this House, they deserve the greatest praise. The pleuro-pneumonia existing in the Dublin District is that known as contagious pleuro-pneumonia, and is not of a noninfectious character.

Is it not the fact that Dublin is the seat of the disease, and would it not be possible to have the cows removed outside the city into buildings better suited to them? Did the deputation which waited upon the right hon. Gentleman state their willingness to do so on reasonable compensation being given; and would it not be a wise application of the funds at the disposal of the Government if they took that step at once?

I think the House will see that the hon. Gentleman raises a very large question, because if real effect were to be given to his suggestion—I do not say that it is not a suggestion that might be in itself effective—it would involve, in the first place, that the Government should build outside the Dublin scheduled district now sheds for all who have buildings in that district, and should compensate them for the property which they possess in Dublin; but I think we should have to go a step further before we were certain that we had got rid of the disease and that step would be the slaughter of all the cattle within the scheduled district. That is a very serious step, and I believe we are not entitled to expect from those who have the cattle in the scheduled district—I am making no complaint against them in saying this; they have given great assistance to us—that they are prepared to take that step, however much it might be to their interests, and still more largely to the interests of Ireland, that we should do everything possible to stamp out the disease.

Have the Castle authorities taken any outside evidence as regards this question of infection; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain veterinary surgeons in Dublin have given it as their opinion that the disease is of a non-infectious character?

How is the Veterinary Department to stamp out the disease—

Order, order! I must call the attention of the House to the manner in which the hon. Gentleman is asking questions. He not only asks questions, but he makes a speech, and puts a great number of arguments into his supplementary questions. It is impossible to carry on questions if every hon. Member abused his right in the way in which the hon. Member does.

Perhaps you will allow me to say—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Detective Superintendent Black, of Birmingham, was specially rewarded by the Home Office for his services in a Government prosecution; and, if so, what was the case, and whether it is usual for the Home Office to reward constables under the control of Provincial Corporations; and whether Superintendent Black has yet taken any legal proceedings against the newspapers that circulated reports reflecting on his character in connection with a proposed public testimonial to him, which the promoters abandoned; and, if not, whether he proposes to cause a sworn inquiry to be held into these charges?

In 1883–4 a Supplementary Vote was granted by Parliament to pay rewards awarded by Government to police and others through whom persons concerned in dynamite outrages were detected and brought to justice. The Vote was distributed among various police forces, including Birmingham, and Mr. Black received £100. The grant of such rewards to officers of Provincial Police Forces is exceptional. Mr. Black, in April last, commenced an action for libel against the newspaper in which appeared the defamatory statements to which the hon. Member for South Tipperary (Mr. John O'Connor) called attention in this House. I am informed by Mr. Black's solicitors that an apology, at the expense of the defendants, has been published in the London, Birmingham, and Manchester papers, expressing regret for the untrue statements made against Mr. Black, and that the defendant newspaper has paid all Mr. Black's out-of-pocket expenses and the costs of the action which he had commenced.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the report in the Irish Daily Independent of the 30th ultimo, of a meeting held in Limerick on Sunday, 29th ultimo, in connection with the unsatisfactory state of the Limerick Fisheries, and whether he can say when the sworn inquiry promised by the Irish Government will be held, and when the election for the two vacancies on the Board of Conservators will be held?

I am informed that the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries will hold an inquiry into the application of the Shannon fishermen to be permitted to use large nets at as early a date as is practicable. The Inspectors have no power to interfere with regard to the election of Conservators.

That is exactly the answer given by the Fishery Authorities two years ago, and the inquiry has not been held yet.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of future contracts for slates for barrack buildings in Ireland, he will consider the propriety of giving a preference to the Killaloe slate quarries in the interest of promoting Irish industry, provided their slates are found to satisfactorily compete with those of the Welsh quarries as to price and quality?

In all building work in Ireland for military purposes Irish materials are used, as far as possible, when they can be obtained of sufficiently good quality; and if Killaloe slate is found equal to Welsh slate we shall be most happy to use it.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the cause of the delay in proceeding with the new post office at Longford; and when will the work be completed?

It has been necessary to obtain fresh plans of the proposed post office building at Longford, and these are now being considered. As soon as they have been settled the matter will be pressed forward.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain on what grounds Mr. Henry Doran, who for nearly forty years was postmaster at Lenamore, County Longford, and who was obliged to retire through old age, has been refused a pension; and, if so, why?

No application for pension has been received. The sub-postmaster resigned on the 21st December last, owing, as he stated, to failing health. Under the circumstances of his employment, it would not be possible to obtain a pension for him.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can now lay upon the Table of the House the Report of Mr. Pelham on the proposed rifle range in the New Forest?

I laid the Report upon the Table this afternoon.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Return of land obtained by Rural Sanitary Authorities or County Councils under the Allotments Acts will be issued?

I am desired by the Local Government Board, in the absence of the President, to say that these Returns are not yet complete, although in the case of postponed Returns no less than three applications for them have been made. The Local Government Board are not in a position to specify the date when the Return will be issued.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a memorial signed by more than a thousand residents in Hitchin and its neighbourhood, with affidavits annexed thereto, respecting the conviction of George Waller and Charles Street for the unlawful possession of partridge and pheasant eggs; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter, either as to reconsideration of the decision of the Hitchin justices or the mitigation of the unusually severe sentence passed on the two men, neither of them having been convicted on any previous occasion?

I have received a memorial respecting the conviction of Waller and Street. After full consideration of the various statements made in it, I regret that I am unable to modify the opinion which I expressed in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Leicester on Monday last upon the evidence in this case, or to recommend a mitigation of the sentence.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the Spanish Treaty not being renewed, and the unfortunate contingency of reprisals being necessary by taxing more highly the wines consumed in the United Kingdom at a moment when many foreign wines, already in Her Majesty's bonded warehouses, have been shipped specially to meet the present scale of duties, which, for the most part, would only be suited for exportation if the duty were changed, he would minimise the disturbance to trade by at least conceding to such wines, landed in England previous to 30th June instant, the same advantage that Spain proposes in regard to British goods imported into Spain prior to that date, and allow them to pay the same rate of duty imposed at the period of their importation, thus avoiding the thorough disorganisation of the wine trade, and leaving the merchant free in future to ship such wines only as would be suited to the changed scale of duty?

My right hon. Friend has desired me to answer this question. No change in the duties can be made without legislation, and it does not appear probable that any such legislation could be passed during the course of the present Session.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware that the registrars' clerks and officials of County Courts, in which more than six thousand plaints are issued in one year, are under the complete control of the Treasury; whether in May, 1888, when the County Courts Bill was before the House, he authorised the late Mr. Bradlaugh to inform the Committee of County Court Officials that it was the intention of the Government to deal with the question of superannuation allowances generally by a separate Bill, and that, in consequence of this assurance, Mr. Bradlaugh refrained from pressing the claims of the County Court officials before the Grand Committee; and whether he proposes to carry out what was then arranged; and, if so, when?

I am informed that none of the registrars' clerks or officials of County Courts are under the control of the Treasury. I believe that the only communications between the late Mr. Bradlaugh and myself were public statements made in the Grand Committee on Law, during which I stated, upon the authority of the Treasury, that the question of superannuation allowances was to be dealt with by a separate Bill; but I do not know whether the late Mr. Bradlaugh took any action in consequence. No arrangement of any kind was made to which I was a party.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the judgment delivered in the Queen's Bench Division on 30th May, in the case of the "Queen v. H. T. Boddam and others," to the effect that, where more than one Municipal Borough exists within the limits of a Parliamentary Borough, the writ of election should be addressed to the Mayor of that borough which has the largest population; and whether the Clerk of the Crown, in issuing the writ, would be bound to act in accordance with that judgment?

My attention has not been called to the judgment referred to by the hon. Member, but the matter is controlled by Statute, and I am not aware that any difficulty has hitherto arisen.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he could state to the House how many missions Mr. Budge has undertaken to Mesopotamia, and what has been the cost of them; what antiquities he has brought back; from whom did he purchase them; and where is it alleged they were discovered?

Mr. Budge has made more than one journey to the East for the British Museum, the costs of which have been defrayed out of a special grant. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press for particulars on the subject, because I think that the utility of any action Mr. Budge may take in the future will be considerably impaired, to the great detriment of the Museum and of public learning, if his conduct were discussed in the House.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that grave doubts have been thrown on the researches of Mr. Budge, not only by those well qualified to speak on the question in England, but also by learned Societies in Germany and other places abroad.

I have every confidence in the judgment of the experienced officials of the British Museum in this matter. I am not well acquainted with the controversy to which the hon. Member has referred, but I do not think that any real ground for scepticism exists in the minds of those who are competent to judge.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Select Committee on Parliamentary Reporting will be called together?

I have made inquiries, and I am informed that the Committee will be called together at three o'clock on Friday next to choose a Chairman, and to determine the course of procedure.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now name the day for the promised discussion in this House on the Report of Lord Wantage's Committee?

As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Secretary for War unfortunately cannot be in his place in the immediate future on account of illness, and I am afraid the discussion will be shorn of a great deal of its interest and value in consequence; but a full opportunity will be given to my hon. and gallant Friend on Friday next for raising any point he may desire to raise on the Army Estimates. I propose to put those Estimates down as the first Order for that day, and to take first the particular Vote on which this question can be raised.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, though two attempts were made to form a quorum of the Standing Committee on Law yesterday the 2nd instant, at half-past twelve and again at half-past one, the Chairman had, in consequence of only ten Members out of the whole number of eighty -three being present, to declare the Committee adjourned; whether he is aware that the Committee now stands adjourned sine die; and whether, in view of the fact that it is now impossible for the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill to pass this Session, he will take the necessary steps for causing that measure to be withdrawn from further consideration by such Standing Committee?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, may I ask whether, having regard to the great importance of this Bill, and also the length of time it has been before Parliament, the right hon. Gentleman will make every possible effort to pass it into law this Session; and further whether he would give directions for the issue of a Government Whip for the sitting of the Committee?

I am very desirous that this Bill should pass into law. It is, no doubt, a fact that at the last meeting of the Standing Committee no quorum was made. I do not absolutely give up all hope of passing the measure, but we all know that any delay which occurs at such a critical period must greatly imperil the final passing of the measure.

Will the Grand Committee sit on Thursday next?

I doubt whether the Grand Committee will be fortunate enough to get a quorum on Thursday next.

May I ask a question—

Upon the same subject?

I want to ask whether Captain Lugard—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now state the result of his consideration of the claim of the Cavan Guardians, set out in a Petition to this House, in the matter of "Ryan v. the Guardians of the Cavan Union"?

The Local Government Board, Ireland, have satisfied me that there are sufficient reasons for postponing the consideration of this question till the collection of the August instalment of seed loan is complete. I cannot, therefore, add to what I have already said in answer to similar questions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the liability will be discharged?

That would be raising another question.

What other question could be raised except as to discharging the liability?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the complaints made by the fishermen of Howth and Rush, County of Dublin, and of other places on the east coast of Ireland, as to the practice of steam trawlers running deliberately through their lines; and whether, if those complaints are well founded, he will consider the desirability of devising some remedy for the hardship and loss thus inflicted on the fishing community?

I must make further inquiries with regard to this matter before I can reply to the question of the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have arrived at any decision with regard to the recommendations of the Special Committee appointed to report on the various proposed railway routes to the Western Highlands of Scotland; if so, whether he will inform the House what that decision is; and, if not, when he expects to be in a position to do so?

This matter has been engaging the attention of the Treasury, and negotiations in regard to one particular Railway are now in an advanced stage. Questions have arisen in the course of the negotiations, partly owing to the inherent difficulties of the case, and partly owing to the very natural view taken by the Railway Company in regard to their interests in the matter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the great inconvenience caused to the localities concerned by the delay in passing into law the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill, brought from the Lords, and which had its Third Reading in this House as long ago as 16th May last; and when it is proposed to give the Royal Assent to Bills that have arrived at that stage?

I think I can assure the hon. Member that immediately after the House resumes its Sittings attention will be called to the Bill.

May I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has put the Instruction which stood in his name on the Paper merely as a Notice, or whether he intends to move it to-day?

I think it would be for the general convenience that I should, in pursuance of the pledge I have given on the Second Reading, endeavour to bring up a clause giving power for the compulsory acquisition of sites for schools. I find it would require an Instruction to the Committee to enable me to put that clause in the Bill, and therefore, if hon. Members have no objection, I will move the Instruction, and go into Committee pro foumâ.

I quite approve of the Instruction, and consider it to be very valuable; but I should like to ask, after the debate on Monday, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, what arrangements will be made in regard to the Bill?

I should certainly consult the general convenience of the House.

I wish to ask the Speaker whether it is in Order for the First Lord of the Treasury to introduce the Motion for Adjournment on the Paper in the middle of the Orders of the Day? It is necessary that a notice of that kind should be taken at the commencement of business. I would draw attention to the fact that on Tuesday, 24th May, 1880, the Adjourned Debate on the Parliamentary Oaths Bill stood first on the Paper, and that Mr. Speaker Brand then held that the Motion for Adjournment over the Derby Day, which stood lower on the Paper, had the precedence. A singular disadvantage would be attached to the arrangement if the matter were brought on at ten minutes to seven, and any hon. Member wished to move an Amendment to it.

The ruling of my predecessor was given in 1882; but since that time, in 1888, a Standing Order has been passed allowing the Government to arrange its business, whether Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion, as they think fit, and that course has been followed on several occasions.

May I ask whether the Motion could be proceeded with if it were taken at ten minutes to seven, and were unopposed?

No.

I have put the Motion for Adjournment down where it is, not in the least with the view of excluding discussion, but simply in order to advance a stage with a large number of Bills on which only small points of controversy arise. If the hon. Gentleman desires to raise any particular point, I am quite ready to bring the Motion on, say, at six o'clock, ft would be very inconvenient if the present Sitting of the House extended beyond seven o'clock.

I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept as an Amendment the addition of these words "and residences for teachers." If there are no compulsory powers to acquire sites for the residences of the teachers at the schools the law will be rendered nugatory.

Order, order! I am sorry to say that that addition would be an enlargement of the Instruction which would require notice.

May I explain that without the addition I greatly fear the effect would be to defeat the object of the scheme of the Government? If notice be necessary, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to postpone his Instruction.

Probably the preferable course would be to put off the Instruction until the Amendment can be moved. Will the hon. Gentleman give notice now?

Yes, I give notice now.

I desire to move an Amendment to make the Bill non-retrospective; but if the Attorney General says there are not many cases—

From the information I have received I believe there are only three cases altogether to which the Bill will apply retrospectively.

Then I will not move the Amendment.

I should like some explanation of this Bill, because it is rather a novel proposal. What it provides is that the travelling expenses of Irish Poor Law Guardians should be paid in certain instances in which the Unions have been combining together for the purpose of building district schools. I am not aware at present of any case where Poor Law Guardians are paid for any purpose in Ireland, and the House will see that to introduce a proposal that the expenses of persons elected to do public duties should be paid out of the Union is a proposal which is novel, and one that must be considered and inquired into before giving it acceptance. The Bill provides that the travelling expenses of not only the Clerk, but also of the Guardians, should be paid out of the rates of the Union. I admit there is considerable protection in the fact that it must be submitted to the vote of the whole Board, and therefore the expenses of individual Guardians are likely to be keenly scrutinised; but I should like to have some further explanation from the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to the number of combinations of Unions now existing to which this Bill would apply; and I should like to know whether he would be prepared to lay before the House a Memorandum or Statement, in some definite form, of the probable number of cases in which the expenditure would arise?

The provisions of this Bill at present, so far as existing schools are concerned, would only apply to one school—

Is it an industrial school?

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I will state that just now. Under the Act there is power for Unions to combine together, and to provide what they call a joint school to which children from the workhouse may be sent in order to get them out of the atmosphere of the workhouse. When the Act was passed it was expected that a very large application would be given to the powers under this Act. As a matter of fact, there has been, up to the present time, only one such school in Ireland. In fact, I believe it was an old gaol that was turned into a school for the purpose. I think there are five Unions which have joined together to form this school. What happens is this: The school is managed by a Joint Board representative of the contributory Unions. The Guardians of the Union in which the school happens to be situate have, of course, no difficulty in attending the meetings of the Joint Committee; but with the Guardians in the other Unions the case is different. They have to travel distances varying from twelve to twenty-five miles, and as a consequence there is great difficulty in getting men to attend with punctuality. I believe it is partly owing to this cause that more of these schools have not been established. The Local Government Board have been memorialised to allow the locomotion expenses of Guardians who have to travel these long distances, and it has been thought only right to include the Clerk to the Board also. I may say that I have had letters from two Roman Catholic Bishops in Ireland strongly advocating the establishment of a larger number of these schools. This Bill, I have pointed out, will do something in that direction. There is a general consensus of opinion that if the children of persons in workhouses are removed into a separate school—

Do the children live at the schools?

Yes, Sir. They are taken away from the workhouses altogether, and I believe there is a general consensus of opinion that for the children themselves this is a great benefit. It is to enable Guardians, who have to travel long distances, to discharge their duties as members of the Joint Committee, that the expenses I have referred to are allowed. There is a similar power to that conferred in the Bill already existing in this country. It will be a very small matter in Ireland, but I think it is important, inasmuch as it will, in my opinion, lead to the establishment of more of these combined schools.

I think this Bill, although a small one, will prove to be useful. The fact is, some of the more efficient Guardians live several miles away from the place where the Joint Committee meet, and they have to incur considerable expense for travelling. It seems to me, therefore, that the proposal to allow them their travelling expenses is a step in the right direction, and I hope the Bill will be allowed to pass.

This Bill, as I understand, is introduced in redemption of a pledge given last year. The Rent Commissioners who hold their office in virtue of the Act of 1881, have a salary of £3,000 a year, and the Land Purchase Commissioners, who derive their tenure from the Act of 1885 have a salary of £2,000 a year, and it is in order to amend, as I believe, the disparity between the salaries of these two classes of Commissioners, whose functions are similar, that this Bill is introduced. I wish to ask if this Bill will really equalise the salaries of these different Commissioners?

In reply to the hon. Member I may say that this Bill is introduced, if not to redeem a pledge, at all events on the understanding come to in 1891 that when the duties of the Fair Rent Commissioners and the Land Purchase Commissioners became the same, and, in fact, interchangeable, there should be an equality in the pay. I believe it is the object of the Bill to carry into effect that understanding, and it is provided that each class of Commissioners have the option of receiving £3,000 a year without a pension or £2,500 a year with a pension. Of course, it is possible to equalise matters in one of two ways, either by raising the one or lowering the other. We have decided on the former method, but we hope to effect some economy later on, because when a vacancy occurs the number of the Commissioners will be reduced by one, and in that way we shall practically provide the money necessary to equalise the salaries.

I wish to say that strong objection is entertained by the London and other Chambers of Commerce, and the trade generally, to the provisions of this Bill, which are very restrictive, and calculated, it is thought, to unduly harass the carrying on of business. I, therefore, express that opinion, and I hope some material alterations will be made in the Bill in Committee.

): The object of the Bill is to add certain other works to those specified in the Schedule of the Alkali, &c. Works Regulation Act, 1881, and I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that it is desirable that at least some of the works included in the Schedule should be subject to certain restrictions.

Perhaps hon. Members would like me to say a few words with regard to this Bill. I may say that it does not deal with all the questions in the Irish County Courts, but it is useful as far as it goes. My attention was called by representatives of the mercantile community of England and Ireland to the difficulty and delay which arises in practically undefended cases in obtaining judgment for the recovery of small debts. This difficulty is of two kinds, both of which are attempted to be dealt with by the Bill. The first difficulty is that the Courts are not continuously sitting. An attempt is made to meet that by providing machinery by which a decree by default may be entered up in the office of the Clerk of the Peace for the amount of the claim; and, secondly, that in practically undefended cases, where the plaintiff lives at a distance he may, with the process, serve a notice in writing that he intends to rely in proof of his claim upon an affidavit made by himself or some other person mentioned, and call upon the defendant to state whether he requires the personal attendance of the plaintiff or of a witness on his behalf at the hearing. I am aware that a certain portion of the mercantile community wish to have more extensive reforms than this Bill provides; but my object has been to remove, as far as possible, the principal existing evils without making the Bill of such a contentious nature as might prevent its passing. However, I shall be ready to consider in Committee any suggestions which may be offered on behalf of the mercantile community and others.

I admit the difficulty of the subject with which the right hon. Gentleman has had to deal, and I am not aware of any sufficient reason for opposing the Bill in its present stage. I would like, however, to recall to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the interview which took place between himself and the representatives of the Dublin Mercantile Association, when the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the views of the mercantile community deserved the utmost consideration at the hands of the Government. Now, it is obvious that unless a Bill of this kind is satisfactory to that community it might as well not be passed. Since the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Bill representatives of that Association have communicated with me, and it does not appear from their communications that he has satisfied them in either of the matters to which he has alluded. They complain with energy that the Bill still leaves them in a position vastly inferior to those who have to go to the Courts in England and Scotland. Amongst other things, they ask for far more frequent systematic sittings of the Courts; and, secondly for the issue of decrees in undefended cases without going into open Court. The right hon. Gentleman only provides that the plaintiff may make an affidavit, whereas they ask that the defendant should be allowed to do so also. I believe this Bill is a well-meaning attempt to meet the difficulties urged by the representatives of the Dublin Mercantile Association, and, therefore, I shall not oppose it; but I respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he will do well, before the Bill reaches the Committee stage, to confer with the representatives of that Association, as the further progress of the Measure may depend upon the degree of concurrence which may be arrived at.

The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) is, no doubt, well acquainted with the views of the mercantile community of Dublin; but, at the same time, I look upon this Bill with a considerable amount of suspicion. I do not think it is a Bill that should be hurried through the House of Commons before farmers and others have been able to express their opinion about it. A complete change in the process of the law might be very injurious to a large number of people, and I do not think the Attorney General ought to make the action of the Bill retrospective. In my opinion it should only apply to debts incurred after the passing of this Act. It seems to me that this Bill as it stands might produce very unpleasant consequences, and I should not like to be responsible to my constituents for its provisions. If we were going to take the Committee stage in about a month there would be time for the country to consider it; but that is impossible, and I suggest to the Attorney General that he should take out the retrospective part of the Bill.

It appears to me that this Bill may be utilised for the recovery of rent, and if that is so it is certain to meet with most uncompromising resistance. I should like the Attorney General to make that point clear.

This question was raised at the meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce in Dublin. It was introduced by the Dublin Chamber, and the Bill only seeks to effect an alteration in procedure. It gives no additional powers. It was said in Dublin that there was great delay in the recovery of debts; that the sittings of the Courts were infrequent, and they have not the same processes of recovery as we have in England. This Bill is intended to still further assimilate the law in England and Ireland. The law has worked very well in England, the County Court process being speedy, cheap (except as to fees), and effective, and it is thought that what has been beneficial here will be beneficial elsewhere.

I should like to ask the Government whether they will take any steps to give us more information about Uganda? The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the other day declared that he expected despatches, but he did not say what ground he had for expecting them, and it appears to be very difficult to get information. I should like the Government to give us some idea of the position. How do they know that any news is on the way home? Will the Government, when this House meets on Thursday next, be able to give us any information? At present the state of things is most painful and distressing. We have got one side of the story from Continental sources, and according to the Continental journals this appears to be a most disgraceful affair. It appears as if the natives have been urged on by one side to massacre the Christians on the other. That, of course, is only the Continental statement. But, on the other hand, we have no information either to confirm or to contradict that statement. I think we ought to know what instructions Captain Lugard and his officers had. One would have thought that Captain Lugard would have been most anxious to send off despatches after events of this kind; and it is most painful that we should be compelled to listen to these allegations of the Continental Press without being able to make any reply whatever. I hope the Government will take whatever steps are necessary to secure information. If special messengers are necessary, the country would not grudge the expense, and I hope the Government will soon be able to place information before us.

I quite sympathise with the feelings of the hon. Member as to the absence of information, and I agree with him that it is very embarrassing, while statements are received of what has occurred in Uganda, or rather of what is alleged to have occurred, we have no means of checking the truth of these statements. I have no reason to complain of the way in which the hon. Member has treated this matter—I think he has dealt with the subject in a very proper way. He has attached no credence to the reports received through the German territory, and has treated them merely as rumours the value of which we are unable to test until we have received official information from Captain Lugard and those with him. But I must point out that we have no absolute security that we shall receive any information at an early date. We cannot invent the means of securing that information, and we have no reason to believe that we can do anything to accelerate the arrival of the despatches. It is a very difficult matter to make an estimate as to the arrival of the information which we all desire, and the only thing we can do is to wait for it. I must say I think the curiosity of the House upon this matter is perfectly natural; but, unfortunately, we are not in a position to satisfy it. We see no means by which the information sought for can be obtained; we see no means by which the advent of that information can be hastened; and, under these circumstances, I can only ask the hon. Gentleman to do what we shall be compelled to do—wait till the information arrives.

Nobody will, of course, assume that a case has been made out against the administration of the East Africa Company until we have heard both sides of the question. But what must have occurred to everybody, quite apart from the main issue on which we want information, is that you have a Chartered Company which assumes the responsibility—and a very great responsibility it is—of administering an immense territory. What we have a right to expect of a company exercising authority of that description is that it should be itself informed, and that the Government should be informed of what is being done under its authority. This is one of the first duties of a company which assumes the position taken up by this company. They have put a certain number of armed men in a savage country, and they, of course, are responsible for what takes place under the authority of their agent. I called the attention of the House some months ago to the condition of things in Uganda as described in Captain Lugard's first Report. It showed that religious feuds were in full blast at that time. It was a most alarming report, and distinctly suggested the idea that Uganda was not the place where the company ought to maintain a permanent chief settlement in East Africa. That was information which the company possessed more than twelve months ago, and that knowledge imposed upon them the responsibility of keeping themselves well informed as to what was going on in those territories. What has happened there, or what is said to have happened, is exactly that which was foreshadowed in the early despatches from Captain Lugard—a sort of religious civil war. Of course we have no accurate knowledge, but it is stated that, in addition to Captain. Lugard and his men, there are a large number of men who are the remnants of the force commanded by Emin Pasha in Equatoria; and I need not say that this is a very formidable force at Uganda. What has been the conduct of this company? I do not attribute to them any evil motive, but it does appear to me that they are far too weak for the business they have undertaken. No doubt there is a certain expense attaching to these caravans and convoys which, from time to time, bring intelligence from the interior, and which bring intelligence, as we understand, through the German sphere of influence. I asked the other day how it is that intelligence comes apparently so easily through the German sphere, and not at all through the British sphere. I do not think the answer I got from the Under Secretary was at all satisfactory. He said, in effect, "You will get more news when the railway is made." Are we to have no information till then? Is there a railway in the German sphere? Why is it this company gets no intelligence for nine months through its principal agent? It is curious to note that in the papers he presented Captain Lugard gave an estimate of the time and cost of these caravans, and he estimated that a caravan could be sent down from Uganda to Mombasa and return within six months. We have been nine months without a despatch from Captain Lugard. Why is this? Is it because the company are not disposed to undertake the cost of communication? It might have been supposed that, as no caravan arrived from Captain Lugard, the company would themselves have sent a caravan with the object of securing information. Now that the survey is being made for the railway this would surely be an easy matter. The tribes are friendly, and you can march through their territory as easily as you can go through Scotland. We are told that at this moment the surveying officers are within a hundred or a hundred and fifty miles of the lake. Where is the enormous difficulty in getting across that one hundred or one hundred and fifty miles? Information can be sent from the lake through the German sphere of influence; how is it they cannot manage to get information across that one hundred and fifty miles of country and send it through the British sphere in connection with the Railway Survey? The responsibility seems to me to rest on the Company. I do not blame the Government in the matter. They had a right to assume—and I suppose they did assume—they gave this company unlimited authority over this vast territory that they had the means of fulfilling the obligations and the responsibilities they had taken. So long as they leave not only this country, but the countries in Europe, in ignorance of what they are doing in that territory, they are not fulfilling the obligation they entered into when they undertook the responsibility of the administration of this territory. They are in Uganda with the British name at their mercy. If they have done wrong it is we who shall be held responsible for it, and the Government which gave them the authority will be responsible for it. I think there is an entire failure to keep the obligation on their part, due really, I believe, to that weakness the Company have shown throughout. When the company began to operate in that territory, they went as traders, to open up trade in East Africa, and it was represented that the trade was to be of enormous advantage to the people of this country. What trade have they done? I understand, on good authority, they have done no trade at all; that they have not attempted to do trade of any description in the whole of this great district for which they accepted the responsibility. The conclusion I arrive at is that this company is not in a position to do what it has undertaken. If it is to open up trade, why has it not done it? If it is to administer the country, why does it not keep the Government informed of the nature of the administration and the manner in which it is conducting the government of that district under the authority of the British Crown? If the condition of things is such at Uganda that within nine months we cannot get a despatch, it is totally different to what we were led to understand in the last Debate. We were told that this was a country where the British emigrant was to go and work and thrive, and British trade was to be abundantly developed. The present state of things is inconsistent with that description. Without casting any blame on the Government, I think it is quite right that we should hold them responsible for the position in which we now find ourselves, in which we are unable to answer these imputations—which I hope to be unfounded—which are cast on the honour of the British name.