I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he would explain why crews of War Department vessels at Woolwich Arsenal are compelled to wear uniform marked with the broad arrow, and pay for it a sum of £1 16s. 9d. each, out of their wages, while at Waltham Abbey uniform of the value of £5 each is supplied free to crews of War Department vessels?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. For purposes of discipline the crews of War Department vessels are required to provide themselves with uniform clothing suitable for seamen. As they have good wages, and this clothing is supplied as cheaply as ordinary sailors' clothes, no hardship arises. The barges carrying gunpowder and explosives constitute a separate and peculiar service. There are only about a dozen men employed, and for the last half-century, and probably for a much longer time, it has been the practice to supply each man yearly with a uniform costing about £2 14s. There is really no analogy between the two cases, and it is not proposed to make any alteration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can inform the House about how many Protestants there are in Ireland outside the province of Ulster?

The Registrar General reports that, according to the census of 1891, the number of persons returned as Roman Catholics in the provinces of Leinster, Munster, and Con-naught was 2,802,448, and of all other persuasions 282,488. The latter number includes 1,497 Jews, 191 unspecified cases, 124 "unknown," and 331 cases in which information was refused; it also includes the Protestant population of Dublin and Cork cities. I do not know whether the hon. Member also desired the figures for Ulster, but I have them here. Out of a population of 1,619,814, the number returned as Roman Catholics is 744,859.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the written assurance from the Home Office of the 23rd May last, that there was only one contract in force for the making of mats by prisoners, that this would terminate in the following July, and that it was not proposed to make any others, the Department has permitted contracts to be given for nosebags and kneeling mats, and that such are still being made at the prisons of Hull, Liverpool, and Stafford; and, if so, whether he is prepared to reverse the policy of his predecessor and permit the continuance of interference with free labour?

No contracts have been entered into for making nosebags and kneelers by prison labour since 23rd May 1892. Those articles have continued to be made by prisoners at the prisons of Hull, Liverpool, and Stafford under contracts previously in force, but which will terminate during the mouth of May next. When the assurance was given, on the 23rd May last, that there was only one contract in force for the making of mats by prisoners, that it would terminate in the following July, and that it was not proposed to make any others, it was not considered that nosebags and kneelers came under the denomination of mats.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is able to give the number of persons who, since the loth of February, have lodged their Savings Bank books in the various post offices throughout Ireland for the purpose of having them sent to London to be checked, and the amount of deposits withdrawn?

I will give the number of applications to close accounts for the period l5th February to 9th March, inclusive, for the three years 1891, 1892, and 1893:— 1891, 2,200; 1892, 2,280; 1893, 2,850. These figures are at the following percentage on the total number of accounts in Ireland at the commencement of the year:—1891, 1·10; 1892,1·07; 1893, 1·27. During the same periods the following number of now accounts have been opened:—1891, 3,472; 1892, 3,366; 1893, 3,227. The percentages in these cases have been 1·74, 1·58, 1·43.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state to what extent the slight decrease is owing to the depression of trade in Ireland?

I have no accurate information, but the figures rather point to that as the cause.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the decrease is due to the introduction of the Home Rule Bill?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there are many men who suffered the loss of leg or arm in the Crimean Campaign now in receipt of pensions; what is the average pension granted to a man who lost a leg in that campaign; and if the War Office Authorities will take into consideration the case of Maurice O'Donoghue, pensioner from the 19th Foot, now an inmate of Kanturk Workhouse, county Cork, aged 62, with a view to increasing his present insufficient pension of 10d. a day?

Many men were pensioned for the loss of a leg or an arm during the Crimean Campaign; but I am not aware how many of them are still alive. The average pension which the Chelsea Commissioners then awarded for the loss of a leg was 10d. a day if the leg was amputated below the knee; 1s. a day if above. The Commissioners refused Maurice O'Donoghue an increase of pension in 1890; but they will reconsider his case if it can be shown that the suffers increased disability from the loss of his leg.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Sub-Commissioners have not sat in Mallow for the past two years, and that there are some tenants in that neighbourhood whose cases have been listed from periods of from three to six years, and which are yet unheard; and whether arrangements will be made by the Land Commission to hold sittings in Mallow at an early date?

The Land Commissioners report that the last sitting of a Sub-Commission Court at Mallow was in November 1890, and that another Court will sit for the Union of Mallow after Easter, the exact date of which has not, however, yet been fixed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a county Cork magistrate, Mr. Francis Stawell, Kilbrack House, Doneraile, has lately gone round in that neighbourhood pressing labourers to sign a Petition against Home Rule, and threatening them with dismissal from employment in case of refusal, and that, being refused signatures in the district, he went to the graveyard, and took down the names from the headstones; and whether the Lord Chancellor will communicate with this gentleman with a view to discontinuance of these proceedings?

I think the hon. Member has not been accurately informed. No complaint has been made by any labourer to the police in this matter, and nothing is known as to the graveyard incident referred to.

If I submit letters bearing out the allegations in the question, will the Lord Chancellor inquire into the conduct of this magistrate?

I will, if necessary, bring any facts that the hon. Member submits to me under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

May I ask whether the police have informed the right hon. Gentleman that the landlords are going round to labourers and farmers in arrears and compelling them to sign Petitions against the Home Rule Bill?

I daresay that is so, but I have no knowledge of the fact.

May I ask how the right hon. Gentleman ventures to make such a statement if he has no knowledge of the fact?

Because I thought it lay within the reasonable probabilities of the case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is in a position to state the decision at which the Congested Districts Board have arrived with reference to the proposed now pier at the Maharees, county Kerry?

The Congested Districts Board report they are not yet in a position to announce their decision with respect to the proposed pier at Maharees.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when a decision will be come to?

No, Sir, but I will cause inquiry to be made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the evidence of Mr. Maurice Leonard, J.P., at the Tralee Assizes, at the trial of a bailiff named Lynch, in which Mr. Leonard admitted that he gave instructions to Lynch to execute a seizure at all costs, and to shoot if necessary; whether he is aware that Lynch was convicted at the trial for an assault on the son of the tenant whose cattle had been seized; and whether it is his intention to take any action with regard to Mr. Leonard's evidence?

The County Inspector of Constabulary reports that Mr. Leonard did not make use of the expression "shoot if necessary" on the occasion referred to, and that Mr. Leonard denies having made use of the words "all costs." Lynch was convicted at the trial for an assault on the son of the tenant.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of James Monks, mounted police officer of the N Division of the Metropolitan Police, who, about the end of November 1887, was returning from duty in Trafalgar-square, when passing Shaftesbury-avenue his horse fell, causing severe injuries to his right leg, rendering him unable to do duty for five months; subsequently paralysis set in, which has compelled his retirement from the force as unfit for duty, owing to the above injury, and a permanent cripple, on a pension of 8s. 1½d. per week only; and whether, under the lamentable circumstances of the case, he can see his way to increase the pension?

I am in communication with the Chief Commissioner of Police, and would be obliged if the hon. Member would postpone his question to Friday, in order that I may have time to look more fully into the case. I venture at the same time to appeal to hon. Members to give longer notice, as it is almost impossible to make the necessary inquiries when the question only appears on the Paper for the first time on the day on which it is put.

I gave notice of this three days ago.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the papers that Mr. Palmer, the financial adviser to the Egyptian Government, is about, to conclude the conversion of the Egyptian Five per Cent. Domain Loan into a Four and a-quarter per Cent. Loan; whether there is any special reason why it should not be converted into a Three and a-half per Cent. Loan, the same as was done with the Five per Cent. Egyptian Railway Preference Loan; and whether he is aware that the difference would make an additional income to the Egyptian Government of £37,500 per annum?

The object of offering a Four and a-quarter per Cent. Stock in lieu of a Stock of lower denomination is to avoid the necessity for increasing the capital. This is preferable on general financial grounds.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that money has been quite unlendable lately, and that without increasing the capital it would have been perfectly easy to obtain the amount even in Three per Cent. Stock?

The information I have is entirely contrary to that.

Is the management of this matter entirely in the hands of Mr. Palmer?

If the hon. Member wants more detailed information I must ask for notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War at what hour soldiers in the Metropolis are expected to be in barracks?

Unless granted a special pass for a later hour, a soldier is required to be in barracks by 10 p.m.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether any and what steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations made in the Report issued some time ago by a Committee-appointed by the late Government to inquire into the position of the Register of Deeds Office in the General Register House, Edinburgh.

The Report of the Committee on the Register of Deeds Office, Edinburgh, was fully considered and generally approved. On the 20th of last mouth the Deputy Clerk Register was directed as far as possible to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee and to report on the state of arrears and on the measures which should be taken to insure the full registration of every deed within three months of its being handed in to the office. At the same time the Treasury were asked for their approval as to certain changes involving financial questions. When I have received replies, to these letters I hope to be in a position to lay before the House a formal Minute embodying the decision of the Government on the Report.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the number of lead pencils annually supplied to the various public Departments of the State; what proportion of such pencils is derived from Home and what from Foreign manufactories; what are the average prices of the Home made and Foreign made pencils, respectively; and are the Foreign made pencils superior in quality to those of Home manufacture?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask if he can at the same time state the number of pieces of India rubber used, and the weight.

And also the number of quill pens used.

Hon. Members will not expect me to answer such questions at a moment's notice. The number of ordinary cedar black lead pencils bought by the Stationery Office during the current financial year is about 8,330 gross, costing £2,181. No orders for pencils are given except to firms having offices or agents in England; but no instructions having been given either by the Government or Parliament that purchases should be limited to articles made in this country, it is considered immaterial where they are made. Moreover, it is obviously impossible to say how many of them are of Home and how many of Foreign manufacture without examining each parcel of pencils, and that, again, is obviously impossible, as most of them have already been issued. The average price paid during the year was 5s. 3d. a gross. The pencils specially selected for the Postal and Telegraph Service are of German make, costing 4s. 6d. a gross, and it has been proved, after a test of a set of different pencils, with the distinguishing marks obliterated, that it is not possible to get an English made pencil so suitable for these purposes for the price now paid.

If the Government believe it to be immaterial where pencils are made, how is it possible to carry out the Resolution of February 1891 as to the payment of fair wages in connection with Government contracts; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pencils supplied to Ministers and Members of this House bear the inscription" V. R. Civil Service: Bavaria."

Are the pen- knives used for sharpening those pencils all made in Birmingham.

And where is the machinery obtained which is used in the manufacture of the penknives.

I am sorry that I cannot answer all these questions off-band. I do not consider that the Resolution of the House of 1891 applies to this question at all. As long as this is a Free Trade country, we have a right to obtain our goods at the cheapest cost.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any means of ascertaining the wages paid by the Bavarian manufacturers of these pencils.

I do not know whether it is possible to obtain that information, but I do not think it has much to do with the question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether it is true, as reported, that the military operations against the Kachin Tribes east of the Irrawaddy river have been suspended; (2) whether this indicates any change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government; (3) and what progress is being made in negotiations with the Chinese Government for the settlement of the Burmo-Chinese frontier.

(1) Yes, Sir. There is nothing to add to the answer given to a similar question on the 9th instant by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; (2) no change of policy is thereby indicated; (3) negotiations are in progress, but it would he inconvenient at the present stage to enter into details respecting them.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware, that in the town of Galbally, County Limerick, there is no telegraphic communication with the English markets; that there are two creameries in the neighbourhood and one in the town of Galbally, as well as a large woollen factory; that the nearest telegraph offices are Tipperary, Mitchelstown, and Knocklong, the two former being 9 miles and the last 7 miles from Galbally; whether a petition has reached him, signed by the gentry, clergy, farmers, and traders of the district, and stating that for the successful working of those creameries, &c, telegraphic communication with the English markets is essential; and will such communication be established?

The Petition mentioned did reach me last Wednesday and, as I informed the hon. Member by letter on the same day, I am having inquiry made; but some time must elapse before a decision can be arrived at.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Frederick Henderson, a Member of the London County Council, was, on the 9th of March, at the County of London Sessions, convicted of felony, and sentenced to four months' imprisonment with hard labour; whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the Judge before sentence, in which, inter alia, he is reported to have said that he hoped it would be regarded as the duty of the public to get Henderson removed from the post he had so unworthily filled; and whether the Local Government Board propose to take any steps in the matter?

This question only appeared on the Paper this morning, and it is obviously a serious inconvenience to the permanent staff of a Department to be called upon in the morning to give a reply to a complicated question which is to be delivered in the House on the evening of the same day. I should be sorry to appear guilty of discourtesy, but so far as my Department is concerned, I must ask for a longer time for the collection of material for answering complicated questions. I will give the hon. Member the best answer I can to his inquiry. A person convicted of felony and sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour is not expressly disqualified by the Local Government Act from holding the office of a County Councillor. But by the general Law under 33 & 34 Viet., cap. 23, section 2 if any person so convicted and sentenced holds any—

"Military or naval office, or any civil office under the Crown, or other public employment, or any ecclesiastical benefice, or any place, office, or emolument in any University, College, or other corporation,"

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that five of the fishermen who were fined for fishing in the Cloghane and Owenmore Rivers, in county Kerry, have been sent to gaol in consequence of their inability to pay the fines and costs imposed upon them; and, whether, in view of their poverty, and also of the exceptional nature of their case, the authorities will consent to their speedy release?

I have called for a Report in the matter, but have not yet received a reply.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that Captain MacDonald of Waternish, Inverness-shire, has refused permission to the County Council to construct a road through the crofting land on his property, which, besides serving other purposes, would enable the children of the district to attend the public school in rough weather without endangering their lives, will the Government so amend the Local Government Act as to empower the County Council to carry out this and similar improvements?

It is true that Captain MacDonald objects to a public road, the necessity of which he disputes, being made through the arable lands of his crofts. But he makes no objection to the improvements of foot paths and the erection of foot bridges to enable children to attend school; the School Board have expressed themselves as satisfied with this arrangement, and the County Council have applied for permission to construct the path out of recent grant for roads, and I have approved the proposal. The question of compulsory powers of the County Council to construct roads is being considered by the Government with a view to a Local Government Bill.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the small mail steamer Lochiel was substituted for the Flowerdale on the route between Strome Ferry and Stornoway; whether he is aware that the Lochiel broke down on the 6th inst. on the passage between Strome Ferry and Stornoway, causing great delay in delivery of the mails and serious inconvenience and danger to the passengers and crew; and whether, in entering into the new contract, he will cause clauses to be inserted which will ensure a more satisfactory service?

In reply to the hon. Member's questions addressed to me, as well as to that addressed to my right hon. Friend, I have to state that I am not aware of the circumstances which rendered it necessary to replace the usual mail steamer Lochiel, but I do not, doubt that the contractor made the best provision in his power to meet any emergency which may have occurred. The accident to which reference is made is much to be regretted, and I will ascertain whether it arose from any want of reasonable care. In the new contract about to be executed, clauses will be inserted to secure efficiency in the performance of the mail service.

May I, in connection with this question, ask whether in making a new contract for the mail service in the northern islands he will endeavour to increase the postal facilities to Skye and Long Island?

That question is under my consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the nature of the agreement which exists between the Highland Railway Company and Messrs. MacBrayne and Company, contractors for the conveyance of Her Majesty's mails between Strome Ferry and Stornoway, and whether the agreement is of such a character as to give MacBrayne and Company the monopoly not only of the mails but of the goods and passenger traffic between Strome Ferry and the Island of Lewis?

I am not aware of the nature of the agreement to which the hon. Member refers, but no agreement with the Highland Railway Company can confer on Messrs. MacBrayne any monopoly with regard to the carriage of mails.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there is general dissatisfaction throughout the police service in Scotland in consequence of the appointment of Naval and Military officers and others, without any previous police experience, as chief constables; and whether steps will be taken to restrict such appointments to men who have served in the police force?

I have had brought to my notice one case in which the Joint Committee of a county made an appointment which gave much dissatisfaction in the police service. There is reason to believe that the appointment was due to the Joint Committee not being, as in the opinion of the Government it ought to be, a completely representative body.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether complaints have reached him that a telegram addressed "Wm, Campbell, fish merchant, Plock- ton," was handed in at Leicester on 9th March, at 9.30 forenoon, arriving at the Plockton telegraph office at 10.21 forenoon, and was not delivered at Mr. Campbell's residence till five o'clock in the evening of same day, though his house is only a short distance from the telegraph office; what the reason is for this delay in the delivery of this telegram; and what protection he proposes to extend in the future to the fishing population of Plockton district against loss in the disposal of their fish resulting from delays in the telegraph office there?

No complaints on the subject have reached the Post Office in London; but I am having inquiry made, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there is great scarcity of seed potatoes, oats, and barley in many parts of the highlands and islands; and whether the Government will cause inquiry to be made with the view of affording such assistance as may be necessary?

Reports have been received of the great scarcity of seed in Shetland and parts of the Hebrides. These Reports have been corroborated by the Board of Supervision, but they advise that the most satisfactory mode of giving relief is not by making advances for the purchase of seed, but by starting public works on which the poor may find employment and earn enough to buy seed for themselves. In pursuance of this policy, besides the grant of £15,000 made for the Carloway-road in the Lewis, which has been begun, £10,000 have been specially allotted for road construction in the poorer districts of the highlands.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the statement in The Sheffield Telegraph, on Saturday last, that unstamped German knives are being extensively sold in this country at a profit of some 200 per cent. from cards bearing English wording, and inducing purchasers to believe that the cutlery is Sheffield made; and if, having regard to the confirmation of this fraud by the Report of the Commissioners of Customs in 1889, and by much of the evidence before the Select Committee on Merchandise Marks in 1890, he will take steps on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to secure the better identification of foreign-made goods?

If the case is as stated by the hon. Member, proceedings might be taken under the Merchandise Marks Act. The Select Committee to which the hon. Member refers reported against the compulsory marking of all goods with an indication of origin, and the Board of Trade have always held that the provisions of the law as to false marking are adequate, and that no further steps are necessary to secure the better identification of foreign-made goods.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a statement in Fairplay, of 10th March, to the effect that the cost of adapting an old gunboat for use as a tender to the Bahamas lighthouse has amounted to £11,800; and whether this statement is correct; and, if so, whether in future the propriety will be considered of buying new vessels for tenders, instead of adapting old vessels at such an outlay as this?

The amount, £11,800, stated by the hon. Member represents the cost of the tender for the Bahamas lighthouse service. It includes the sum paid to the Admiralty for the ship.

May I ask if I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright that the £11,800 is the whole sum expended in connection with this service?

Yes; that includes the cost of the ship.

And all operations?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the actual cost to England of the English force now in occupation of Egypt, including the pay, special and other allowances, and cost of transport, after deducting the contribution in aid to be received from Egypt?

The contribution of £87,000 arranged to be made by Egypt for the coming year was fixed on the basis of the force maintained before the recent augmentation. It was understood to cover the excess cost arising from actual occupation, but did not include any sum for the ordinary payment of the troops, nor for depots and other expenses in this country. What the excess cost may be for the coming year with the augmented force it is impossible for me at present to say.

Has the excess whole cost arising from actual occupation been covered?

That depends upon what is meant by "actual occupation."

What is the whole cost of the force?

That I cannot state off-hand.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can explain why a Copy of the Bill relative to the Newfoundland coast and fisheries, under the title of "The Fishery Treaties Act, 1892," and which is published in the French Yellow Book for 1892 and laid before the French Chambers, has not yet been laid before this House; whether the Bill in question was rejected by the Newfoundland Legislature; whether he will now lay upon the Table a copy of that Bill and of the Correspondence concerning it, together with the Report thereon of the Joint Committee of both Houses of the Newfoundland Legislature; and whether, as a matter of fact, the Newfoundland Legislature have objected to the court proposed by that Bill to be erected, and to the absence of any provision for compensation in case of losses arising from any arbitration award, and that it has protested against any partial arbitration with France on the lobster question alone, until arbitration regarding all questions arising under the various matters regarding Newfoundland be agreed upon?

I would ask the lion. Member to be good enough to postpone this question until Thursday, when an answer will be given.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can place any probable limit on the number of men likely to be discharged from the Enfield Small Arms Manufactory; and if, in carrying out the reductions he finds necessary, he will as far as possible consider the cases of married men with families dependent on them for support?

I can only say that the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that every effort will be made to keep the number of discharges as low, and to carry them out with as little hardship, as possible.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it be the intention of the Government to introduce during the present Session legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Evicted Tenants Commission.

This matter is under consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the mail steamer Lochiel left Strome Ferry on the afternoon of the 6th instant, with mails and passengers for Stornoway; that soon after starting an accident occurred to the machinery which created considerable delay in the delivery of the mails and caused serious danger to the lives of the passengers and crew; and whether, in view of the fact that there have been other mishaps of a similar nature, the officers of the Board of Trade will use greater diligence in inspecting steamers engaged in the mail service on this route?

No report has yet been received in the Department of the casualty in question, but I have telegraphed for full particulars. The Board of Trade have nothing to do with the mail service. The inspection of steamships on the route referred to is conducted on the same principles as the inspection of steamships on all other routes.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government has issued instructions to the Board of Works and all other Departments in Ireland to have the fair wages resolution of the House of Commons practically enforced in respect to all contracts now being entered into.

As I have before stated, the Board of Works in Ireland provide in all new contracts for compliance with the terms of the Resolution of 13th February 1891. As regards Departments which are not under the control of the Treasury, I am afraid I am not in a position to answer the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a receiving depot in Ireland will be re-established where tenders and goods can be delivered, as the carriage to Woolwich places Irish contractors at a serious disadvantage in the tendering or supplying of goods for Governmental requirements in Ireland.

I am not aware that any general depot for the reception of stores ever existed in Ireland, and for the purpose of inspection there must be a necessity for many stores being delivered at Woolwich. I fear it would be difficult to dispense with this in all cases.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Section 6, paragraph 11, of the Queen's Regulations strictly prohibits officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and private soldiers from taking part in or attending any political gatherings of any kind in uniform; whether he is also aware; that the same regulations prohibit non-commissioned officers and private soldiers to ever appear out of uniform; and whether, inasmuch as the due observance of these Regulations debars a large number of voters in many constituencies from obtaining the same political instruction as civilian voters, he will make such modifications in them as will remove this disability?

The Regulations are as stated by the hon. Member, and I am not disposed to alter them, even although a soldier may occasionally be thereby debarred from the advantage of attending a political meeting.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether on 3rd March 1892 Police-Constable Harding William Morgan, then stationed at East Ham, was reported to the Inspector at the Romford Road Police Station for being drunk on fixed point duty, and discharged as a result of such report; and whether the divisional surgeon, who attended the man from the time of such report for the three following weeks, certified him to be suffering from neuralgia in the head and general debility; and if so, whether he will, considering these certificates, and the 19 years' service of Morgan, reinstate him, or pay him his superannuation money in proportion to his years of service?

Police-Constable Harding William Morgan was found drunk on duty on 3rd March 1892, and was suspended in consequence. The following day he reported himself sick, and was placed under the care of the divisional surgeon until he was reported fit to appear before the Superintendent to answer the report for drunkenness. This charge was fully proved, and as it was the seventh report for the same offence, and his character was in other respects unsatisfactory, he was dismissed. Under such circumstances, I cannot interfere with the ordinary rule relating to superannuation money.

May I ask whether a police constable after 19 years' service is not entitled to 19–50ths of his pay in the form of pension?

That depends on circumstances. I cannot interfere with the ordinary course in such a case as this.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will order the balance sheet of the Police Superannuation Fund to be printed yearly, and a copy of the same to be supplied to every police station?

The Paper referred to can be obtained from Her Majesty's printers at a cost of 2d., but I cannot undertake to supply a copy to each police station.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if any report has been received from the Indian Delegates at the Brussels Monetary Conference; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?

Yes; there is no objection to its being laid on the Table of the House, if the hon. Baronet will move for it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a successor has been appointed to Sir James Campbell, the present Deputy Surveyor of the Forest of Dean; whether the duties of the office are to manage the surface estate (including timber, quarries, railways, roads, tramways, &c.) of the Crown in the Forest of Dean; and whether a barrister-at-law has been nominated to the post in preference to the practical Surveyors who were applicants for it?

Yes, sir; a successor to Sir John Campbell in the Deputy Surveyorship of the Forest of Dean has been nominated, and will, subject to the control of the Commissioners of Woods, &c, have the management of all the surface rights of the Crown, including quarries, within the Forest and Hundred of St. Briavels. The gentleman in question is a barrister, and, having had considerable experience in estate management, is unusually well qualified for the position which he will occupy.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now able to name a day for the introduction of the Parish and District Councils Bill?

A statement with reference to this Bill will be made on Thursday next. That is also an answer to the hon. Member for Chester.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government desire the question of the expediency of permitting the Channel Tunnel to be left entirely to the new Parliament, whether the Government will undertake to communicate with the promoters of the Channel Tunnel Bill, with the object of securing due notice of the Second Reading of the Bill?

I have only just seen this question. I must ask the hon. Member to put it down for some other day.

I will repeat it on Thursday.

I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Great Western Railway Company are now charging to traders not having ledger accounts the excessive rates which they have promised to withdraw, whilst the larger traders only now make payments on account pending the settle- merit of rates; and whether he would make a representation to the Railway Company in reference to the hardship thus inflicted on farmers and small traders with a view to its removal?

I have been in communication with the General Manager of the Great Western Railway, who states that if any trader who has not a ledger account will apply to the company any reduced rate adopted since 1st January, 1893, will be applied to his consignments in the same manner as those having ledger accounts. He further states that all reductions made during the revision will be applied retrospectively as from the 1st January, 1893, and that no distinction is drawn between large and small traders in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what Correspondence has passed between the Viceroy and Her Majesty's Government in relation to the employment of women in the underground workings of mines in British India, and whether such Correspondence can be laid before Parliament?

There are Despatches from the late and the present Secretary of State for India and Reports from India on the subject mentioned. The Papers shall be laid on the Table if the hon. Member will move for them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to extend to British India the principles of the Berlin Conference in reference to the employment of women and children in factories?

The new Factory Law in India which was presented to Parliament on 21st April, 1891, by the right hon. Member, extends the principles of the Berlin Conference to the employment of women and children in factories. That law is being enforced throughout British India. Revised Regulations under that law have been published in every Province in India except one.

I beg to give notice that on the Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill, I will move that it be read a second time that day six months.

I desire to ask the Secretary for Ireland a question arising out of an answer he gave a short time ago. Will he state facts on which—though he had stated that he knew nothing about the matter — he based the opinion that it is likely that landlords are threatening to dismiss their labourers unless they consent to sign petitions against the Home Rule Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw that insinuation?

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this should not be allowed. The ordinary Rules applying to questions should not be broken.

I only put this question because of the statement of a Minister in his place to the effect that he knows nothing about what the Irish landlords are doing, but that he believes they are likely to do a certain thing.

Has the hon. Member given notice of this question?

No, Sir; the statement was only made just now.

I did not say what the hon. Member attributes to me. I was asked whether I was aware that landlords were going about with petitions against the Home Rule Bill, and pressing their labourers to sign them—

And threatening to dismiss them.

That I did not catch.

I can give plenty of instances.

And so can I.

I said I dared say it was true, but that I had no knowledge of the cases.

I beg to give notice that I will take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the gross devices of fraud and intimidation which are being employed in Ireland with a view to induce or compel tenants, employés, and other persons in a dependent position to sign petitions against the Government of Ireland Bill. Meanwhile I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will receive and consider any evidence that may be tendered on the subject.

Of course I shall not refuse to receive evidence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman receive evidence from the other side; will he receive it from both sides?

What course do the Government intend to adopt tomorrow in regard to the Welsh Local Veto Bill, seeing that they have themselves introduced a Liquor Traffic Bill which is to affect the whole country?

The statement of the views of the Government will be made when the Bill comes on to-morrow.

I should like to ask what the action of the Government is going to be, because I and other hon. Members want to know whether there is any probability of the second Bill on the Order Paper to-morrow being reached?

Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a few general remarks on the whole of the 120 Private Bills that are before the House?

The hon. Baronet, who is an old Member of this House, must know that the Government have no control over the Bills on Wednesdays, and can give no information about them.

said he had noticed, and he had no doubt other hon. Members had noticed upon the new coinage the letters "Ind. Imp.," signifying "Indicæ Imperatrix." He was surprised when he saw this on the new coins, because he had been under the impression that under the Imperial Titles Bill the title "Imperatrix," which was then assumed by Her Majesty, was to be used exclusivey in connection with India, and not in anl ease to be adopted in the United Kingdom. Looking at the Act, he had found that the coinage was especially exemped from the rule. He had laid a Motion in the form of an Amendment on the Table; but, under the circumstances, it was obviously unnecessary to move it. At the same time he must say he greatly regretted that these words had been added to the superscription on the coinage of the United Kingdom. They seemed to him superfluous, as India, to which country Her Majesty's title of Empress referred, had a special coinage of its own. In the last Parliament, once or twice Members had asked questions in regard to the coinage, but no mention had been made by the late Government of any intention of altering the title of Her Majesty upon the coins. The title of Empress was not on the Jubilee coinage, and years hence our posterity, coming to look at the Jubilee money and the new coinage, would take the impression that the title was only assumed in the present year. He did not intend to make a complaint, but he thought that the late Government ought, when questioned on this matter, to have clearly and distinctly told the House that it was intended to make this alteration in the inscription so as to have given Members an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. He thought it only desirable to call attention to the subject, because it had been a good deal misunderstood out of doors, many people believing that the inscription on the new coinage was a violation of the Imperial Titles Act— which it obviously was not.

I am not sorry that the hon. Member has called attention to this subject, because I can well understand that there may be some misapprehension on the subject amongst those who have not carefully examined, as he has done, the form of the Proclamation and the Act under which Her Majesty has assumed the title of Empress of India. At the time of the discussion of the Imperial Titles Bill there was a broad distinction drawn between instruments of all kinds which were to operate only within the United Kingdom and instruments which were to operate outside it. The general principle laid down, to which the Government of the day pledged themselves, was that in no instrument operative in the United Kingdom alone would any other than the ancient title be employed, but that in all instruments operative outside the United Kingdom the additional title of Empress of India would be employed. That was not confined to the dominions of the Queen, but applied to places outside these dominions. That was the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), who at the same time said he did not claim the exclusion of the new title from the coinage. Any one who will look at the Proclamation will see that the coins are referred to as instruments, if I may use the term, that are specially exempted from the principle limiting the use of the new title. I may remind the Committee that during the reigns of the members of the House of Hanover, that is to say, down to the middle of the reign of George III., the foreign titles of our monarchs were always upon the coinage. I hope I have explained to the Committee that the title, which has been authorised by Parliament and by the Proclamation, can be properly put upon the new coins. The point does not turn at all on whether the coin is circulated only in India or not. The Government found that that was the view taken by the late Government, and as the responsibility then fell upon us we assumed the new title on the new coinage. I had a conversation on the subject with my predecessor in office, and I mention this to show that both Governments have taken the same view.

The observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, in so far as they were an attack upon any one were an attack upon the late Government, who, he thinks, would have acted with more propriety if they had taken him into their confidence as to the inscription to be put upon the coinage. I think a complete answer has been given in the interesting remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the inscriptions and the action of the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the course taken by the late Government was not only legal but in accordance with ancient precedent, and in itself appropriate. Under the circumstances I do not think it necessary to make any further defence of the late Government than that which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

did not wish to detain the Committee any length of time, but he found in estimating the loss incurred on the gold coinage that it amounted to £8,200, which was in the Supplementary Estimate. He was aware that that was only a very small portion of the total loss on the rehabilitation of the gold and silver coinage. On the last occasion of rehabilitation he believed the cost to the country was £400,000. He was aware that very shortly the House would be asked to vote £250,000 to rehabilitate the coinage. The loss on gold coinage was much more marked than on the silver coinage. The amount they had to pay on the silver coinage was only £200, whereas on the gold coinage it was £8,200. He thought it would be desirable for them to carefully inquire what reserve the Bank of England now held of the less valuable metal — namely, silver. He understood that the Bank now held a comparatively small amount of silver. He did not wish to reopen the discussion on bimetallism, but at a time when all countries were considering the subject they should inquire whether some palliative for the present state of things could not be adopted to aid the coinage of the country in the present difficulty.

I rise to Order. I put it to the Committee whether upon this Supplementary Estimate we can have a discussion of this kind as to the reserve of silver and the general currency of the world. I make this appeal in the interest of time; for it is necessary that the Supplementary Estimates and the Army and Navy Votes shall be concluded by Friday evening.

said he would refer simply to the coinage of the United Kingdom. He ventured to say that it would be advisable to lessen the coinage of half-sovereigns. The working classes preferred to have their wages in silver. He would point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those interested in the Local Veto Bill— (Cries of "Order!"] Hon. Members would see what he meant in a moment; he would point out that by decreasing the number of half-sovereigns they would be advancing the cause of temperance. Working men who received, say, 30s. a week wages, when paid in gold found it convenient to go to the public-house to procure change, and thus were tempted to spend a large portion of their earnings in drink.

This Vote only deals with the loss in the gold coinage.

Yes, Sir.

I fail to see how the remarks of the hon. Member are germane to that subject.

said his remarks tended to show that they should coin less of the metal on which there was so much loss and more of the metal on which there was 35 per cent. profit. This was a question of burning importance to Lancashire. [Cries of "Order!"] It was astonishing how remarkably fond of Order hon. Members below the Gangway ware this Session. Last Session they had not seemed to take the slightest interest in it. He did not think it was advisable for the Government to go on wasting so much on this gold coinage. He had received a Return from the Postmaster General the other day, which threw some light on the great saving which might be effected in the country if they adopted some system of small banknotes. [Cries of "Order!"]

I do not think the hon. Member can go into these large questions on this Supplementary Estimate.

said he submitted to the Chairman's ruling, and simply wished to contend that under the present system we wasted a very large sum of money. He wished to refer to the Return given by the Postmaster General.

said the hon. Member seemed to be still travelling outside the Vote.

said he wished to save the country expense. He would put facts before the Committee to show how much the country would gain by having a paper currency for smaller sums.

I must point out to the hon. Member that a paper currency is not included in this Vote. This is really a simple question as to the loss on gold coinage, and I must request the hon. Member to address his remarks to that.

went on to say that in the half-sovereigns at the present time there was a vast amount of wear and tear. A sovereign had two sides, whilst the same amount of gold when made into half-sovereigns had four sides. He thought we were wasting a vast amount of the national resources in coining so much gold, and believed it would be a great advantage to the State if more paper money were used.

said he wished to draw attention to the new coinage. He thought it was an example of the irony of fate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who took such a prominent part 17 years ago in denouncing the "tawdry decoration" introduced by the late Lord Beaconsfield, had now to defend the use of the abbreviation "Imp. Ind." on the new coins. He Mr. Smith), as an Imperialist, was very glad to see the development in feeling which now accepted, with scarcely a word of protest, a legend which 17 years ago would have excited the strongest feeling. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to allow the new coins to be sold at the Post Office a few days ago. Many hon. Members had availed themselves of the opportunity of purchasing them, and he thought the general verdict had certainly been that the new coinage was a very great improvement on the Jubilee coins, and for the best of reasons, namely, that it would have been absolutely impossible to have had anything as bad as they were. However, he was very much dissatisfied with the new coinage. He should like to know how much of the new coinage this year had consisted of the old Jubilee coins. He thought it would be a very great pity if the activity of last year had been devoted to the production of Jubilee coins. The bust on the new coins was much more dignified than that on the Jubilee coins, but he did not think anyone who was conversant with coins would be quite satisfied with it. A great deal too much was attempted to be crowded into the design, and as a result the sovereign was an extremely mean coin, looking very much like the counters one bought at 20 for 2d. for the purposes of whist. Any- one who would compare these coins with the pristine simplicity of the classical coins would at once see the difference. He held in his hand one of the Roman coins from which the idea of the new design was derived, and it was curious to note that the old Roman coins of a pure type merely contained a head instead of the bust, and had none of the decorative details which appeared on later coins. It was not until one came to the period of decadence, from Constantine downwards, that one found in the Roman coins the wonderful elaboration which was indulged in nowadays. The older coins were designed and worked by men who were really familiar with coins, and understood the difference between a coin and a picture or a medallion. In most branches since the time of George III. our knowledge of art had much advanced, but in regard to coins anybody who looked at a coin of the time of George III. would see that we had gone back very much. The reason, he thought, was that we had no really skilled engraver now. In regard to a coin the engraver was really the most important person. A sculptor might make a design which would look exceedingly well if worked out in marble and on a large scale, but an engraver who knew what he could do within the circumscribed limits at his disposal, and could work out a design properly, was needed for a coin. Not only in regard to coins, but in reference to the art of working in metal, were we very much at our nadir, and he thought it was a pity that more attention was not given to the details of the goldsmith's art. He would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be better to have future coins designed in accordance with the classical model, with a head on the one side, and some historical design on the other. The Jubilee coin should, in his opinion, have had upon it, instead of Royal Arms, some allusion to the golden year of Her Majesty's reign. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be ready, if he carried through the Home Rule Bill, to place some design on the coins of the year commemorating the fact. For instance, instead of having Britannia in a sitting position on a penny as Mistress of the Sea, why should we not have Britannia and Erin shaking hands and bidding good-bye to one another?

I pass over the political allusions made by the hon. Member, and I agree very much in what he has said on the subject of modern coins. It seems to me as if the numismatic art were a lost art. If we remember the fine medals and coins that were produced by all the nations of Europe at the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries, and how all the great events of the time were commemorated on the splendid medals of France, Holland, and England, we must admit that our progress since then has been in a backward direction. The coins of the 18th century were executed by men of great genius, and I am glad that we still retain the George and Dragon which originally appeared upon coins of that date. If anyone wants to see a fine coin, he should look at the crowns of 1820, when George IV. ascended the Throne. They are the finest coins I know. I cannot answer the question put to me as to the particular progress made with the new coinage, though I agree that it is very much better than the Jubilee coinage. I think it leaves a great deal to be desired, and that the coins cannot be described as of a first-rate character. The head of the Sovereign is, however, of a higher class altogether than the Jubilee head. I think it is a very good thing that we have kept the old George and Dragon, and wish it had been on all the coins. I have taken care to have exhibited on the edge of the crown-piece the legend which was a great addition to the handsomeness of the old coin. All I hope is that our artists, who do so well in other branches of art, will devote themselves a little more in future to the art of making medals and coins. I have been asked how much of the gold coined during the last year is of the old type. I am very sorry that of the 18,000,000 of sovereigns and half-sovereigns already issued under the re-coinage of light gold scheme almost the whole is of the former type, but there still remain to be issued something like 25,000,000 of sovereigns during the next two or three years, and they will be of the new type.

said he had been ruled out of Order when speaking with regard to the undesirability of coining so many sovereigns. The Vote was for the loss on the re-coinage of light sovereigns and half-sovereigns, and he wished to know whether he was not within his right in pointing out how that loss might be saved?

I should like to answer the question which had been put by the hon. Member,—namely, why so many half-sovereigns were coined, and why more silver was not coined. The Government would be extremely glad to have more silver coin, but the public will not take it, and at this moment there is a plethora of silver for which there is no demand. They will supply the Bank of England with any amount of silver the Bank will take, but what happens to it after it goes to the Bank depends entirely upon the public demand. Somehow or other there does not seem to be a demand for silver, although the object of the Government, who gain a great deal on the silver, and lose a little on the gold, is to put as much silver in circulation as they can.

wished to ask a question concerning Section E. The increase in the Vote was attributed partly to the expense of transmitting silver to the country from the Bank of England. He understood some fresh arrangements had been made with the object of enabling silver to be sent about the country, and he hoped that arrangement was being pushed as much as possible. He was convinced that in many parts of England there was a great scarcity of silver, and he believed people did not know that facilities were given by the Government for paying for its transmission to the country.

The country bankers know it.

said the use of silver entailed a certain amount of trouble on country bankers. He hoped every effort would be made to induce people in the country to use silver to a larger extent.

said, there were many complaints in many country districts about the difficulty in obtaining silver, and he believed many people would be glad to use more silver if they could induce the country bankers to supply it. The country bankers would not do it. Would it not be possible, then, to have silver sent out to those people in the country? The Government might consider the matter, and state their intentions upon it. So far as his experience went, he would approve of some such step being taken.

I had something to do, Mr. Mellor, with the change made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) regarding silver. At that time no silver could be obtained in the country districts except through the bankers, and it is generally thought in the country districts that that rule is still in forces. There is a great want of silver, especially for the payment of labour, and I think a great deal of time and money, and a great deal more, would be saved if the working people were not obliged to call for change at the public-houses on Saturday night. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, in conjunction with the Postmaster-General (Mr. Arnold Morley), he might arrange to have a notice put up or circulated through the Post Office intimating the change. This would be a good way of dispensing with the intervention of the banker.

I also want to ask a. question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury. The House will observe that the expenditure is given as £10,000, and then there is an appropriation-in-aid of £9,980. What I want to know is where this £9,980 comes from? Is it a sum of increased profits at the Mint, or has it been taken out of miscellaneous revenue? The amount of profit made by the Mint is stated at £201,000, and the estimated expenses are £76,944. Out of this sum £76,900 s given as an appropriation-in-aid, leaving in round numbers a sum of £125,000 to be carried to miscellaneous revenue. But it turns out that the expenses of the Mint ares £10,000 more, and that sum must be found, being the expenditure on the establishment of the Mint. I do not understand, then, from the Estimates that this £9,980 mentioned in the Estimates represents increased profits. Has this sum been taken from miscellaneous revenue, or has it been put down to> represent increased profits?

The additional sum to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, is profit made on the coinage of silver in excess of the Estimate. There had been an increased issue of silver to the provinces during the last few years. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer's arrangement to pay the Bank of England 5s. per cent. for this transmission to the provinces dates from May 1889. The payments made from May 1889 to November 1892 amounted to £6,797 15s. 9d.; the amount due on the 11th March 1893 was £669 5s., making a total of £7,467 0s. 9d., being the charge on a total sum of £2,986,815. The average annual silver issues for the four years 1885 to 1888 prior to that date, and for the four subsequent, 1889 to 1892, were:—1885 to 1888, £691,184; 1889 to 1892, £1,431,014, showing an average annual increase of £739,830. The average price of silver in the London market in 1892 was 39½3/6d.; the average price paid by the Mint was the same. Silver must obviously be purchased when it is required for coinage purposes, without special regard to the state of the market. The total amount of silver coin issued in 1892 was £849,932, of which there went to the Bank of England direct for circulation in England and Wales, £691,000. During the preceding 10 years, that is, 1882 to 1891, the average annual issues of silver coin were £1,011,488. It is owing to the increase in the issue disclosed in the figures I have quoted that the increased profit has been made on the coinage of silver.

said, the amount of silver bullion was less than it had been for the past three years, but there was increased brokerage. What was the explanation of that?

said, he wished to impress upon the Government the necessity for sending silver into the country, and he thought they ought to make arrangements to have a certain portion of silver to be distributed in the shape of wages in connection with the Government Departments. By doing this they would set a good example to employers in the country, and thus help in the adequate distribution of silver.

said he concurred that the Government could do much in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Preston.

The Estimate taken was not sufficient to cover the cost of brokerage. That is my reply to the hon. Member for Prestwich. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Preston, it is one that is well worthy of consideration. I do not know how the matter stands in those Departments, but I shall make inquiries and see that the matter shall be considered with a view to carrying out the suggestion.

Who are the Government brokers? I do not think the right hon. Gentleman answered the question I put to him. If he will do so now he might also tell us who the brokers are.

I stated, in my reply, that the Estimate taken was not sufficient to cover the cost of brokerage. There has been an increase for some years past, and last year more silver was produced than was anticipated when the Estimates were being prepared.

said he would like to direct attention to the fact that only Unionist Members of the House had any interest in putting these questions.

said he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had answered his question. He wished to say a few words upon different aspects of the gold question, but he did not know whether he had a right to do so now.

The whole question of coinage is now before the House.

said, if it was competent for him to deal with the question, he wanted to urge upon the Government the importance of having the gold of this country made of the same fineness as that of other nations. This was a matter that had often been dealt with in the House, especially by the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. S. Montagu). It was a matter that was fairly open to criticism, and he did not think it was unreasonable that he should bring it forward. He was of opinion that substantial economy would result, if they regulated the fineness of their gold to that of other countries. As many Members of the House were aware, foreign gold coins were of nine-tenths fineness, while ours were of eleven-twelfths. Our sovereign was of a softer material, and wasted away faster. There was a strong case for making the English coin the same as the coin used by other European nations. He did not suggest any change in the value of the coin, but he should like to hear the views of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of regulating the fineness of the coin.

There can be no doubt that the subject mentioned by the hon. Member is one of very great importance, but I cannot venture to say I am prepared to recommend that his suggestion should be carried out, as it would involve a great alteration in our gold coinage system. There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. Member says with regard to waste; and I may say that the waste is more in the half-sovereigns than in the sovereigns. The loss on the coinage of gold arises from the charge to the Vote of the metal required to make good the deficiency in fineness of the old light gold now being re-coined, and the dirt which is weighed with it but got rid of in re-melting. Only the actual deficiency in weight is charged in the provisions of the Scheme of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Up to the end of the financial year the amount of light gold dealt with is estimated at £19,000,000, leaving £24,000,000 still to be dealt with. The amount dealt with up to March of last year was £19,034,000, and by the time the whole of the gold coinage has been dealt with the total will be £43,000,000.

said he did not know much about gold, silver and copper being more in his line, and he would like to draw attention to the double-florin and ask what was to be done about it. He did not believe that any constitutional change that could be devised by the wit of man was capable of causing half so much trouble as the difficulty in distinguishing between a four-shilling piece and a five-shilling piece. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said a man could distinguish between one coin and the other in the dark even when he was drunk, but he (Mr. Paul) found it difficult to distinguish between them in the best light when he was sober, as he was at all times. The sooner the four-shilling pieces were withdrawn the better would it be for the commercial and social interests of the country.

I would just like to say in reply to the hon. Gentleman that the four-shilling pieces have been withdrawn. As regards florins, hardly any have been struck. The pieces which are now being struck are half-crowns.

Are the new crowns out yet?

The new crowns are not yet out, and I am very sorry for it, because the Committee will, I think, agree that they are the best of all the pieces. They are certainly very handsome.

said he had just one more question to put. Now as to the coinage of silver. What price did the Government pay in 1892, and could the right hon. Gentleman say what advantage accrued from the fall that had taken place, or was there any advantage? He had been attacked as a Unionist for bringing forward subjects like this; but he could assure the House that such subjects were of great interest to commercial men.

I am not in a position to give the figures with regard to the loss on silver; my attention has not been fixed upon it. But I have some figures here that would make the mouth of a Chancellor of the Exchequer water. In 1889 the profit on the Mint was £780,000; but I am afraid those days are gone, for I find that in 1890 the profit was only £244,000, and in 1891 £236,000; and then again, the figures for 1892—I do not know them yet — will not be large. Every effort is made to get silver coin out to the country; but I some months ago saw a declaration of the country bankers that they had too much silver and did not know what to do with it. One of the reasons I have heard why there has been a scarcity of shillings and sixpences, is that bankers find it a great saving of time and trouble to give out half-crowns.

said, he wished to support the suggestion that they should employ silver more freely for paying wages at the Dockyards and in the public service generally. The men would not object if they were paid in silver instead of gold.

said, this was a Vote that deserved to be very closely scanned by the House. The Department was one that was not directly represented in the House, but that was the stronger reason why they should have some light thrown upon its working. According to this Report the head of the Stationery Department stated that during the last 10 years the economy effected was sufficient to provide the country with a first-line-of-battle ship and a flotilla of gunboats. That showed the House the economy that might be effected if the Vote was properly looked into. The Secretary to the Treasury would doubtless be able to explain any questions that were put regarding the Vote. He would ask, in the first instance, was the practice still going on by which the officials of this Department were allowed to publish information which came to them through official sources, and to publish it so that they might make a profit upon it. In addition to that these officials were actually allowed certain grants. He knew that within the last few years there was a grant of £1,200 made to one official, £300 to another, and so on. That was a very wrong system and it had been condemned by more than one Committee. It was all the worse, because though these grants were made by the Department to which the official belonged, they were charged upon the Stationery Vote, with the result that the Department which really voted the money had no responsibility for the Grant. The sum of money paid for printing was exceedingly large, and while it was generally true that the House was largely responsible, as a matter of fact the House was only responsible for about one-tenth of the printing, the remaining nine-tenths being chargeable to the Departments. He should like to know on what prin- ciple the Departments were allowed to give orders for printing and papers to the Stationery Office. He thought the Stationery Office should have more control over the Departments in the matter of printing, paper, and publications, for it cannot control the great waste of paper that goes on in the Public Departments, or check the great number of publications. He wished to know did each of the Departments at the beginning of each year submit an estimate to the Stationery Office, so that the Stationery Office might know the requirements of the Departments during the year; and also whether there was in each Department some one person responsible for the printing of that Department. He thought the time had come for the Stationery Office to be placed on a more business-like footing, and each Department made responsible for and have to pay for its own printing. That system prevailed in the Military and Naval Services. When any Department in these Services required stores, it ordered them from the Ordnance factories, and paid for them, and had to render an account of those stores. He thought the Stationery Office should be made a thoroughly separate Department, like the Ordnance factories, and that each Department should be responsible for the orders it gave to the Stationery Office, so that they should know whether a Department was spending extravagantly or not. There was an officer in the Stationery Office called the Superintendent of Printing, but it was found that one man could not efficiently discharge the duties of that office, with the result that printing had increased a great deal of late years. These duties of the Superintendent of the Stationery Office were that he should go to the Department when any order was given by it which he thought unnecessary, to show how it might be avoided or decreased in amount. The Controller of the Stationery Office asked last year that an assistant to the Superintendent of Printing should be appointed, and said the result would be that a saving of his salary, multiplied several times, would be effected. That was a matter which the Government might take into consideration. He should also like to know what was the system upon which the Stationery Office gave out its printing to the public firms. Was it true that the printing was a monopoly, or that it at all events fell into the hands of one or two firms; and also was it put out to tender, and how long did the contracts run? Two evils resulted from the present system of giving the printing to one or two firms. One was that a large amount of over-time was worked by the workmen in these firms. There was a great objection, especially amongst the working classes, to over-time being worked unnecessarily, and he was told that the over-time worked in the printing offices to which the printing of the State was given was very large indeed. The other evil was the inconvenience to which they were habitually being put in the House owing to returns and documents being late. Over and over again Members were promised that documents would be circulated at such and such a time, and when that time came, but without the documents, the Minister to whom questions on the subject were put, had to hopelessly confess that he had no control over the printing, and could not say when the documents would be really ready. A great deal of that was due to the printing being given to one or two firms, who had so much work to do that they could not quickly cope with their orders.

I notice that this Vote has increased by £36,000, which is a very considerable sum indeed. This large addition in expenditure is divided mainly into two heads—printing for Public Departments and paper for Public Departments. With regard to the printing, it is stated that there has been a general increase in the demand from many public offices. The Committee would like an explanation as to how that increase arose; £10,000 has been paid for printing this year more than last year; £20,000 of the increase is covered by paper. That is attributed to an increase in the price of paper, a statement in a footnote giving the increase as 30 per cent. during the year. I doubt if that statement can be borne out. and I should like the authority for it. It receives a curious contradiction later on in an explanatory note, which states that the sales of waste have fallen by no less than £1,500 below the average on account of the very low prices obtained. If paper has increased by 30 per cent. there must be exceedingly bad management if the sale of waste shows such a fall as is stated.

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend. I thought we were discussing now only the subhead for printing.

The discussion on the sub-head for paper may be rather premature, but it is not out of order.

I will not detain my hon. Friend very long from satisfying the very laudable anxiety he shows to discuss one or two of those matters. With regard to the paper supply, I am afraid that since the Committee—I don't attribute it directly to that cause—but since the well-known Committee on Stationery reported in favour of larger reductions in the expenditure, the paper supplied to this House and to the Public Department has been of a very inferior quality. I remember that in the Department of the Admiralty, to which I had the honour to be connected, there were complaints for several years of the very inferior quality of the paper supplied to it. It was very difficult to write upon; it was very easily torn, and it generally presented an undesirable appearance. Many Members must have also noticed the inferior quality of the paper supplied to this House. I admit that during the last few weeks there has been an improvement, but I have here an envelope which is not the quality of envelope that ought to be found in this House.

said, there was no Department which required criticism more than the Stationery Office. More than £500,000 was spent on printing and stationery, and the Committee would like to know what value was received for that large amount of money. He believed there was a Committee regulating the supplies to the various Departments. He would like to know how that Committee worked, and what check it had over orders and the prices paid for work. Some years ago the House appointed a Committee on the subject, which had at its head the present President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Great hopes were raised by the labours of that Committee; but the Stationery Vote had gone up instead of down since the Committee reported. The whole matter wanted looking into by some Committee which would be responsible to the House for the expenditure. He thought the public would be very much surprised to learn from the Vote before the Committee that the price of paper had gone up during the past 12 months. The general cry of paper-makers was that the prices were so low, owing to competition, that the trade was in a very bad way, and yet the Committee were gravely told that there had been a great increase in the price of paper during the year in several classes, and that the average advance had been 30 per cent. If that were so, how was it that the price of wastes had not improved instead of falling off? Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would tell the Committee the manner in which this waste paper was dealt with; whether it was not almost given away, and whether, as it included Blue Books and other valuable information, it would not be better to distribute it amongst free libraries and other educational institutions of a similar kind, from which petitions were frequently received declaring that Government publications would be extremely valuable to them. He noticed that the arrangements made by the Government to encourage the sale of Ordnance Maps had led to a deficiency. That would show that the efforts of the Government in that direction were altogether unsuccessful. There was no country in Europe where Government Maps were so difficult to be obtained, or where such extravagant prices were charged for them as in this country. He thought if the Government followed the example of Continental countries, and reduced the price of the maps by one-half, and made them as easily to be obtained in towns and villages as a quire of paper, there would be four times the present sale.

said, there was no doubt that paper had fallen rather than risen during the past year. Anybody who purchased paper was practically aware of that fact, and when he had seen the Vote stating there had been an increase in the price of paper, he inquired of a large publishing house—a house which bought more paper than any other house in the country—and had been informed that the statement was entirely wrong. There was a certain amount of cleverness required in buying paper. If a person went to only two or three firms he would be charged a large amount; but a clever person who varied the firms from which he purchased would get the paper at much below the stated prices. If the Stationery Office did not adopt that course they would always have to pay more than they need pay for paper. He denied absolutely and entirely that paper had gone up 30 per cent. On the contrary, he could prove by the books of any publishing house in London that paper had gone down in price slightly below what it had been last year. He did not, however, agree with the argument that waste paper ought not to fall in price because paper had increased in price. It was very difficult to tell the value of waste paper, which depended very much on demand. He noticed the statement in a note on the paper that—

"The receipts for the sale of Stationery Office publications do not appear likely to realise the average prices of the past five years."

said, a very satisfactory Report had been issued by a Departmental Committee on the Ordnance Survey. As the Ordnance Survey had been carried out for a hundred years under the Royal Engineers, and as he had served in that corps, he might be allowed to say that he had an especial interest in the Survey.

I rise to Order—

Order, order! I was about to call the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the fact that the Vote for the Ordnance Survey is not included in the Supplementary Estimate. This Estimate only includes the £2,000 deficiency due to the fall in the receipts for the sale of maps during the past 10 months.

said, that what he wished to speak about was the suggestions of the Committee for increasing the sale of the maps, and thereby diminishing this Vote. He thought the sale of the Ordnance Maps would be increased if they were issued in a more popular form. If an hon. Member went to any district and asked for a map published by a private firm of the district he would get it on thin tough paper, in a form convenient for folding and carrying in the pocket, and coloured in order to distinguish the various features. The Ordnance Map failed to fulfil any of these conditions. It was issued on one sheet, on thick paper, liable to tear if folded, impossible to carry in the pocket without injury, and uncoloured. The Committee to whose Report he had referred suggested that the Government should undertake the publication of popular maps, a suggestion he considered worthy of being acted upon, especially as such maps would be extremely valuable for military purposes. The Committee also suggested that the book should be published and freely distributed, showing what maps were on sale by the Ordnance Survey, and he should suggest that in addition to that the Ordnance Map of every district would be hung up in the Post Office of the district. By these means the maps would become better known, and the sale would be largely increased. He thought it was the system and not the agents that was to blame for the small sale of the maps. He did not think a worse system for the sale of the maps could be introduced than the system now in vogue. It was a very difficult thing to get the maps in the country. Another grave objection to the system was that the Ordnance Survey, not being in touch with the agents throughout the country, had no means of finding out popular requirements, which was the cause of the maps not being issued in a popular form. He hoped the Government would take this matter into consideration. He was aware that the present agency system could not be changed for a year or two, but unless the subject was taken into consideration at once nothing would be done when the time for changing the agency arrived.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if he will inquire whether it is possible to issue the cheap yearly volumes of Statutes with cut leaves. As this is a work of reference, the practice of issuing it with uncut leaves is barbarous.

said he wished to say a few words on the subject that had been raised, namely, the price of paper. To him it was wholly unaccountable that the price of paper should rise as it appeared to have done. He had had some figures worked out for him by a wholesale firm of stationers, and they were exactly opposite to those given by the Stationery Office. Between the years 1891 and 1892 the figures supplied to him showed a considerable reduction. In hand-made paper the price was unchanged; rough writings, price unchanged; ordinary writings, reduced 14 per cent.; second paper, reduced 4 per cent.;—he was afraid the Stationery Department were quoting the seven months of last year, and were not taking into account the three months of this year; printing in colours, reduced 6 per cent.; buffs, 6 per cent.; blotting paper about the same. He should be rather curious to know where it was possible that the 30 per cent. could come in, and the explanation of the foot-note made it more misleading, for it stated first that the return was during the seven months of 1892, and then it was stated there was a rise in the general average of the several classes of 30 per cent., but he did not know whether they took into consideration the quantity used or the quality.

The quality and price.

said they ought to have some information of the different kinds of paper on which this heavy rise had taken place. He was the more anxious to get some information on this expenditure upon paper, because, as his right hon. Friend would be well aware, the Comptroller of the Stationery himself, following up the report of a committee that sat in 1884–5, in consequence of the complaints, amounting to something like fraud, stated that for some years previous to that date large frauds had taken place. Some idea of the frauds perpetrated might be gathered from the fact that in the first year of the Parliament after the Report of that Committee, nearly 5,000 reams were rejected absolutely as being something different to what they purported to be; 12,200 reams were accepted at a reduced price, and fines were inflicted, amounting to £477, for light weight. And that was at a time when only about a quarter of the paper was used that was used at the present time. But so late as 1890 he found the same thing was going on upon a much larger scale, because from that report it appeared there were over 29,000 reams rejected; 12,000 reams were accepted at a reduced price; and fines amounting to £1,105 were levied. That bore out his point that this question of the price paid for paper was a subject on which they ought to have a little more light, especially when the information afforded was so different to the private information they had. With regard to this purchase of paper, we should like to ask from how many firms the paper was purchased, and upon what terms it was purchased, and how long the contracts run. All this information was necessary, because it was evident that a large number of firms treated that Department dishonestly. He thought those who sent in paper which had to be rejected as being different to what was contracted for were dishonest, and he should like to know how the Department had treated those firms, because when they found they sent in bad articles they should be struck out of the contractors' list. They had it upon evidence that there had been a large amount of paper attempted to be foisted on the Stationery Department which was not such as was in the terms of the contract, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to tell them how those firms had been treated, because until they arrived at a stage when it was impossible for these things to go on, they would never be able to conduct the Services economically and satisfactorily.

I would reply to my hon. Friend who brought forward this question on the several points he has raised. The first point he raised was with respect to the desirability of economy in the management of the Stationery Department. I am sure we all agree with him in this, that in this very important and growing department we should try and aim at economy; but I go one step further and say that we should also aim at efficiency as well as economy, and that what we buy should be good and not something that was merely cheap. With respect to economy, I must say the cost of this department has been very much decreased of late years. In 1886–7, and in 1889-90 the Estimates for those years were respectively £562,000 and £600,000, whereas during the present year the whole Estimate, including the present Supplementary Vote, has been brought down to £512,000, showing a very considerable decrease, without, I hope, any loss of efficiency. My hon. Friend first asked me what was the practice of the department with regard to allowing Members of the department to publish records belonging to the department. I am informed that the officials in no department are now allowed to publish for their own profit articles based on their official knowledge; that has been put a stop to in every department of late years, and is a very proper decision to have arrived at. My hon. Friend also asks whether the departments have obtained estimates as to the amount of paper they require for the year from the Stationery Department. I am told the Stationery Office at the commencement of the year asks for Estimates of that kind and invariably receives them. The next question was whether there is a responsible person for the printing in each department. I am told that is the case, that every department has now one of their officers responsible for the printing of his particular department, and I have no doubt the delay that is sometimes occasioned in the printing of papers that are presented to Parliament would be very much worse if we had not these responsible officers. My hon. Friend opposite asks whether there is a monopoly.

said he had not asked whether there was a monopoly, but whether the contracts for the stationery was in the hands of only one or two.

It is in a few hands, but it is not a monopoly. Since the matter has been considered by the Committee and the Department, the public printing has been given out in groups. Since that distribution of the printing in groups there has been a saving of cost which is very considerable indeed. It has been found that in nearly every case there is a great reduction, therefore I believe that system is a good system and one that ought to be continued, though, of course, Estimates might be obtained from a greater number of firms. The great proportion of the printing contracts are entered into after the contracts have been advertised and the tenders considered by the Stationery Department. Another point my hon. Friend referred to had reference to the cost of the paper. Before I go into the question of the paper, I should like to explain how it is that the great increase of printing arises in the Public Departments. I hold in my hand a Report from the Stationery Department which shows the departments which were answerable for the great increase, and the chief of those are the Post Office, the War Office, the Admiralty and the Patent Office. I take first the Post Office, which includes the Telegraph Service; though there is no alteration in the price of printing for that department, there is an increase for the nine months of the year since the Estimates were prepared, of £1,864 as compared with the corresponding months of last year. The Patent Office and the Admiralty again have necessitated a very great increase. The Admiralty has an increase of £5,257 for the nine months contrasted with the same period of last year. In the Patent Office there is also a very considerable increase in the cost, though I have not got the figures with respect to it, but I believe the great increase there is owing to the pressure brought to bear on the Patent Office to do away with their arrears of patent revisions, and I think we shall all agree it is most desirable to do everything we can to place the Patent Office in a position of efficiency. I now come to another matter which is requisite for all the Public Departments.

asked that before leaving the question of the Public Departments the right hon. Gentleman should inform them whether the additional officer asked for by the Stationery Department had been appointed?

Yes, he has. Now I come to a more difficult question, and that is the advanced cost of the paper, and I can only, of course, speak from the report I have placed in my hands. I believe that it is quite true that the increase of cost is not the same throughout the whole of the different classes of paper; it varies according to the different classes. Paper purchased by the Stationery Department is divided into five different classes— hand-made, loft-dried, ordinary writing, secondary or inferior writing, and imperial. In the first of these classes, the hand-made paper, the increased price is not so great as in the other classes, the percentage being 11½. The greatest increase is in the loft-dried paper, which is 63 per cent., and in the fifth class there does not appear to have been any rise in price during the same period. I do not know whether I am in order in referring to this: the cost of the paper on which the Parliamentary Reports are printed is something like £8,000 a year, but that of course is not under this Vote, which refers to the Printing for Public Departments and not to the printing for the House of Commons. I do not know that I can say any more with respect to this question. I do not understand how it is my hon. Friend's information differs so much from that I received from the head of the Stationery Department; I do not suppose the gentleman who represents that Department is less able to go into the market than those who represent the private firms in the country. But there is one other matter I should like to allude to with respect to paper, and I do so because it will be a matter of pleasure to my hon. and gallant Friend opposite who takes the view that we should not make use of foreign paper. A year or two ago complaints were made with respect to the paper used in the Blue Books, and it was stated that the paper was very inferior in comparison with that used formerly, and was not of a lasting character. It appears that that class of paper is made from wood in two modes. One mode of making this paper is by grinding the wood into a fine powder, and then mixing it into a pulp, and from that is made the paper that is objectionable and inferior. The second mode of using the wood to make paper is to put it through some process of steaming, which does not cause the same injury to the paper as the process of grinding to powder. There- fore, while the one mode of using wood is inferior and objectionable, the other mode is not bound to be so. The Stationery Department have decided in the future not to buy or receive any paper made by the inferior process, and therefore in the future we shall have a better class of paper for our public documents. Now I come to the statement that will interest my hon. and gallant Friend. This inferior method of making paper is one that exists abroad, and not in this country, therefore it has been decided to a large extent not to use this foreign-made paper. I have no doubt that the Stationery Department is quite alive to the advisability of using the best paper they can obtain. Something has been said with respect to the writing paper and envelopes. (An hon. Member: And pens.) And pens; and I must say I rather sympathise with what has been said. I very often complain to my secretary of the paper, and say it is not so good as it used to be. I have no doubt, if I used quill-pens, I might find the same fault with them; but I hope there will be an improvement, and that we shall combine efficiency with economy. So far as I can prevail upon the Stationery Department to carry out that principle, I shall be very glad to do it, and I shall use my utmost endeavour to see that all we buy is of the best quality.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would state what treatment had been accorded to those firms who sent in a paper that was rejected, and another paper accepted at a lesser price.

I am not aware how they have been treated; I can only say I fancy they would not have been allowed to tender again— that is the principle I should adopt, and I presume that is the principle the Stationery Department has adopted; but I will ascertain what has been done. My hon. Friend opposite spoke of the Statutes being issued with uncut leaves. I think myself it would be a great advantage to have the leaves cut; we all object very much to have the bother of cutting, and I do not think it would increase the cost very much to have the leaves cut. There is only one other matter I wished to allude to.

said before the right hon. Gentleman left the question of the price of paper, he wished him to be good enough to tell them the names of those firms who tendered.

said that from inquiries he had made in the City, there had been no increase in the price of paper, and he should like to ask if, before giving this enormous increase of from 60 to 63 per cent., inquiries had been made from other firms dealing in paper?

said that whilst this discussion had been going on, he had telephoned to Messrs. Peebles, in the City, who were large paper manufacturers, and they assured him there had been no difference in the price of paper during the last 12 mouths or in the previous 12 months.

said that one of the largest paper manufacturers in England, a constituent of his own, told him not a week since that he was amazed at the low-price of paper offered by foreign competitors.